T-38_Wing_RFP_-_Industry_Questions_and_Answers_V2.pdf

RFP MASTER QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

QUESTION ANSWER

Questions received 12 February 2019 Response posted 21 February 2019

1. How long after award is the Government anticipating it will take to provide the master tooling identified in Attachment F?

If awardee is other than the incumbent, the Government will initiate movement of the GFP to the awardee directly after award. It is anticipated to take up to 60 days to complete. If delivery is in excess of this timeframe, modification of the due dates would be considered by the PCO at that time.

2. Based on prior draft templates and the current RFP instructions, it appears some of the formulas in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Pricing Matrix require adjustments. Specifically the following:

Formula adjustments requested have been accepted. TEP Pricing Matrix has been revised to address questions 2.a. - 2.f. Please see attached revised TEP.

2.a. - Subtotal Price (Column H) for all ordering years, quantities 11- 20, 21-30, 31-40, and 41-50. The formulas multiply Notional Value x Unit Price NOT subject to EPA plus profit, rather than Notional Value x Total Unit Price.

See attached revised TEP.

2.b. - Total Subtotal Production Price (Cell H116) only adds Ordering Year 1 Subtotal Price.

See attached revised TEP.

2.c. - Total Production Price for Total Evaluated Unit Price (Cell J116) only adds Order Year 1 Total Evaluated Price.

See attached revised TEP.

2.d. CLIN 0003 Total (Cell C122) sums the Total Evaluated Unit Prices for ALL YEARS rather than for Ordering Years 1-5 only.

See attached revised TEP.

2.e. - CLIN 1003 Total (Cell C124) sums blank cells under the Subtotal Price (Column H) rather than for Total Evaluated Prices (Column J) for Ordering Years 6-10.

See attached revised TEP.

2.f. - The "Total TEP" formula (Cell C127) includes the total First Article Price (CLIN 0002 Cell C119).

See attached revised TEP.

3. the TEP Pricing Matrix (Cell B119) and Section M, Paragraph

5.2.2 state the First Article price/value for CLIN 0002 will be excluded/not added to the TEP. Please confirm the First Article price/value will be removed from the total Evaluated Price.

The First Article and Tooling will not be incorporated into the TEP. The TEP Pricing Matrix has been corrected accordingly. Please see attached revised TEP.

4. Section L, Paragraph 5.7 states, "Estimating Methodologies - Estimating Methods used in the proposal shall be described in a manner that will show clear traceability into the unit pricing proposed throughout the pricing volume." Please confirm that this satisfies the requirements noted in the TEP Pricing Matrix Instruction #3.

The TEP Pricing Matrix Instruction #3 is in reference to Section L Paragraph 5.11. A reference has been added to the TEP Pricing Matrix Instruction #3 to add clarity to this instruction.

Question about due date for Section L, Attachment 4 Revised Section L, Attachment 4 has been posted including '21 April 2019 or earlier' as the requested date of return. You may use this revised attachment or fill this information in on the original attachment when sending out for response.

Questions received 14 February 2019 Response posted 21 February 2019

5. Section M, Paragraph 4.6 lists ten specific criteria (a. through j.)

for evaluating quality of products and services. The Section L - Attachment 5 PPIS outlines different criteria in Paragraph D (1-8).

It is unclear how the Government will be able to directly correlate information required by the PPIS with the evaluation criteria in Section M. Recommend the PPIS be adjusted to reflect the criteria in Section M.

There is not a 'one to one' correlation between Section L - Attachment 5 criteria in Paragraph D (1-8) and Section M, Quality of Products and Services Assessment. Section L - Attachment 5 of the PPIS is only a portion of the total criteria and is specifically meant to give a description of the effort. It allows the offeror to give specific information regarding the contracts/past performance they would like to have considered as part of their proposal. The information from Section L - Attachment 5 is a portion of the information to be evaluated as stated in Section M in its totality - using points 4.1 through 4.9. No adjustment is made to the either Section L, its Attachments or Section M.

6.On Attachment 3 in the NOTE TO OFFERORS: it says "…Should you propose to use critical subcontractors, teaming contractors, and/or joint venture partners..." Is a subcontractor defined as any supplier that we may buy parts from or is it considered someone who may be doing major assemblies? As an example if I buy a rib from Company ABC, are they considered a subcontractor versus Company XYZ that I buy the outer 1/3 of the wing, completely assembled? Just trying to determine who needs to receive the Attachment 2 Past Performance Consent Letter.

