Industry_QA_3_Post_RFP.pdf

Industry Q&A

- Post RFP -

Questions 1-60 Industry_QA_1_Post_RFP (with revised answers to questions 39,40, and 55 as posted to FBO on 27 Aug 2015)

Questions 61-95 Industry_QA_2_Post_RFP Questions 96-105 Industry_QA_3_Post_RFP

Industry_QA_1_Post_RFP (with revised answers to questions 39,40, and 55 (as posted to FBO on 27 Aug 2015)

1) In terms of IUID: TRD Appendix A para 8 discusses the requirement for IUID markings. Per our conversation, we ask the Government to consider dropping the requirement to place IUID markings on remanufactured components given the fact that they (the markings) tend to fall off, get covered up, or potentially infringe on the proper fit, form, and function of a component.

The Government has considered this and determined that the TRD will remain unchanged and the IUID clause will be applicable.

2) TO Posting under FA8203-15-R-1226: In order for all contractors to be on the same ground, we all need to bid against the same TOs revisions. Would you please advise when the applicable TOs will be posted on FBO under FA8203-15-R-1226?

We will review the latest TOs, but in the meantime please reference the most recent TO revisions posted to FBO site FA8203-14-R-LGPBL1 on 4 June 2015.

3) TEP Worksheet / Band – Breakout Worksheet / “SGM NIIN” Title for Column “G”: Although we understand the principle, would you please provide the definition of “SGM?”

Short Answer: SGM stands for “Sub-Group Master” and is the most preferred item of the applicable alternates.

Long Answer: Each item has been assigned a National Stock Number (NSN). In some cases Requirements Item Identification Data (RIID), D200E will identify two or more NSNs that may be used interchangeably and these items will be categorized into subgroups. The most preferred item is designated the Subgroup Master stock number (SGM), also called the Master Stock Number. An Interchangeable Stock Number is an item that is completely (two-way) interchangeable with the subgroup master stock number. The Current Stock Number (CSN) or Actual NSN is the most current stock number assigned to an item; it may be either a subgroup master or an interchangeable stock number. The Reference Stock Number is a stock number that was previously assigned to a current stock number. A Bachelor Stock Number is the master stock number for an item that does not have any interchangeable NSNs.

A one-way interchangeable stock number is an item that is related but not exactly a fit. SIRS treats a one-way interchangeable NSN as a bachelor item, since SIRS operates on subgroup master NSNs and their two-way interchangeable NSNs only. A separate computation is made for each completely (two-way) interchangeable subgroup within an Interchangeability and Substitutability (I&S) group.

4) TEP Worksheet / Band – Breakout Worksheet / End Item Column “F”: What is the meaning of an “A” in the End Item column?

In this column, “A” stands for Alternate; “Y” stands for yes, it is an end-item; and “N” stands for no, it is not an end-item, but rather a subcomponent. Alternate to end-item components are still considered end-items and may be requisitioned, but they are not the most preferred item.

5) Year 1 Pricing: Is it okay to not have a Year 1 pricing column in the TEP?

Yes – Year 1 was intentionally set up without a pricing column in the TEP. Year 1 is to simply allow contractors preparation time to be ready to fulfill the PBL contract requirements.

6) In Section B of the RFP, under “unit price,” CLINs refer to a series of Exhibits (D – H, J – M).

Section J only lists on Exhibit (Exhibit Attch #2_LGPBL1_CDRLs.pdf). Where are these exhibits?

Why weren’t they itemized in Section J where exhibits are supposed to be listed per FAR 15.204- 4?

They are currently in the TEP Worksheet, in Section J, and will be attached to the contract as exhibits upon contract award.

7) References were posted to the old “Industry Day 2014 – FA8203-14-R-LGPBL1” FBO site at 1125 after the final RFP was posted on FA8203-15-R-1226 at 0932. It was stated on Jul 16, 2015 “From the time of the Formal RFP release through the end of the source selection, this RFP# FA8203-15-R-1226 will be utilized. The RFI# FA8203-14-R-LGPBL1 will be utilized up until the point of official RFP release.” (FA8203-15-R-1226 posting at 1143). Why were the references posted to the FA8203-14-R-LGPBL1 FBO site? Does this posting indicate that you will continue to use both FBO sites? What was the purpose or reason for posting “Depot_Info.pdf?”

Those references posted to the FA8203-14-R-LGPBL1 FBO site were applicable to the questions that were asked prior to the release of the formal RFP. From this point forward, no further postings are anticipated for the FA8203-14-R-LGPBL1 site, although we may reference information contained under that draft notice. For further explanation on what is posted, please refer to the purpose statement on each posting.

8) In the updated Industry Q&A document on FBO site FA8203-14-R-LGPBL1 (“201504_Industry_QA.pdf”), the answers provided to questions 42 and 43 did not directly address the questions, e.g., first part of question 42 was a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, no ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was provided. Second part of question 42 asked what specific sections of the cited references are required to be complied with. No answer was provided. Likewise with question 43. 1) Yes or no question: Do bidders’ Supply Chain Management Plans (Factor 2 Sub-factor 1), Facility & Equipment Plan (Factor 1 Sub-factor 1), Transition Plan (Factor 1 Sub-factor 3), Requisition Fulfillment Approach (Factor 2 Sub-factor 2), and IMP/IMS (Factor 2 Sub-factor 4) have to comply with the AFI 23-101 and AFMAN 23-122? Please provide a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to each Factor/Sub-factor. 2) If the answer to this question is ‘yes,’ what specific sections are required to be complied with for each Factor/Sub-factor?

