FAQ.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 32 KB Posted
- Attached to
- DRAFT: Avionics Sustainment and Support Program
- Solicitation number
- FA822024RB007
About this file
This document is a spreadsheet containing questions and answers related to the draft Avionics Sustainment and Support Program (ASSP) solicitation for the T-38 aircraft. The key details are:
The document provides clarification on various aspects of the draft Performance Work Statement (PWS), including the period of performance, pricing structure, configuration management, maintenance training, COMBS facility support, and access to government systems and data. It also addresses evaluation criteria in the draft Section M, such as the weighting of technical and past performance factors versus price. The government confirms certain requirements, such as the use of LIMS-EV for flight hour accounting, and contractor responsibility for internally generating CND reports. The government also provides updates to the PWS, such as adding Edwards AFB for FSR support and revising references to Randolph AFB.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| FAQ 2.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ASSP Section L Draft Amendment 1.docx | DOCX document | |
| ASSP Section M Draft Amendment 1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Draft ASSP Solicitation FA822024RB007 Amendment 1.pdf | ||
| Draft ASSP Solicitation Attachement 2 Amendment 1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ASSP CLS PWS Draft Amendment 1.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Questions and Answers for ASSP Industry Days | ||||||
| Question # | Document | Paragraph | Page | Comment | Question/Recommendation | Govt. Response |
| 1 | Solicitation | CLIN 0019 | 7 | Request the CLIN number be added in the following sentence of the descriptive data "Modifications to implement DMSMS Solutions generated under PWS Paragraph 5.10 will be performed under CLIN XXXX" | ||
| CLIN 0019 and 1019 descriptive data has been updated. |
| 2 | Solicitation | Section B | Multiple | The period of performance in the descriptive data for the following CLINs does not align with the 5 year basic period of performance: 0006, 00014, 00015 , 0024, 1004, 1006, 1014, 1015, 1024 | The PoP for these CLINs is 5 years, but will be proposed and awarded on a 12-month task order based on the final negotiated Price Matrix. | |
| 3 | Solicitation | Section B | Multiple | The estimated quantity and unit of measure on the following CLINs do not align with the 5 year basic period of performance: 0001 thru 0004, 0007 thru 0009, 0015, 1001 thru 1004, 1007 thru 1009, 1015 | The PoP for these CLINs is 5 years, but will be proposed and awarded on a 12-month task order based on the final negotiated Price Matrix. | |
| 4 | Solicitation | Section F | Multiple | The estimated quantity on the following CLINs does not align with the 5 year basic period of performance: 0001 thru 0004, 0007 thru 0009, 0015, 1001 thru 1004, 1007 thru 1009, 1015 | The PoP for these CLINs is 5 years, but will be proposed and awarded on a 12-month task order based on the final negotiated Price Matrix. | |
| 5 | Section L - ITO Attachment 3 SBPCD | 2 | 40 | It states "CDRL B042, Small Business Participation Utilization, reporting applies | Attachment 3 identifies CDRL B042 as “Small Business Participation Utilization,” but Exhibit A identifies CDRL B042 as “Logistics Product Data. Which CDRL nomenclature is accurate?” | BO42 is "Logistic Product Data" We removed the CDRL reference from Attachment 3 of Section L. |
| 6 | Attachment_1_ASSP_CLS_PWS_DRAFT.pdf | 2.1.2 | 3 | 2.1.2 “The contractor shall provide the necessary maintenance training to its employees.” Paragraph 2.2.1 specifies the Government will be responsible for all flight line maintenance activities. | Please provide the Government's definition of "Maintenance Training?" | Removed the statement from the PWS as it was not value added. |
| 7 | Attachment_1_ASSP_CLS_PWS_DRAFT.pdf | 3.1.9 | 6 | 3.1.9 Would the “up to four” bases outside of the original primary bases be an additional four bases, meaning potentially nine concurrently operating COMBS sites? | For pricing purposes, are the 5 COMBS bases the contract baseline? Would the "up to four bases" be a separate change proposal at a future date? Please provide clarification for consistency amongst bidders. | Removed the four bases statement and revised the sentances of 3.1.9 and 3.15.1 to correlate more closely. An RFP would be submitted for addictional COMBS facilities if required by the government. |
| 8 | Attachment_1_ASSP_CLS_PWS_DRAFT.pdf | 3.11.3 | 14 | PWS states "Flight hour status accounting and reconciliation shall be accomplished using the Logistics Installations Mission Support-Enterprise View (LIMS-EV)." | Please confirm LIMS-EV is an available system. | LIMS-EV is still operational, however BLADE will replace it at some point in the future. |
| 9 | Attachment_1_ASSP_CLS_PWS_DRAFT.pdf | 3.4.5.B | 7 | 3.4.5.B The Contractor shall deliver status reports on CNDs by base. Will the Government provide the monthly IMDS data required to create this report? | Please provide clarificaiton | Since repair contracts are between the contractor and thier repair vendors, CND's or Return Test OK (RETOK) data reports will be internally generated by the contractor. IMDS is not required for this pupose. |