A subcontractor is a person or business that carries out work for a company as part of a larger effort. To determine who you will send the questionnaire to, please adhere to the Instructions to Offerors laid out in Section L and its attachments, as well as the Evaluation Factors for Award laid out in Section M in order to provide information that will most fully support your experience relative to the T-38 Wing effort.

Questions received 15 February 2019 Response posted 21 February 2019 Our team cannot find the follow data - please advise if this data can be provided: 2-74187, *STF0703 (NGLA), *C-25 (NGLA), *HT-

21 (NGLA), *MA-32.3 (NGLA), *STF0140 (NGLA)

This data was inadvertently left off the disc provided to all approved sources. The Government is in the process of gathering this data along with others identified by industry and will distribute it as soon as it becomes available.

Questions received 19 February 2019 Response posted 21 February 2019 We are requesting data, 3D pictures or tool drawings for items in the Attachment F, T-38 Wing Master Tool List. Can you provide?

The Government does not have drawings for the T-38 Wing Master Tool list. CDRL A007 - Product Drawing/Models and Associated Lists (Digital Representations of the Master Tooling) is for this purpose. We will provide limited pictures of the master tooling via AMRDEC Safe for all qualified vendors. The Government has made available the full wing TDP and tooling list/descriptions to aid vendors with this aspect of the solicitation requirement. At award, the master tooling will be provided to the awardee.

Please refer to CDRLs A007-Product Drawing/Models and Associated Lists (Digital Representations of the Master Tooling), and A009 - Product Drawings/Models and Associated Lists (Digital

Does the Air Force have a preferred 3D format for the digitized tool Representations of the -33 Wing) where this information is specified in output within the contract? Box 16.

Would the USAF consider incorporating the economic profit adjustment requirements and applications via a Special Contracts Requirement or H clause as stated in Section Para. 5.9 ("price adjustment clause as incorporated into the contract") that addresses the language in SOW Para. 4.1? This would address offerors potential concerns about the silence of future EPA adjustments in the contract since it has precedence over the Statement of Work language.

An 'H Clause' was discussed but not previously approved for this acquisition with respect to the EPA adjustments and will not be pursued. While we understand the order of precedence, the SOW, Section 4 - Special Considerations, which outlines how EPA adjustments will be made, will be added to the contract at award and will be binding.

The government has rights to FH-113 based on the NGLA and it will be required for both first article and production units.

It appears the government has not obtained rights to FH-113. Will the government obtain sufficient rights to FH-113 for this procurement? If yes, when will FH-113 be available? If not, please explain why FH-113 is not required to meet the technical data package first article requirements?

The file for page 0001 of HP-29 is damaged and will not open. Will the government provide a file that will open for page 0001 of HP- 29?

Yes, the government will provide a readable file.

Sections L, Resource Management Plan, references do not mention the word schedule. However, Section M Paragraph

3.2.2.1 states "This sub-element evaluates the Offeror's plan for managing resources to meet the Governments' schedule". Section L only requires Integrated Master Plan details / processes. In a prior USAF question response to us, the government indicated they did not want a "complete" schedule as part of the proposal response. We are unclear, based on the Section L instructions and Section M evaluation criteria, whether program execution schedule content is required within the proposal. Recommend:

provide all offerors the government's expectations, in regards to schedule requirements for Sections L & M Resources Management, which will allow the Government to perform a schedule assessment evaluation.

The government is looking for major milestones as we ramp up to full rate production, rather than a lengthy day by day schedule for the full contract performance. The government's expectation is that offeror's plan will demonstrate a clear understanding of and the ability to meet the requirements of Section L and the evaluation factors as stated in Section M 3.2.2.1.

We noticed the Beam - Value Walking, Machined, Aileron Operation Mechanism Part number 2-74156-7 is a CSI part.

However, the Rough casting (2-74156-3) that is used to make this part is not a CSI item. Is this accurate? If not please updated the CSI accordingly.

The government will add the casting to the CSI list and update the CSI list accordingly

It appears that the B00X CDRLS were intended to cover the 5 Year Option period of the contract. For CDRLS A001/B001 thru A006/B006, a literal reading of the Initial Submission Dates and Frequency Dates implies duplicate submissions for each CDRL.

Recommend: Change Block A to "0004/1004" and delete CDRLs B001 thru B006.

Recommend the same change to Block A for CDRL A012 and deletion of CDRL B012 as duplicative.

CDRLs have very specific requirements and are to be identified with valid Exhibit numbers, which begin with a letter followed by three numbers. The 'B00X' CDRLs which apply to the option are essentially a duplicate of the 'A00X' CDRLs which apply to the initial contract. This was done to differentiate the periods of performance. The corresponding CLIN number is already identified in Box A of the CDRLs. No changes will be made.

CDRLs B007 thru B011 are for Plans to be submitted at the beginning of the Option 5 Year Period. These plans appear to be duplicates of Plans previously submitted during the Base 5 Year Period. Recommend deletion of CDRLs B007, B008, B009, B010, and B011 or clarify how these plans are different from the plans submitted during the Base 5 Year Period. If you do not delete the CDRL, please change Block 12. Date of First Submission to "XX days After Award of Option."

See answer above - no changes to CDRLs will be made.

The procedure/specification ACS-PRS-1002 for straightening aluminum alloys is not included in the zip files but is referenced in the forging drawings (referenced in drawing 2-23296-9, sheet 2, note 14; drawing 2-23311-7, sheet 2, note 11; and drawing 2- 23297-17/-18, sheet 3, note 20). Will the government provide the specification?

The government will provide this specification or an equivalent

In Attachment A, Engineering Data Requirements, there are 5 items where specifications/standards, etc. are to be used in lieu of the specification/standard, etc. currently specified in the Technical Data Package (TDP). For instance, marking of a part is to be “PER MIL-STD-130 IN LIEU OF IM-8, IM-23, IM-24 AND IM-25.” These four IM process specifications are used throughout the TDP. The authoritative engineering documentation for verification and acceptance of the T-38 WTB components is the TDP. Will the government be issuing Engineering Orders to update the TDP to reflect the authorized specifications/standards/etc.?

The government will continue using Attachment A for these process substitutions. No EOs will be processed at this time.

Process Specification documents (including MP-434, MP-435, MP- 436, MP-437 and MP-438 that pertain to adhesive bonding) are invoked in the provided -33 TDP, but have references to additional applicable specification documents which have not been provided with the -33 TDP. The specifications of concern are:

IT-89 Ultrasonic Inspection of Composites IT-90 Radiographic Inspection of Composites IT-103 Ultrasonic Resonance Inspection of Bonded Assemblies

Will the government provide documents IT-89, IT-90 and IT-103?

The government will provide these when they become available.

Drawing 2-23000 indicates that the -33 assembly hydraulic installation is to be flushed and tested per document ITWO 99039.

This document does not appear to have been included with the -33 TDP data files. Will the government provide document ITWO 99039?

Contractor is not required to perform the hydraulic flush and test, Therefore, this will not be provided

The Solicitation contains document SOW_for_Packaging, which discusses aspects of 'REUSABLE CONTAINERS'. Is it to be assumed that the SPI defined shipping container is to be rotable?

If it is to be rotable, what is the anticipated schedule for returning the containers to the supplier? ( 30 days after delivery for example) Also would they be returned one at a time, as they are received, or wait until a pool of some quantity is ready for return shipment?

The container is reusable but will be retained by the government rather than being returned to the contractor.

The text criteria for disapproval of the First Article states that disapproved First Articles will be returned to the" customer "is that accurate or should it require that First Articles be returned to the "contractor". Please clarify

Yes, this should read, "Disapproved First Articles will be returned to the contractor." This has been corrected on the amended solicitation.

Paragraph (a) *** Calendar Days states 900 days, is this correct or should it be 2.5 years? Please confirm.

Our contracting system only allows 'days'. 900 days is approximately

2.5 years and is correct. Upon contract award, this will be converted to a calendar date.

Paragraph a. "If the bidder/offeror meets any of the conditions for waiver below *** ("currently in production for Air Force") and in the instance of a prior contract not more than * months have elapsed since the completion of that contract." There is concern that additional criteria such as production in the same facility, on the same production line, using the same processes and specifications, achieved stable product quality without recurring production quality deficiencies that conforms to all contract requirements for acceptance, and no more than a two year production gap are not stated as necessary conditions for first article test waiver.

A gap in production will not be allowed - thus, the statement requiring a contractor to be 'currently in production with the Air Force' as a condition of waiver. Please see FAR Clause 52.209-4 and Alternates I & II in the solicitation regarding information about same facility and production line.

Paragraph (d) of 52.216-22 is missing the date under which the Contractor shall no longer be required to make any deliveries.

Paragraph (c ) of 52.217-9 states that the total duration of the contract including any of the options under this clause shall, not exceed 10 years. Recommend that paragraph (c) of 52.217-9 be updated to state 10 years of ordering period with 3 years of delivery period thereafter and also paragraph (d) of 52.216-22 be updated and consistent with the Option to Extend the Term of the Contract.

These dates cannot be filled in until award. At time of award it will be filled in with a calendar date corresponding to deliveries 3 years subsequent to expiration of contract or option period if exercised.

Paragraph (a) is missing the dates for which orders my be issued.

Recommend that the clause be updated to included this information.

These dates cannot be filled in until award. At time of award it will be filled in with a calendar date corresponding to the five year initial ordering period, with notation of the maximum of 10 years if the option is exercised.

Beneath the language "The cost to the Government for first article testing or engineering review and approval of first article test reports (where preliminary Contractor testing is required), as applicable, shall be a factor in the evaluation of this solicitation.

The factor to be used in evaluation shall be" is a table. The columns in the table are Lot/Item and Evaluation Cost.

The first row under Lot/Item is 0002 & under evaluation cost. is $ The second row under Lot/Item is blank & under evaluation Cost is $0.00 Is it possible that only one row is required in this table and it should read: Lot/Item (0002) Evaluation Cost ($0.00)? Please clarify?

The government has intentionally set this cost at $0.00 in order to demonstrate a level playing field for all bidders. The second line has been eliminated for clarification.

Questions received 20 February 2019 Response posted 20 February 2019 Could you please advise regarding the following requirements in the document "Section L", Volume V:

(See questions below)

Page 11, Section 7.2.- Please clarify what "Model Contract/Solicitation Representations and Certifications" are to be submitted

The government requests offerors fill in all but pricing (to be provided in a separate volume) on SF1447 of the Model Contract. This is to be submitted as part of the offer. Regarding Representations and Certifications, please ensure all Reps and Certs are current in SAM, corresponding to the information in your completed SF 1447.

Page 12, Section 7.3 - Please advise regarding the block numbers mentioned in this section (looks like it should be 11, 13, 25 and 27).

Please refer to top left block on page one of the solicitation document, form SF 1447. Block 11 has already been completed by the government with the number '365' - the number of days all proposals are to be valid for. Block 25 has been checked - all offerors to submit this signed offer (Block 27)with one copy of the SF 1447. Block 12 was referenced incorrectly in the Section L, Volume V - Contract Documentation 7.3 and has been corrected.

Note 4 in the TEP spreadsheet states the following: Prices in this table will be applicable in the year the order is placed, regardless of when First Article Approval is obtained and what previous orders were or were not placed. In order to provide a fully compliant proposal in line with the instructions any guidance/feedback/ clarifications on this would be very much appreciated.

Note 4 of the TEP spreadsheet is simply meant to convey that order pricing will be applied based on the date of the order, as opposed to time of first article approval, time of delivery or any other factor. This is an IDIQ. The guaranteed order is one First Article item and 40 production units. There will be no multi-year purchases. The government has tried to address industry concerns by providing a Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) listing. However, this acquisition is still an IDIQ. Orders beyond the initial one cannot be guaranteed, nor can the timing of any orders subsequent to the initial award. Each contractor will have to make assumptions and determine acceptable risk in their individual responses.

Questions received 1 March 2019 Response posted 5 March 2019

1. Section L, Attachment 7 – Cross Reference Table, directs bidders to indicate where in their proposals they respond to the requirements of specified SOW paragraphs. This appears to be a holdover from the initial Draft RFP with regards to the SOW paragraph references. Recommend Attachment 7 be modified to update the SOW paragraph references or remove them altogether.

The SOW paragraph references in Section L, Attachment 7 – Cross Reference Table have been reviewed and found valid. The table was revised to add 2.1.2 – Subcontractor Management under Sub factor Two (Program Management). The revised Section L Attachment 7 has been posted on FBO. The references are not all exact, rather, in some cases may speak to elements or sub-elements within the various paragraph descriptions. This cross Reference Matrix is an aid for bidders. Bidders are responsible for ensuring their proposals include all requested elements and track to the requirement as posted.

2. Section L, Paragraph 4.2, requires consent letter “signed and executed by the subcontractors”. Section L, paragraph 7.9.1, requires teaming agreements with subcontractors “whose technique, capability, certifications or qualifications are used in the technical proposal.” We assume that Section L, Paragraph

4.2 refers only to subcontractors as defined in Section L, Paragraph 7.9 and that the Government does not desire consent letters beyond that definition. Please confirm if this assumption is correct.

To clarify, 4.2, Consent Letter under Section L, does not require teaming agreements – it only speaks to the requirement for consent letters when teaming agreements with subcontractors (as defined under 7.9.1 – Teaming Arrangement) are applicable to a contractor’s proposal. We concur that the Government does not desire consent letters for teaming arrangements with subcontractors who fall outside of the definition of teaming arrangements under 7.9.