Please refer back to the answers posted to Questions 42 and 43; however please note that all proposals will be evaluated in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

9) RFP Section L, Instructions to Offerors, requires the contractor to provide a Repatriation, Transition and Supply Chain Management Plan, as well as evidence of a Depot-approved Implementation Agreement (IA). To enable compliance with this instruction, the contractor must necessarily engage in discussions and have contact with government personnel including Ogden Landing Gear Depot, the 309th MW Business Office, CMXG, DLA and the 417th SCMS.

Confirmation is requested that the Government understands that direct contact with said personnel is necessary for RFP compliance and is not restricted by FAR 15.201(f), which requires the contracting officer to be the focal point for exchanges between the Government and potential offerors.

Any question directly related to your Implementation Agreement with the Depot can go directly to the Depot, specifically to the following email address:

309CMXG.OBW.LandingGear@us.af.mil. For all other exchanges, the PCO must be the focal point.

10) On Page 3 of the RFP (Section B), it indicates that “Year One (1) will be a transition period in which no requisition fulfillment will take place under this contract vehicle.” The RFP does not include a CLIN for this transition period, or the “Phase-in Period” as defined by the TRD. How will the Contractor be paid for Year One effort? What funding and payment provisions will be provided for the Year One?

There are no deliverables associated with Year One of this effort; therefore the Government has not established a Year One pricing column and offerors should account for this in their proposals accordingly.

11) On Page 28 of the RFP (Section I), FAR 52.209-1, Qualification Requirements, indicates that qualification requirements must be completed before award. Appendix A of the TRD addresses the requirements for approved sources, including the process for identifying new sources of supply. Will the Government delete this FAR provision, in favor of the process specified by the

TRD?

The approved sources discussed in TRD Appendix A paragraph 11.0 refer specifically to the process for identifying new sources of supply to be used by the PBL prime contractor. The clause FAR 52.209-1 refers to the qualification requirements for the PBL prime contractor.

Whoever is awarded the LGPBL1 contract will be determined as an approved source (via the evaluation process). As such, the clause will remain.

mailto:309CMXG.OBW.LandingGear@us.af.mil

12) Referring to Attachment 4 (Reconciliation) to the RFP – since the fixed price for each RGB is not subject to re-negotiation, and payment is equal to 1/12 of the yearly band price, how does the Government intend to pay the contractor for requisitions above the upper limit or new upper limit (funding does not equal price adjustment or payment)? In the event a new upper limit is established, how does the Government intend to pay the contractor for the increase in requisitions from the original upper limit to the new upper limit? Since the FFP price by RGB is identified in Attachment 3 (TEP), which indicates an RGB upper and lower limit in total without further breakout between OIM and DLM, how the Government intend to provide the breakout?

Please reference TRD Appendix G Section 1.5, Funding and Adjustments.

13) In order to facilitate payment through DFAS, the contractor requests that the Government add SLINs for each calendar year within an Award term, e.g., X001AA, X001AB, X002AC, etc. As an additional DFAS payment provision, the contractor requests that the Government revise the quantity to 12, with unit of measure remaining LO. This will enable monthly payments, since DFAS has refused to pay one lot CLINs until the lot is complete and this proposed change would enable monthly payment as intended by the Government.

The Government is currently reviewing this issue with DFAS. In the event that 1 lot is not acceptable, it will be updated accordingly. To clarify, the contractor will be allowed to invoice monthly.

14) Will the TEP Worksheet, specifically the FMS-OS Pricing tab, be revised to include the estimated FMS requisition quantities? The instruction indicates “these prices will be multiplied by the estimated FMS requisition quantities to determine the total FMS dollar amount for each year.”

The TEP Worksheet does not identify the FMS requisition quantities. (Reference Section L, paragraph 5.3.2)

The intent of this pricing structure is to have a single remanufacture price per item. We are unable to provide an accurate estimate at this time. Upon award of each delivery order, we will apply the single price multiplied by the estimated quantity for the year. The reconciliation process at the end of the year will be applied, taking actual quantities multiplied by their associated unit prices to determine the actual amount owed for FMS-OS support.

15) In accordance with the CLIN structure and the TEP, the contractor requests that paragraph TRD Appendix A paragraph 5.3.5 by rewritten to revise payment structure from payments on a monthly basis to payments on a transaction fulfillment basis, i.e., the contractor will be paid the FFP unit price as specified in the TEP. Section L of the RFP indicates that the FMS-OS Requisition Pricing is on a fulfillment basis. Additionally, the contractor is required to populate the TEP on a unit price basis. Payment in monthly installments does not coincide with this FFP pricing methodology.

This proposed approach conflicts with the purpose and intent of the PBL. For the FMS-OS piece, payment will be an annual lot with monthly invoices (same approach for requisition bands) for 1/12 the annual total based on the latest forecast for FMS-OS requirements multiplied by the unit prices bid in the TEP.

