Question_&_Answers.docx

F-22 HORIZONTAL STABILIZER FIXTURES

FA8224-19-R-A002

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Question:

Based on the RFP requirements (Technical and Management Proposal, Past Performance, and Cost Volume), please confirm the due date is 21 February 2019? Based on our past experience and to construct a technically acceptable proposal to meet the RFP requirements, historically, the response time is no less than 30 days. Would the government consider revising the due date to 30 days or more?

Answer:

The Solicitation Form 33 has been updated to reflect a closing date of 11 March 2019 at 11:00 am mountain standard time and this form has been re-posted to the Fed Biz Opps (FBO) website (www.fbo.gov) under solicitation notice FA8224-19-R-A002.

Question:

Statement of Work, Paragraph 5.5, Physical Configuration Audit. For Project Scheduling and cost purposes, where will the PCA be conducted? Hill AFB and/or contractor facility?

The intent for the PCA is to be conducted at the contractor’s facility.

Section L, Factor 3 – Past Performance. Paragraph 5.1.4. The Past Performance Information Sheet was not included in the RFP.

The Past Performance Information Sheet has now been posted to the FBO website.

Section L, Factor 3 – Past Performance. In order to address certain aspects of past performance, is it possible to identify and include any potential teammates past performance, if needed? If so, how will Past Performance be rated?

If there was relevant work done by your company as part of a team effort please identify your company’s role and contributions in the effort. All past performance will be rated in accordance with Section M paragraph 2.6.1.3.

Section B and Section F. The various lead-times and delivery schedules seem to be in conflict with the Statement of Work timeline.

For example, according to the SOW, the first 2 fixtures (Line Item 0001) shall be delivered within 120 calendar days from the leading event which is government approval of the CDR. Which calculated approximately 180 calendar days. However, Section B, Line Item 0001 states delivery to be 120 days after contract award, and Section F, Line Item 0001, states 120 calendar dates from date of lead time event (I assume CDR), however, it also includes date of award.

We are assuming the SOW calendar build-up with the various SSR, CDR, and other technical events should match the delivery schedules identified in Sections B and F. Please clarify!

The delivery schedule on the Solicitation Form 33 has been updated so that the delivery for CLIN 0001 is 180 days, CLIN 0002 is 240 days, CLIN 0003 is 300 days and CLIN 0004 is 360 days after date of award.

What type of media will be used to strip the existing paint/coatings?

Preptone SSG chemical softener, powered sander, hand sander

Per SOW paragraph 2.2.5, Safety/Ergonomics it identifies IAW AFI91-203. I attempted to download this specification from the Air Force E-Publishing site, however, the link is not working properly. Is it possible to get a copy of this specification? The Air Force E-Publishing link is: https://www.e-publishing.af.mil/?txtSearchWord=afi91-203&client=AFPW_EPubs&proxystylesheet=AFPW_EPubs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&output=xml_no_dtd&site=AFPW_EPubs.

On 11 December 2018 AFI191-203 was superseded by AFMAN91-203. The SOW has been updated to fix this reference. The updated SOW and the AFMAN91-203 have been posted to FBO.

Subfactor 1 - FACTOR ONE – System Description. Offeror shall provide a complete system description of the proposed fixture that meets the orientation capability requirements outlined in SOW Appendix B. Performance Specification paragraphs 2.1.5 and subparagraphs. Please define which subparagraphs? Through 2.1.5.3.2 or through 2.1.13 or through 2.2, Design and Construction through 2.2.5? Please clarify.

Subparagraphs through and including 2.1.5.3.2 (paragraphs: 2.1.5, 2.1.5.1, 2.1.5.2, 2.1.5.3, 2.1.5.3.1 and 2.1.5.3.2.)

To clarify the past performance NOTE. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.” So based on this explanation, no relevant or meaningful performance scored as “unknown” and “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable”. Please confirm.

Yes, for an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or information on past performance is not available or so sparse that a meaningful past performance rating cannot reasonably be assigned, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. Unknown past performance shall be considered “Acceptable.”

Should the fixture have a deck on it or should it be open?

A deck or platform is not a specific requirement. As long as all other requirements are met it can be made with a deck or without a deck. The goal, in accordance with the SOW, is to minimize the operational footprint while meeting all of the requirements.