| 10 | Attachment_1_PWS | 1.4.2 | 2 | Paragraph 1.4.2 states "The current number and locations of training devices is subject to change." | Recommend updating sentence within paragraph to “The current number and locations of training devices is subject to change amongst the 5 main operating bases." | Changed PWS para. 1.4.2 to the following: "The current number and locations of training devices may be subject to change; the T-38 PO or ATD PO will notify the contractor if changes are required." |
| 11 | Attachment_1_PWS | 5.12.2 | 30 | Recommend the following rewrite of PWS paragraph 5.12.2 |
| “The T-38 PO shall be notified in writing of any and all communications and/or meetings, as identified in PWS paragraph 3.5, and meeting minutes held with the T-38C ATD PO.” | Please update | The contractor should only have contact with the ATD office if it is T-38 Avionics and ASSP contract related, therefore the T-38 PO needs to be involved with any communication as it pertains to the ASSP contract. | |||||
| 12 | Attachment_1_PWS | 5.4.1 | 24 | Configuration control should be limited to the task orders under this contract. | Recommend clarifying configuration changes are limited to changes directed by the T-38 PO and ATD PO in performance of this contract. The following is proposed language for consideration: PWS 5.4.1 "Using MIL-HDBK-61B for guidance, the Contractor shall develop, implement and maintain a Configuration Management Plan (CMP) that describes how the T-38C configuration documentation is to be maintained as changes are directed by the configuration authorities, T-38 PO and ATD PO, to the contractor in performance of this contract...." | Govt. sees no need for verbiage changes and sees the TSSC red lines are in accordance ASSP PWS 5.4.1 and 7.1.3. As stated there is an over & above CLIN reimbursing contractor costs for future requirements | |
| 13 | Attachment_1_ASSP_CLS_PWS_DRAFT.pdf | 13.4.4 | 56 | Base support is not provided at Edwards AFB, CA. This is inconsistent with PWS table in 1.4.1. |
| Please update | Added Edwards AFB for FSR support. Holloman AFB requires no base support for facilities. FSR support is provided to Holloman AFB from another base per contractor control or direction (see PWS paragraph 3.14.1) | ||||||
| 14 | Attachment_1_PWS | Entire document | Multiple | Recommend changing any reference to Randolph AFB to JBSA Randolph | Please update | Updated to JBSA-Randolph AFB | |
| 15 | Attachment_1_PWS | Appendix G | 106 | Appendix G only references Aircraft Panels as GFP. Additionally, Appendix G states the list was "Last updated 11 April 2014" | Is there a more current list of GFE available? Also, is there additional GFE other than the Aircraft Panels? | GFE list has been verified and updated to 30 September 2024. | |
| 16 | Attachment_1_PWS | Appendix D | 107 | Recommend Contractor be responsible for maintaining a supply of two (2) Model IFF-701TI to ship to one of the identified main operating bases. | Please update | Added new column titled "Contractor Facility" and added 2) IFF 701-TI's. Also removed requirements from other bases. | |
| 17 | Attachment L | ||||||
| Attachment M | 3.2.6 | ||||||
| 2.2.4 | 10 | ||||||
| 7 | CMMI Level 3 aligns with the requirements of ISO9000 and AS9100. Recommend the following language in Section L and M be revised to state "To be acceptable, the Offeror shall identify industry level certifications that meet the intent of CMMI Level 3." | Please update | Revised Language in Sections L&M to CMMI, ISO 9001, and/or equivilency standards | ||||
| 18 | Attachment_1_PWS | 4.1.3 | 17 | Recommend the following rewrite of PWS paragraph 4.1.3 to better define the contractor requirement: | |||
| "The Contractor shall ensure that desktop/laptop applications listed in Appendix C are kept current and/or compatible with the latest versions of computer end-user operating environments released by the USAF and/or DoD such as USAF Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC) and Standard Desktop Configuration (SDC) or other future products as developed by the government for use on the DoD Network." | Please update | The DoD and USAF have moved to an Enterprise IT-as-a-Service (EITaaS) and Unified Endpoint Management (UEM) architecture. This includes significant changes in the operating environment (previously known as SDC). The new architecture for all end-point systems is complex and will be supported by new organizations and contractors moving forward. As these EITaaS services mature, legacy “SDC” and other environments will sunset. | |||||
| 19 | Section M | 1.1 | 1 | As the Air Force transitions it's training aircraft over the next decade, the T-38 enterprise will benefit by having a solid plan to mitigate upcoming risks. The upcoming T-38 ASSP acquisition provides a near-term opportunity for the Air Force to ensure your avionics contractor: 1) Has the required technical capabilities and a low risk management approach, including software and avionics engineering, training / simulators, and supply chain management and 2) Understands the implications of the upcoming fleet transition and has a credible plan mitigate associated risks. | Add the following statement: "Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price". | Technical is go/no go. There will be no changes to past performance/price tradeoff language in Section M. | |