16) The Unit Price for CLINs X001-X006 includes reference to Exhibits A-H, K-M, and FMS-OS Pricing Spreadsheet, which are tabs within Attachment 03 TEP Worksheet. For payment purposes, the Unit Price must contain clear and concise reference to Contract documents. In addition to the identified Exhibit and Spreadsheet, the contractor requests that Attachment 03, LGPBL1 TEP, be added to the Unit Price reference in all CLINs (except Data, X007). Section J of the RFP, List of Attachments, does not include Exhibits A-H, K-M, or FMS-OS Spreadsheet as an attachment, but does include referenced Attachment 03, LGPBL1 TEP Worksheet. Specific reference to the Section J attachment in the CLIN Unit Price, e.g., “IAW Attachment 03, TEP Worksheet, Exhibit E” provides clarification necessary for DFAS payment.

Upon award, the TEP spreadsheet will no longer exist. Some of the items within the TEP spreadsheet, however, will be re-labeled as exhibits, pricing spreadsheets, etc. as applicable.

17) The introductory paragraph of Section B on page 8 of the RFP indicates, “CLINs 1001-1007 constitute Award Term One (years 6-10). However, in the event that award term is not being utilized due to the contractor not satisfying minimum award term requirements, these CLINs may be awarded as part of the phase-out process for years 6 and 7 IAW TRD Appendix A para

2.0 and subsequent paragraphs and Award Term Plan.” Will the Government consider adding a separate Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLIN for Phase-out requirements? The current CLIN structure necessitates that Phase-out costs be included in the price for years 6 and 7. Assuming Term 1 is awarded to the contractor, the price for years 6 and 7 will be overstated by the amount of the estimated Phase-out costs.

The award term was intended to mitigate concerns from industry with the Government’s unilateral right to exercise options. Because the award term is completely dependent on the contractor’s ability to satisfy award term metrics, the pricing structure will remain the same.

18) The introductory paragraph of Section B on page 13 of the RFP indicates, “CLINs 2001-2007 constitute Award Term Two (years 11-15). However, in the event that award term is not being utilized due to the contractor not satisfying minimum award term requirements, these CLINs may be awarded as part of the phase-out process for years 11 and 12 IAW TRD Appendix A para

2.0 and subsequent paragraphs and Award Term Plan.” Will the Government consider adding a separate Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLIN for Phase-out requirements? The current CLIN structure necessitates that Phase-out costs be included in the price for years 11 and 12, and 14 and 15. Assuming Term 2 is awarded to the contractor, the price for years 11 and 12 will be overstated by the amount of the estimated Phase-out costs.

See the answer to question 17 above.

19) Special Provision H:01, Forging Steel Economic Price Adjustment – Material Index Adjustments (July 2015) in Section H on page 24 of the RFP, indicates “any adjustment shall be determined during the reconciliation process.” Will the Government add a paragraph to RFP Attachment 4, Reconciliation, to reference this provision? RFP Attachment 4, Reconciliation, includes a paragraph addressing Depot Labor, pursuant to Special Provision H:02. For clarification purposes, and to capture all reconciliation requirements in a single location, inclusion of a similar provision in Attachment 4 to address Forging Steel Adjustments is requested.

Attachment 4 has been revised. Para 4 will now reference material pursuant to H:01.

20) Special Provision H:02 includes reference to “baseline rate (rates bid to the contractor by the depot)”. Will the Government consider deleting the parenthetical statement and replacing with “as defined by the Table 1”, along with the addition of a Table to be completed by the Contractor? The contractor’s price proposal does not become part of the contract. As such, baseline rates are not contractually identified. Clarification is necessary to specifically define the criteria for price adjustments to the contract.

To clarify, per Section M, all proposed rates and elements used to calculate the TEP will be fixed and contractually binding.

The special provision will not be altered. The rates the Depot bids to the contractor will be used as the baseline in performing the reconciliation at the end of each year. Please see Section L, paragraph 5.4.

21) Paragraphs 3.4.4 and 3.4.4.1 of Section L indicate that the Small Business Participation Plan reflect subcontracting goals as a percent of spare supplies and parts. Pursuant to FAR 52.219-9, the Offeror’s subcontracting plan shall include goals expressed in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars. Please confirm the Government’s understanding that the percentages expressed in the Small Business Participation Plan, as percent of spare supplies and parts, will differ from the goals reflected in the Individual Subcontract Plan submitted in the Contract Volume. While “spare parts and supplies” as a basis for subcontracting goals can be expressed in the Small Business Participation Plan, this expression is inconsistent with FAR 52.219-9. The contractor’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan will utilize subcontracting dollars, pursuant to FAR.

Although the Subcontracting Plan may utilize subcontracting dollars, those dollars are expected to equate to the percentages provided in the Small Business Participation Plan.

22) In order to facilitate payment, please add (after Performance Based Logistics in support of…) the following language to the CLIN description: “The contractor’s fulfillment of obligation for the monthly lot deliveries shall be evidenced by submittal of the monthly Technical Report summarizing performance in accordance with A011 (B011 and C011 for terms 2 and 3, respectively)”. The WAWF approving agency will be looking for evidence of completion for the monthly invoicing. The additional language will enable payment within WAWF.

As noted on page 3, Section B of the solicitation, “CLINs X001-X006 payment instructions will allow for monthly invoicing. This information will be placed upon each delivery order once awarded.” To clarify, each delivery will contain payment instructions to allow the contractor to invoice monthly. The Government will modify the contract as necessary to ensure payment is received monthly when appropriate. We are currently in the process of discussing this with

DFAS.

23) The Volume III Price includes an unlimited page count in Section L. However, paragraph 5.3.7 indicates a 10 page limitation for Pricing Assumptions. Will the Government remove the page limitation for pricing assumptions? A page limitation for pricing assumptions is inconsistent with the unrestricted page limit for the Price Volume. The offeror should be provided ample opportunity to provide necessary supporting information to support its price proposal, in accordance with the Cost or Pricing Information Requirements identified in Section L, paragraph 5.3.5.

This will be changed and included as an amendment to the solicitation accordingly.

24) Paragraph 5.0 in Attachment 7, Award Term Plan, describes a unilateral modification process to the terms of the plan. The offeror requests a change to bilateral agreement. The offeror’s proposal is based upon the requirements of the RFP. While it is understood that the results of the award term assessment are not subject to review or challenge, the evaluation criteria forms the basis of the offeror’s proposal, and should not be subject to unilateral modification.

The amendment to the solicitation will reflect a bilateral agreement to any changes to the Award Term Plan.

25) The length of the evaluations period differ and are in conflict as they currently appear in Attachment 7, Award Term Plan, pages 7-8. Will the Government review and correct?

They are accurate because the first evaluation period is between years 1-4, and the second covers years 5-9. The reason it is set up that way is to ensure adequate time to make the determination in advance of each award term.

26) The TRD specifies proposal requirements. Is the Government requiring the contractor to submit proposals in performance of the effort in accordance with TRD requirements? If not, will proposal requirement be deleted from the TRD? (Refer to TRD page 5 and Appendix G page 1).

It is the contractor’s understanding that all prices will be established based upon the proposal in accordance with the TRD. It appears that the TRD includes contract requirements for a proposal that are actually being conducted as part of the proposal process. Clarification is necessary for proposal pricing purposes.

Sections L&M are for proposal preparation and evaluation purposes only. The TRD will be a contractual document and therefore the contractor shall meet all TRD requirements, along with any other contractually binding documents.

27) NSN/Requisition Banding – Appendix G is written in future tense, implying that the Requisition Banding concept remains to be developed. The contractor is under the impression that the banding concept has been established through the requirements of the TRD, which is effective upon award. Will the Government revise paragraph 3.6 on Page 5 of the TRD to change from future tense to present tense, i.e., change from “will be” to “has been”? The TRD should include requirements that are to be performed during the contract phase, in lieu of a description of the proposal process.

Agreed. TRD will be updated accordingly

28) Figure 1, Reconciliation Flow Diagram, on page 3 of Attachment 4, Reconciliation, includes reference to 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2. Please advise as to whether this reference is in error and correct and/or clarify accordingly.

Both references will be removed

29) Please add all DoDAAC codes for delivery. Processing of Receiving Reports requires the MOCAS enter DoDAAC codes pursuant to Section F of the contract.

The DoDAAC code(s) will be included in each requisition.

30) Is it acceptable for the contractor to fill in more than one location for final Government Contract Quality Assurance Inspection and Acceptance?

Yes

31) Will the Government add a provision in Section F page 22 to specify that “Transportation costs for this effort will be paid via a Government Transportation Account Code (TAC) on an F.O.B.

Origin basis” consistent with Section L instructions (paragraph 5.5)?

Please see TRD Appendix A, Paragraph 4.1 that specifies payment for transportation.

32) AFFARS 5352.209-9000, Organizational Conflict of Interest, (including Alternate V and VI) applies only when the contractor will be providing systems engineering and/or technical direction.

Deletion is requested. The TRD does not include the requirement for systems engineering and/or technical direction. As such, the clause is not applicable to the LGPBL1 effort.

To clarify, this clause does not only apply when the contractor will be providing systems engineering and/or technical direction. This clause (including Alternates V and VI) will be removed per amendment to solicitation; however, Alternate III will be included whereas it is entirely possible that the Awarded Contractor may obtain access to proprietary information, in which case this clause will apply.

33) The instructions in Section L paragraph 2.17 indicate a Cross Reference Matrix is to be included in the Technical Volume. Is the contractor correct in assuming that Cross Reference Matrix is not required in other proposal volumes?

Yes that is correct

34) Paragraph 3.6, NSN/Requisition Banding – Appendix G, includes reference to “unit price.” The TEP worksheet includes only a total price per band. Will reference to unit price be deleted, to maintain consistency with the TEP?

The reference in Appendix G will be changed accordingly.

35) Why does the Government consider it equitable to adjust quantities for performance measurement without an adjustment in FFP, as stated in TRD Appendix G paragraph 1.4.1?

noTed. Please understand the reconciliation process has been the subject of many industry day briefings and communications. This will remain unchanged.

36) What is the contract award date and authorization to proceed date? If proposals are received this calendar year, source selection process will follow and go through the beginning of the next calendar year 2016. Is it the intent of the USAF to award the contract in June timeframe to allow the contractor preparation/ramp-up, with execution starting on 1 October, or will the Government require nine months or can additional time be allocated for enhancing RFP?

(Reference TRD Appendix A paragraph 2.2)

Our target award date will be late 2016, however, the transition period is anticipated to become effective Jan 1 (all of our start dates will align with Government quarters). In the event that award was made earlier or later, the effective date will just be the first day of the next quarter, and that date will become the annual mark for future delivery orders.

37) Will the Government accept industry standard Font 8 for graphics and Font 9 for tables?

(Reference Section L, paragraph 2.19.2)

Yes and Section L will be updated accordingly.

38) Request the USAF consider extending the receipt of proposal from 30 Nov 2015 to 15 Dec 2015.

Rationale: from date of RFP issuance 7 August through 30 Nov 2015 there are 81 working days, 25 weekend days = 106 days, minus 4 holidays = 102 days. Adding the additional 11 working days, 4 weekend days up to 15 Dec provides a total of 117 days to provide a proposal. In view of the complexity of the documentation, unresolved questions/concerns, we believe this is a fair and reasonable request to ensure a quality RFP is provided to the USAF.

As of today, the Government does not anticipate extending the RFP delivery date.

39) According to information in Section L, Attachment 1, the PPIT, and information in Attachment 5, PPIS format, the items required to populate information fields on each relevant past performance program are exactly the same elements. The PPIT requires the offeror to provide information for each cited program on three Tabs: the Contract Information Tab, the Program Details Tab, and the POC & Key Individuals Tab. The Contract Information Tab in particular requires that the offeror “explain how your experience on this program is relevant for each sub-factor under the Technical Factor in Section M of the RFP, including any unique aspects that demonstrate relevancy in this effort. Provide evidence to support how the contract referenced has relevant experience and demonstrates the ability to perform the solicitation requirements as described in Section M of the RFP. As applicable, address how the proposed reference relates to each of the Technical Sub-factors.” Attachment 5, PPIS, Sections A through H replicate to a very high degree the exact same items called for on the PPIT tabs. Similar to the information mentioned for inclusion on the PPIT Program Details Tab cited above, Section H. Relevancy to Sub-factors reads, “For each of the applicable Sub-factors under the two Technical Factors in Section M, illustrate how your performance on this program applies to that Sub-factor.” Given that the Government has allotted only 40 pages to the PP volume, and given that the allowance of up to 10 relevant programs (including Prime and Subcontractor), could the Government explain their interest in requiring duplicative information and narratives from both PPIT hardcopy outputs as well as completed PPIS forms in the volume within that page count, given that the PPIT and the PPISs provide the same information and the available page count does not support the required content? Please allow the hardcopy output of the PPIT to suffice for the 40 page content of the Past Performance volume and delete the requirement to include the PPISs as they contain no added information over and above that contained in the PPIT.

Please see revised answers to questions 40 and 55.

40) In Section L paragraph 2.14.5, does the 40 page limit apply to the PPIT output of Attachment 1 or the PPISs, Attachment 5? Where does the Government desire the hardcopy PPIT output reside in the PP volume? Where does the Recent and Relevant Contract information provided by the PPISs fit into the PP volume? Are Consent Letters, Client Authorization Letters, Team List Roles and Responsibilities, and the Past Performance Citation Reference Sheet excluded from the 40 page limit? Request the Government: 1) Provide page count for a front matter summary section that contains the Past Performance Citation Reference Sheet and Team List Roles and Responsibilities; 2) Allocate a 40 page limit for the hardcopy output of the PPIT as described in Attachment 1; 3) Exclude Consent Letters, Client Authorization Letters from the 40 page limit;

and 4) Delete the requirement for PPISs as the PPIT provides the same information and is intended to supersede the use of PPISs.

Section L has been revised to allow 50 pages rather than 40 pages for the Past Performance Volume. Additionally, section L will be updated to clarify that the PPI tool is where Contractors will populate PPIS information. Attachment 5 will be clarified to be a sample template only, not all fields in attachment 5 will directly coincide with PPI tool formatting/fields. The PPI tool is required per regulations to help the evaluation team have more organization for evaluation purposes, however, please submit hard copies of all documents required in sections L and M as well as utilize the PPI tool for uploading documents into EZ Source (Please note that the Contractor will NOT upload any documents to EZ source; rather, they will utilize the PPI tool and save/send on CD to PCO as part of proposal, the Government will upload documents to EZ source). The Government does not expect offerors to provide duplicate information, but rather they shall provide everything that’s required per section L and M. If the hardcopy is a printout from the PPI tool, that’s acceptable, but needs to include anything required that may not have been part of the PPI tool as well (such as letters and roles and responsibilities worksheet etc.)..

As for the letters, roles and responsibilities counting against the page limit – yes, anything not strictly excluded per Section L will be counted.

41) Will the contractor be allowed to collaborate with the Government on requirements forecasting and SCM execution during this period (see TRD Appendix A paragraph 2.3) or be solely reliant on Government support? Collaborative forecasting/planning will be helpful in this phase to facilitate improved parts supportability when the contractor assumes full responsibility in Increment 2 implementation.

Yes, the Government encourages and expects collaboration throughout the contract.

42) Will the contractor have access to the Depot Supply Chain Management (DSCM) tool data during this phase (see TRD Appendix A paragraph 2.3) and through full up capability phase-in? It is our understanding that the DSCM tool projects parts supportability posture in the 18-36 month out timeframe. Given the long lead time to procure parts, this data would be helpful in forecasting/planning parts supportability posture for full capability phase-in execution.

It appears unlikely at this time that the contractor will be granted direct access to the DSCM tool; however, please note that regardless of whether or not the contractor is allowed access to the DSCM tool, it is anticipated that reasonable requests for information from the DSCM tool may by given so long as it’s directly applicable to the LGPBL1 requirement.

43) What are the Government’s responsibilities being maintained by the Government’s Item Manager? Knowing what IM functions the contractor is specifically responsible for and what functions the Government Item Managers will continue to do is critical in determining roles & responsibilities and fully understanding workflow processes for contract execution in terms of who does what to whom and who has the authority to redirect assets.

The Government program team will remain the face to the Air Force customer(s). They will work in partnership with the PBL contractor where the contractor will have be responsible for the requisition fulfillment and associated activities, and the Government program team will retain responsibilities for interfacing with field units (customers).

44) As the RFP makes use of both phase-in/out and transition terms, it is understood that these terms are synonymous. Is this understanding correct? If so, then per TRD Appendix A paragraph 1.2, these activities are integral to the IMP/IMS and therefore make Factor One Sub-factor Three (Transition Plan) subordinate to Factor Two Sub-factor Four (IMP/IMS). If so, should not Factor One Sub-factor Three be included in Factor Two Sub-factor Four?

Yes, your understanding is correct – phase in/out are synonymous with transition. The Government understands that the two sub-factors are related; however, one is not subordinate to the other and therefore will remain separate from each other. These are for the Government’s evaluation purposes to allow us to evaluate the contractor’s ability to satisfy our requirement. The current structure allows us to do so; therefore, there will be no changes made.

45) As the LGPBL1 is a collaborative effort between the offeror, its subcontractors, and the Government; what are the minimum and mandatory program events that the Government requires be addressed in the IMP and IMS? What are the Government’s minimum-required activities per the Government Roadmap IMS that will need to be addressed in the offeror’s IMP?

The contractor shall identify all milestones and events necessary to satisfy all PBL requirements, per Section M paragraph 3.2.4. The Government is not identifying every step necessary, as this is a performance-based contract and there is likely more than one way to satisfy the PBL requirements.

46) Since Section M paragraph 3.2.4 requires the offeror to “describe” its…approach for forecasting and tracking cost, schedule, and performance as well as financial management and cost-control procedures and the User’s Guide (as required by TRD Appendix A paragraph 1.2) suggests that EVMS is part of the IMP/IMS process, is an EVMS system intergral to the LGPBL1 program?

The IMP/IMS Guide referenced in the TRD is just a guide. The minimum requirements are stated in the TRD and the evaluation criteria in Section M explain how the Government will evaluate the IMP/IMS.

47) Is the offeror required to submit a Statistical Risk Assessment (SRA) with its IMS in accordance with CDRL A002? Is the offeror required to submit all the DID IMS sections, e.g., Section 1-5?

To clarify, the IMS is actually associated with CDRL A003. Furthermore, the DID referenced in CDRL A003 (DI-MGMT-81650) has been superseded by DI-MGMT-81861, therefore the CDRL will be revised to reflect these changes in an amendment to the solicitation.

48) Does the Government require IMP narratives? If so, what type of narratives does the Government desire? Does the Government desire both process and task narratives be provided in the IMP? Does the Government desire that “level-of-effort” task narratives be included in the IMP? Do the TRD and IMP narratives cover the same material (processes and procedures)?

The IMP/IMS Guide referenced in the TRD is just a guide. The minimum requirements are stated in the TRD and the evaluation criteria in Section M explain how the Government will evaluate the IMP/IMS. The contractor has the discretion to determine the most effective ways to meet the requirements outlined in Section M. Also, please remember that this is a trade-off sub-factor, not a pass/fail.

49) Does the statement “minimum set requested in the RFP” found in the IMP_IMS Users Guide Section 3.3.3, essentially mean the TRD? If not, what critical process narratives does the Government want in the IMP?

The Government will utilize Section M as our evaluation checklist, not the IMP/IMS Guide referenced in the TRD. The minimum requirements are stated in the TRD and the evaluation criteria in Section M explain how the Government will evaluate the IMP/IMS.

50) What format should the offeror submit it’s IMS in: Gantt or Tabular format? Does the Government desire PERT and/or Network charts? What scheduling tool should be used to provide the IMS?

Contractors have the discretion to determine the most effective ways to meet the requirements outlined in Sections L & M.

51) Besides events that the offeror gleans from the RFP (TRD, Section F, etc.), are there additional events from the Government Roadmap Schedule that should be included in the IMP (IMP_IMS Users Guide Section 3.3.2)?

Please refer to the answer provided to Question 45 above.

52) Should the IMS include Level of Effort and/or Apportioned Effort activities in the IMP and IMS, especially if there’s a CDRL or work product (QAP, etc.?) Refer to IMP_IMS Users Guide section 3.4?

outlined in Sections L & M.

53) Can the Government confirm that the latest PPI tool has been placed on the FBO site? We followed the instructions on Attachment 1 of Section L but still do not seem to be able to find it.

The PPI Tool will be attached in FBO in the next amendment to the solicitation.

54) Do the required Past Performance Consent Letters count against the 40 count page limit?

Yes, per Section L paragraph 2.14.6 – however, please note that Section L will be revised to allow 50 pages rather than 40 pages for the Past Performance Volume.

55) Can the Government confirm that the Past Performance Information Sheets are required in addition to printing off and submitting the data from the PPI Tool? If yes, is the PPI Tool content separate from the 40 page count maximum?

See revised answer to question 40. PPIS sheets are only required through the PPI tool, not separately.

56) There seems to be a conflict in instructions to offerors with regards to preparing the IMP/IMS.

The TRD Appendix A paragraph 1.2 and Section L paragraph 3.5.4 state that offerors should use the IMP/IMS Preparation and Use Guide in preparing the IMP/IMS. Section L seems to instruct offerors to prepare the IMP/IMS in their own format following the IMP/IMS Guidebook, while also instructing offerors to prepare the IMP/IMS following the DIDs as referenced in the applicable CDRLs. Is the Offeror’s (bidder) IMP required to be prepared in accordance with the DID DI-MGMT-81797? Is the Offeror’s IMS required to be prepared in accordance with the DID DI-MGMT-81650? Is the Offeror’s IMP/IMS required to be prepared in accordance with the IMS/IMP Preparation and Use Guide? If the Offeror’s Factor Two Sub-factor Four IMP/IMS is not prepared in accordance with the DID(s), will this make the Offeror’s proposal unacceptable?

The IMP/IMS Guide referenced in the TRD is just a guide that the Government included as a help for contractors in preparing the IMP/IMS. It is never stated nor intended that the guide will be used as the evaluation criteria. The minimum requirements are stated in the TRD and the evaluation criteria in Section M explain how the Government will evaluate the IMP/IMS. It is imperative that proposals satisfy all Section M requirements. In certain situations, there may be an applicable DID that must be complied with to satisfy Section M. Just keep in mind that Section M criteria are what will be used as the Government’s official evaluation criteria. Also, please remember that this is a trade-off sub-factor, not a pass/fail.

57) How are Offerors supposed to determine what the “current” constraints are at the Depot?

Where is this information provided in the solicitation, specifically Section J or Section L? Should each Offeror submit their proposed repatriation plan to the depot and enter into pre-proposal submission discussions with the depot in order to determine and “identify current depot constraints” which would “inhibit DSOR compliance”? If so, then request solicitation be modified to instruct Offerors to do this and also request an extension to the proposal submission due date to accommodate this requirement.

Please refer to the 24 October 2014 posting to FBO site “FA8203-14-R-LGPBL1” where the Government provided the contact information for the Depot in order to communicate with them regarding this very topic. It is the contractor’s responsibility to identify constraints at the Depot while they are preparing their proposal and implementation agreement with the Depot.

There are some current constraints already known and which have been posted to FBO, however, it is the contractor’s responsibility to identify all constraints that they see fit which may not, as of right now, be known or understood by the Government. To have an acceptable proposal, the Depot has to enter into an amenable agreement with the contractor; therefore it is prudent that each contractor talk directly with the Depot points of contact provided on FBO – prior to proposal submission.

58) In calculating the repatriation adjustment the instructions refer to a Labor Rate. Is this a burdened rate with overheads or just direct labor excluding overheads?

Direct labor excluding overheads – the repatriation component of reconciliation compares the rate the Depot bid to the contractor with the actual rate being charged to the contractor (direct labor). The rates being reconciled do not include overhead.

59) Several items in the demand model spreadsheet show zero forecasted demand over the intended life of the contract. Does that mean that these items are not a part of the PBL effort, or are they a part of the contract with the potential to have demands in the future even though there are currently none forecasted?

These items are a part of the contract with the potential to have demands in the future even though there are currently none forecasted. Additionally, some of the parts with a zero forecast may have anticipated demand rolled into the next higher assembly, just no expected demands as a deliverable for that specific part as of now.

60) We did not see a demand model or scrap rates released with the RFP, nor did we see a statement indicating that the demand model and scrap rates released prior to the RFP are still valid. Do we assume that the demand model and scrap rates provided with the draft RFP are still valid? Will the Air Force be making some sort of a statement regarding the applicability of this data to the current RFP?

This information was included with the updated data sheets which were posted to the FBO site for solicitation number FA8203-15-R-1226 on 11 August 2015 and entitled “LGPBL1 data sheets.”

Industry_QA_2_Post_RFP (24 Sep 2015)

61) Noting the Government’s response to Question 56 above, is the intent and purpose of Factor 4, Sub-factor 4 (IMP/IMS) included in the proposal Tech volume to graphically display the detailed scheduled tasks for the entire 15 years of the LGPBL1 program, or can the detailed IMS portion of the schedule be included in the attachment? Placing the graphic of a compliant tiered schedule (IMS) with alignment to the IMP and links and critical path methodology could likely make the Sub-factor submittal larger (in page count) than any other Factor/Sub-factor.

Contractors have the discretion to determine the most effective ways to meet the requirements outlined in Sections L & M. Please note, attachments are counted toward the page limit. See the response to Question #62 below.

62) Background: Following the DoD Guidebook, even as a reference and not a firm requirement, but to ensure compliance per the current RFP & TRD, the Government should expect an

IMP/IMS with thousands of lines since protocol dictates 3 lines for each event (Event, Criteria, and Accomplishment) and then a related IMS task or tasks. For example, the straightforward act of submitting montly CDRLs will itself be represented by 1,008 actions each year (84 monthly CDRLs x 12 months). Understanding that roughly 30 IMP/IMS lines can fit on a single page, the simple act of listing the required CDRLs will account for over 30 pages or > 10% of the total page count itself, depending upon the number of IMS line items. Likewise, including contract and option milestones, in accordance with DoD guidance, will require additional Event, Criteria, and Accomplishment for each contract period, Evaluation Phase, and Award to account for the block of contracting events. These actions, CDRL submittal said, and award periods are important IMP (tier 1) events, but do not reflect the program plan to manage the transition, the supply chain, remanufacture operations, or the requisition fulfillment nature of the contract.

Question: Will the Government confirm that the IMP/IMS is part of the 300 page count limit? If it is, will the Government clarify its expectation on the IMP/IMS?

Contractor recommended solution(s):

a) Make the IMP/IMS an appendix and not part of the 300 page limit for the Tech Volume including the schedule and tables as a separately numbered appendix, or

b) For the page numbered section of Factor 2 Sub-factor 4, include narrative describing a compliant IMP/IMS only for submittal of the hard copy of the Tech Volume and allow referring to the soft copy expanded version as a more detailed submittal for evaluation, or

c) Recommend which TRD or appendices paragraphs are the minimum requirements for the IMP/IMS Sub-factor response to include. This should address whether the monthly CDRL dates are required on the IMP/IMS as well as option year award period events, or

d) Use another approach to make it clear to offerors the expectation for IMP/IMS content and compliance.

Yes, the IMP/IMS is included in the Technical volume page limit outlined in Section L. To clarify, the Government’s expectation is that the IMP addresses and explains all significant (major) events and the schedule(s) for accomplishing those events in sufficient detail to ensure the Government understands the offeror’s proposed approach and milestones for completing those events. With the understanding that each offeror will propose their unique approach to meeting the Government’s requirements, the IMP/IMS will be carefully reviewed for assurances that the offeror understands and has the capability to accomplish all TRD requirements. Please also understand that this requirement will be awarded under full tradeoff source selection procedures, not Lowest Price Technically Acceptable procedures.

63) Does the Air Force expect to see Depot schedules incorporated into the IMP/IMS?

If offerors identify major events relating to the work they have determined necessary to accomplish with regard to the Depot, it is anticipated that those events would be included based on the response to Question #62 above.

64) Does the Air Force expect to see each plan action as a detailed schedule for the Repatriation Plan, Transition Plan, Subcontract Management and Supply Chain plans in the IMP/IMS Sub-factor section?

outlined in Sections L & M. Please note that cross referencing within volumes as needed is acceptable so long as sub-factors evaluation criteria are met.

65) Does the Air Force expect to see induction actions on the IMP/IMS?

No

66) Can the Government clarify what is meant by “management of critical resources” in Section L paragraph 3.5.1?

Correction: that phrase is not actually in Section L paragraph 3.5.1, but it is found in Section M paragraph 3.2.1. Please note, while the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. Each offeror needs to exercise professional judgement, identify what they deem as critical resources, and describe how they will manage them.

67) Background: Follow-up to Question 1 under EVALUATION CRITERIA / RFP / PROPOSALS part of the Questions and Answers released August 11th.

Question: With the Government’s response to the question referenced above in mind, how will tables and figures critical to the narrative and evaluation (such as supply chain process flows), be evaluated given they are not part of the page count?

To clarify, all pages within the revised 400 page limit for the Technical volume will be used to understand and evaluate the overall approach presented in each proposal. See Question #83.

68) Is the graphic display of the IMP or IMS compliant and acceptable if submitted as an attachment to the Technical Volume?

outlined in Sections L & M. Please note, attachments are counted toward the page limit.

69) Please provide copies of the Government’s DREP Parts Supportability Report for each Control Number/Part Number by component with Fill Rates on the remanufacture end items identified in the RFP. These reports will give offerors an indication of the current material support issues and what is being reused and/or discarded and allow a more accurate estimate.

The Government will post the latest information available to FBO as an Excel workbook titled, “Additional Depot Data 17 Sep 2015” along with a narrative (if needed) to describe what is being provided. Such a narrative will be included in the workbook. Please note that any questions that are specific to an offeror’s individual strategy with the Depot should be addressed to the Depot using the contact information provided.

70) Please provide copies of the Demand History Adjustment Report (DHA) on the remanufacture end items identified in the RFP. These reports will give offerors an indication of the current material support issues and what is being reused and/or discarded and allow a more accurate estimate.

See the response to Question #69 above.

71) Please provide copies of all organic reported 202’s along with associated costs for a two year period on the KC-135, E-3, and C-130 weapon systems on the remanufacture end items identified in the RFP. These reports will allow the offeror to provide a better estimate of rework since there isn’t an Over and Above (O&A) CLIN item identified in the RFP.

72) Please provide the Actual Organic Remanufacture Hours incurred on the remanufacture end items identified in the RFP. The Government has provided only standard remanufacture hours and associated costs for the major processes.