| 20 | Section M | 2.1.3, 2.2., 2.3.1 & 2.3.2.3 | 3 | We recommend conducting a full trade-off using color ratings for the Evaluation Methodology Score (Blue/Purple/Green/Yellow/Red) for Technical Evaluation Factors. While prior contacts were primarily awarded using Acceptable/Unacceptable evaluation methodologies, more granularity may be required to help the Air Force navigate the next decade to not only ensure that the proposal meets solicitation requirements but reduces upfront burden and risk to the USG while demonstrating a through understanding of of Air Force needs. This allows the USG the ability to make a decision based on a better knowledge of the technical strengths the offeror can bring to the effort resulting in better contract performance. Acceptable/Unacceptable will level both offerors to a minimum performance ability. | We believe Technical subfactors should be scored based on this scale: | According to the Source Selection Authority, the government will not be evaluating offer's proposals based on tradeoff criteria for the technical subfactors. | |
| 21 | PWS | 3.16.2 | 17 | According to PWS paragraph 3.16.2, “vendor or supplier reported damage will not be considered”, so it is our understanding that unless the contractor notices and claims damage on a part while it is still at the COMBS facility (prior to the off-base repair facility inspecting the part), it will always be considered Failed, and the contractor is responsible for the cost of repair. Also, for any part to be considered Damaged, either the Government COR and/or the Government Program Office must concur that it is in fact damaged. | Please confirm this understanding. | The statement is correct | |
| 22 | PWS | A new development for a component could be required resulting from DMSMS issues or emergent capabilities, which is not availabe for delivery with Government Purpose Rights or Unlimited Rights. | Will the government consider a solution that does not provide data rights? | Yes, the government will consider a solution that does not provide Government Purpose or Unlimited Rights. |
Refer to PWS 3.7.7, and 3.7.8
| 23 | PWS | Appendix C | 99 | IMIS is mentioned in Appendix C of the PWS | Is this an incumbent SW system? | It's a hybrid. The govt. has unlimited rights to the IMIS Lite desktop portion. This application can be operated on any govt. or contractor computer. The contractor may be required to develop the SW and tools required to perform the data analysis. |
| 24 | PWS | 10.3 | 47 | Please clarify the requirement for meeting the issue rate of 95% parts in 30 minutes. | Is the 95% requirement based on a six month moving average with monthly data reported for information or is the requirement on a monthly basis with a six month moving average reported for information? | For the purpose of Contractor performance metrics the Government will utilize the 6-month moving average calculation. (CDRL A003) DI-MGMT-81928. |
| 25 | Will the Operational Requirements Document be posted? | The ORD is part of the Bidders Library | ||||
| 26 | Will the Government provide repair cycle times for parts (LRUs) required on this effort? | This information is part of the contractors business model and supplier agreements | ||||
| 27 | Section L | 8.1.7 | 40 | Contractor Agreements (ACAs), Letters Of Intent (LOI) signed by both parties | Will the Government provide the current repair and procurement vendor base for the parts (LRUs) required on this effort | The vendor list is contained in the ASSP PWS Group B parts list on pages 93-95 |
| 28 | Will past logistic metric data (MTBF) be provided to potential offerors? | The Government will not provide maintenance history by A/C tail, maintenance narrative, and base of assignment. MTBF for the LRU’s will be provided in the Bidders Library. | ||||
| 29 | Have COMBS stockage levels been adjusted to support current demand/forecasts and when was the last assessment performed? | The LRU/Consumable items stocked or maintained at each location is part of the current contractor’s business model. The Government does not have or require that data. | ||||
| 30 | Will the current technical data be made available to potential offerors? | Current Aircraft technical data is part of the bidder’s library and will be sent to the data custodian as identified on the contractor’s DD2345 form. | ||||
| 31 | What is the relationship between the T-38C incumbent contractor and the contractor who maintains the ATDs? | ASSP PWS 4.8.4 states "At award of contract, the Contractor shall collaborate with the ATD CLS contractor, ATD PO and the T-38 PO to establish an Associated Contract Agreement necessary to support their respective contracts." | ||||
| 32 | How are updates to the aircraft shared with ATD contractor? | ASSP PWS 5.4.1.D states "Update the Technical Data Package (TDP), and Engineering Drawings, for both aircraft and ATDs to reflect the current configuration. In addition, the aircrew training courseware must also be updated to reflect the current configuration" |
ASSP PWS 5.10.3 also states "Avionics design or sustainment changes that impact the ATDs must be coordinated with the ATD Program Office via the T-38 PO."
| 33 | Does the AF own the lab facility, trainer equipment? What portions of the lab are owned by the incumbent? Does the AF fully own the ATD located at the incumbents facility? | The Government owns the SIL and ATD located at the incumbents facility. Please refer to the GFP/GFE list provided in the Bidders Library. Also, see ASSP PWS 5.13 |
| 34 | Is the Contractors Logistic Support (CLS) portion of the contract only for Avionics? | Correct, only for T-38C Avionics |
| 35 | What data rights does the Government have? | Refer to ASSP PWS Appendix C, pg 96-101 |
image1.emf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .