PSI_Questions_Answers_2.pdf

Question Answer 1 Do you expect that this program will require handling of classified/secret data?

Yes, classified.

2 One challenge we are having is that several companies are stating that they already have IDIQs with the USG for the repairs on their items.

Can you provide a letter or something that can affirm to them that this repair contract will be put in place and that FMS assets for the listed items will be directed through it?

We understand that their repairs for US owned materials may still be run through their existing IDIQs but need something showing them that the intent of the USAF is for FMS assets to be flowed through this.

The government does not intend to provide a letter regarding this. The RFP, when released, should suffice to advise the intent of the USAF to use the contract as described in the applicable PWSs.

3 Would the government consider a lower minimum for the overall small business threshold since this contract will be managed by individual delivery/task orders?

The government will consider this request. Any reduction/change in the threshold will be issued in the official RFP release.

3a If not, would the government consider combining the first and second tiers into an overall goal of 30% over the life of the instant ordering period (3 years) of the contract?

The government will consider this request. Any reduction/change in the threshold will be issued in the official RFP release.

4 Would the government consider adding ISO 9001:2015/ AS9100:2016 and AS9110:2016 to the required Quality accreditations?

AS-9100 Currently listed in R&R para

2.2.1. ISO 9001 listed in R&R 3.1.1.

4b Could the government refer back to the Basic PWS from the PWS in Attachment 4 and 5 (E&TS and DMSMS respectively) for the Quality certification requirements?

Each PWS directs that the Basic be read with each individual PWS. All requirements in the Basic PWS apply to all other PWSs.

5 Can the government provide a list of Government Furnished Property (GFP) that the contractor is responsible for managing with the Final RFP?

All repairs coming through R&R are considered GFP and listed in each Order. There is no other GFP that will be provided or need to be managed.

6 R&R PWS Paragraph 3.5.1.2 states that the contractor shall be prepared to receive and process orders no later than 30 days after contract award (ACO). Can the government confirm that this 30 day grace period applies to all 3 PWS attachments? Contractor recommends that this paragraph be included in Attachment 2 - PWS Basic, replacing the current 3.3 paragraph requirement a for a 10-day response time.

Contractor also recommends that the 30-day period prior to FOC be considered a transition/phase-in period for all 4 PWS documents.

Yes, it applies to all three PWS attachments, but the first order will be an R&R requirement. The 10-day versus 30-day response are two different issues. The 30-day response is the initial response for transition period to the PSI contract. The 10-day response is regarding future responsiveness to Delivery orders.

Basic para 3.2-3.3, DMSMS para 1.6- 1.8, E&TS para 1.5-1.7 reworded to clarify.

30 calendar days is considered a transition/phase in for all PWSs.

PSI Draft RFP Q&A #2 Questions received through draft RFP Close

7 Attach 3 R&R PWS paragraphs 1.1.1 & 1.2.4.1 call out a R&R Repair table that was not included with the Draft RFP. Will the government provide this R&R Table prior to (or at a minimum with) the Final RFP?

This was added to the draft RFP on 9 February 23 as Attachment 9 PSI Repair Table.

8 Regarding Attach 3, R&R PWS Para 3.5.9.1, can the government provide the documents listed in the paragraph for CTS system compliance? Will the government allow ERP systems currently in place to satisfy this requirement?

The documents listed in R&R PWS Para 3.5.9.1 are CDRLs. All CTS requirements are listed in R&R PWS paras 3.5.9-3.5.11. This section has also been rearranged for clarity of system requirements.

Yes, ERP systems or any other system currently in place would satisfy the requirement as long as the system meets the identified requirements per R&R

PWS.

9 For Operational Flight Profile (OFP) or other components with software, will the government provide source code for the contractor in order to determine the software fix/corrections required?

This would be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

10 Attach 4, E&TS PWS Para 3.2, can the government correct the acronym for cost reimbursement from "CNRF" to "CRNF"?

Updated in PWS

11 Reference Section L; Paragraph II - Volume Organization. Paragraph 1 Sub-para 1.2 in Format Requirements states that 11X17 size pages can be used. Will the 11X17 page count as 1 or 2 pages?

The section says “Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations or spreadsheets may not be greater than 11”x17”, not that all pages can be 11x17. If used in that specific context, then it would be counted as 2 pages.

Clarification will be added to Section L.

12 Reference Section L; Paragraph II; sub-para 1.3 This section states that cover pages are included in the page count. Typically cover/title pages are excluded.

Can the government remove the Cover Page from page count restrictions?

Cover pages will not count toward total page count restrictions but shall be limited to ONE page per cover page.

One cover page is allowed per volume, totaling in four cover pages. Anything over one page per cover page will not be read.

Clarification will be added to Section L.

13 Ref Section L; Paragraph II; sub-para 1.7 The format requirements in this reference state that graphics and figures must be searchable. This may be problematic for graphic content which is pictorial in nature. Does this requirement only apply to the Figure/Graphic Title and Action Caption? Contractor recommends omitting this requirement from figure, pictures, and graphics.

Offeror is advised that if an answer to evaluation criteria is in a figure or graphic that is not searchable then the USG is not liable if that answer is missed. Offeror is encouraged to make every effort to make graphics and figures searchable. If unable to make a graphic or figure searchable, USG recommends a searchable descriptive title and/or description.

PSI Draft RFP Q&A #2

14 Reference Section L; Paragraph C.3.1.2 The end of this reference paragraph states "…..The process shall demonstrate the offeror's understanding of systems engineering and ability to work the whole process of a minor modification. Does the phrase "the whole process" include the installation of the part(s) on an aircraft using a field team?

Yes, the whole process will include installation. Wording has been added to Section L to clarify.

15 Would the government consider expanding the relevancy requirement for past performance from 3 to 5 years of prior contract work?

Government agrees to extend to 5 years

16 Reference Section L; Paragraph D.4.1.

For Past Performance submittals by Delivery Order, can the government confirm that this paragraph allows series submittal of DO(s) where the instant reparable part number changes, but repairs are for the same customer and type of effort (overall TO is consistent) and that these individual "part related" delivery work orders can be aggregated to show magnitude of the effort?

This is correct. With a submittal of a series of DOs they all must have the same continuous technical scope. This is defined as the same or similar type work. For example, Repairs on different PNs would still be repair work.

17 Will the contractor be penalized if, in good faith and to their best effort, the entities to which Past Performance Questionnaires were sent, do NOT respond despite tracking and encouragement from the bidder to send them directly to the government? Contractor poses that in the case of OCONUS/International contract performance, this may be an issue to get the return of these questionnaires.

Offeror will not be penalized if the entities to which the past performance questionnaires were sent do not respond despite the offeror’s best effort.

Clarification will be placed in Section L and M.

18 We understand the Attachment 9 listing is a sample and not intended to be all inclusive. Are there any F-16 components anticipated to be specifically excluded from this offering?

Attachment 9 is the full repair table to be utilized in this contract.

Attachment L-8 is the sample list utilized for evaluation purposes on the R&R sample task.

References to these will be corrected in documents.

19 Is attachment 9 the "Repair Table" that constitutes the composite listing of approved F-16 LRUs, SRUs and LRU/SRU components, Support Equipment and Alternate Mission Equipment recognized under the PSI contract across all participating FMS countries identified in Attachment 3 RR PWS?

Yes. The references to this document will be corrected.

20 We understand that the font size of 12 points is established in L-II.A.1.2. While this is normal for text, may the bidders use 9 point font in Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, or spreadsheets as this font size will make the annotations and content easier to evaluate in these non-text items.

Yes, however if spreadsheets in particular are too small to be readable by the evaluation team, then it may impact evaluation, make sure it is readable/clear.

21 Attachment L-6 states that the bidder is to fill in Column H but this column does not appear to be part of the table. Should this be column G?

Correct. Attachment has been corrected to reflect column G.

PSI Draft RFP Q&A #2

22 In addition to the summary matrix provided in L-6, may the bidders augment the matrix with a linear cross-reference section that details where individual L, M, and PWS requirements are addressed in the proposal?

If so, please correct the instructions in L-6.

No, L-6 shall not be modified by offerors.

23 May the offeror assume that since the executive summary (optional), Table of Assumptions/Exceptions are between the uncounted pages of Title Page, Table of Contents, and List of Drawings/Tables/ Graphs/Figures/Charts, that they are also uncounted?

Correct. Clarification has been added to Section L.

24 Section L.II.D.1 "List of all Offeror’s contracts with performance in the past five years..." requires us to submit and the Government to wade through many 100's of contracts. Additionally, some of these contract names are classified as are their associated customers.

Please consider restricting this list to "relevant" contracts.

This requirement has been removed.

25 Attachment 9 parts list: Will the government provide a bidder’s library with parts drawings and technical orders with repair information?

Awardee will be required to obtain access to TOs through obtaining an ETIMS and potentially a IDTODS account. TODO training and an account may also be required. Instructions on how to obtain needed accounts will be added to the PWS in the final RFP.

26 For the parts in attachment L-8 and 9, will the government provide the CAGE code, NHA and top level assembly information for the items on the parts list.

L-8: No, per Section L 3.1.1.1 the sample task includes the respondent being able to locate repair sources. Per R&R PWS the contractor will be responsible to locate and maintain the information in question.

27 Attach 3 PSI RR PWS Para 3.1.1 states that "The Contractor shall implement and conduct a quality assurance program in accordance with ISO-9001." and offers no flow-down flexibility for vendors using an ISO equivalent QMS.

Assuming the prime is expected to flow quality requirements to its repair vendors, where it states "ISO 9001", we suggest the USG add the following: "or equivalent quality management system such as AS- 9100". Restricting suppliers to only those with an ISO- 9001 certified QMS will restrict the prime's pool of potential sources of repair, possibly to the detriment of the USG.

The PWS wording has been updated to include “or equivalent quality management system such as AS-9100”

28 Will there be an industry day that will allow one-on-one meetings between the Government and the bidders?

No.

29 The government set the small business goal of 16% of the subcontracted amount. Please clarify that this goal

There will be no government direction for subcontractors. Small business

PSI Draft RFP Q&A #2 excludes any government directed large business subcontractors.

participation goal applies to the overall contract.

30 Attachment 2 Section 12.2 - CDRL Pick List - shows that we must provide a “performance and Cost Report".

Please clarify that this is expected for the cost reimbursable CLINs and does not apply to Firm Fixed Price CLINs.

Correct. A cost report CDRL would be expected only on a cost reimbursable CLIN. If an order is FFP it would not have the cost report CDRL.

31 Attachment 7 Paragraph II.A.1.3 says "The page limitations shall be treated as maximums and include any cover page..."

The TOC and Glossary were specifically excluded from the page count for Volume II. Are the Title pages, optional Executive Summary, Table of Assumptions/Exceptions, and List of Drawings/Tables/Graphs/Figures/Charts also excluded from the page count restriction on page 1, Section II.A, for Volume II? "

Cover pages (title page), Executive summary, list of drawings/tables/graphs/figures/charts are excluded from the page count restriction.

Table of Assumptions/Exceptions is included in the page count.

Clarification has been added to section L.

32 The RFP Attachment L-5 is in Adobe. Before filling in Section 1 and emailing it to the points of contact on the Past Performance Information Sheet, would the Government please allow offerors to convert the form to Word for making entries easier for the points of contact to enter data?

Attachment L-5 will be provided as a Word document in the RFP release for ease of use.

33 Attachment L-7, The instruction states the offerors are to populate the Excel Workbook showing the "Contract labor categories mapped to provided labor categories."

As there is no column designated for contract labor categories, please confirm that the Government will adjust the attachment for the final RFP.

Attachment L-7 will be attached in the final RFP.

34 Attachment L-6, The instruction states, "The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors), and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award)."

However, the matrix (Attach L-6) doesn't have columns for CLINs and CDRLs.

The notes under the matrix state, "If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over the matrix." However, the instruction also states, "No additional information will be included here other than what is requested."

Will the Government add the CLIN and CDRL columns, or will those columns not be required?

Those columns will not be required.

Clarification has been placed on Section L.

PSI Draft RFP Q&A #2

35 Attachment 7, The Section II.D.1 instruction states:

"List of all Offeror’s contracts with performance in the past five years" Since a large company might engage in hundreds or thousands of contracts during the last five years, would our interpretation, that the Government is referring to contracts only with relevant performance in the past five years, be correct?

This requirement has been removed

36 Attachment 7, Section II.D.1 asks for contracts within the last 5 years. However, Section II.D.3 notes the requirement for contracts is within the last 3 years. Are these two different requirements or should they be in alignment? If they should be aligned, does the Government wish to see relevant contracts within the past 3 or 5 years?

This requirement has been removed and section L has been modified for clarity.

37 Attachment 7, “Critical subcontractor” is not defined in R&R PWS 2.2.9. Please provide the definition of critical subcontractor for the purposes of this proposal.

Critical subcontractor is defined in Section L D.III.2. Reference has been corrected in section L.

38 Attachment 7, Does the Government intend for all four risks in the last sentence be addressed as part of the five the contractor identifies or just to pick at least one to identify?

Of the five (5) risks identified, at least one (1) shall mitigate one (1) of the following: relate to loss of source of repair, source of repair quality, source of repair schedule, or compliance with requirement.

Clarification has been added to section L.

39 If Offerors identify labor categories not listed in Attach L-7, which are required for performance of this work scope, are they allowed to add those additional categories?

No, Offerors shall not modify or add to the identified labor categories.

40 Attachment L-7, Recommend the Government add years of experience and educational requirements for the labor categories identified, to ensure equitable assessment of Offeror's costs.

Government will add this information to the labor categories in RFP release.

41 The provided CDRL package in Attach 1 and the CDRL Pick List do not align. Please clarify and/or adjust the two sets of CDRLS to align with the PWS documents.

CDRLs and references have been corrected.

42 Attachment 3, The paragraph references Section 3.5.1.1 (on page 12), which does not have a training requirement. Is this reference referring to paragraph be

3.5.10 on page 14?

Reference has been corrected.

43 3.5.5: "The contractor shall bear costs associated with PMR travel."

3.5.7: “Travel costs for PMR's shall be in accordance with FAR Part 31 and must be approved by the USG at least ten (10) days prior to departure.”

The bi-annual R&R Program PMRs are included in the admin fee.

Country specific PMR attendance will be funded by the requesting country.

Clarification and corrections have been made to the R&R PWS.

PSI Draft RFP Q&A #2

3.5.8: “In the event that the contractor is requested to attend an In-country PMR, the travel will be coordinated and funded by the requesting country program team.”

Please see the above-referenced paragraphs. There appears to be conflicting information on who will pay for PMR travel costs. Request clarification for these travel costs.

44 Will there be another Draft RFP release or industry day where we might get a better perspective on the overall contracting strategy and next steps?

No. RFI and Draft RFP are now complete. Next step is Final RFP

45 Does the gov’t plan to provide test equipment or is that 100% the responsibility of the contractor team? Is it the expectation that the supplier already has all the relevant test equipment for the list of parts?

It is entirely the responsibility of the contractor/repair sources. It is expected that the repair sources would have those repair capabilities and test capabilities already.

46 Would the work be done by the network of companies more than providing the work in house?

It depends on how the prime is planning to manage the workload. If the prime is the qualified repair source, then they would do the repair and testing. If they are subcontracting to complete the work, then those subcontractors would be required to have those capabilities.

47 Will there be GFE provided or funding for GFE and time to acquire said test equipment?

No. There will be no GFE or funding to obtain GFE. Repair sources are expected to have it in place.

48 Are there already relationships, pricing negotiations, etc. set up with the subs for whoever is the prime or is setting that up a prerequisite for bidding on this?

The prime will enter into agreements with the suppliers. The USG does not get involved with those subcontract agreements. USG does not identify any repair sources.

49 Repair sources can be OEM or some other third party source? Is there a list of repair sources that will be provided so the prime can create a relationship with each one?

Yes, repair sources can be the OEM or another qualified third-party source.

The Government will not provide a list of repair sources. It is up to the offerors to identify based on each asset, who the qualified suppliers are.

50 What should the contractor expect from the OEM from a support agreement?

That is between the OEM and the contractor to negotiate. USG does not get involved.

51 Can the contractor utilize existing relationships to ensure OEM support of their products?

If the contractor has existing relationships, feel free to capitalize on that.

52 How does the passthrough go? There is a qualified source, is there a set price with a surcharge that is negotiated by NSN as part of the proposal?

The R&R admin fee includes all prime contractor efforts to support the R&R program, excluding the actual repair costs. Attachment 9 is the parts list and will include approximately how many times they have been repaired in the last three years.

PSI Draft RFP Q&A #2

53 In terms of selection criteria, are the NSNs tied to some pre-negotiated price that the prime has with the suppliers? Does the contractor need to have all the pricing negotiated ahead of the proposal for the evaluations?

The repair cost will be done on a Cost Reimbursement No Fee CLIN. Cost of repairs will be based on actuals.

The R&R sample task is where the offeror is to take the list of items and identify qualified sources. There is no cost associated with specific repair costs in our evaluation at this point.

This provides a proof of concept that the offeror is able to go and find, and then establish relationships with those sources.

54 Why did the government elect to combine all 3 SOWs into one procurement? Would the government consider separating the R&R portion of the contract from the

DMSMS/E&TS?

The scope will not be separated. The efforts are interrelated, and we believe it is in the best interest of the government and our foreign partners to have one contract to fulfill these requirements.

55 The R&R PWS shows a requirement for past performance in product integration support. This capability is generally only attainable by original equipment manufacturers. Is the government looking for companies with past performance providing integration teams or can offerors provide a technical solution to meet this requirement? (capability vs past performance).

USG is not requesting any solutions at this time. There are no solutions needed for R&R, it is repair only. DMSMS and E&TS may require integration. Those tasks would come one at a time and full requirements would be outlined in the order itself. The past performance evaluation is not specific to product integration support. The past performance that is being requested should be related to any effort within the overall PSI effort.

56 Would the government consider removing the past performance requirement for this? If not, there will not be many offerors that have the ability to submit a compliant proposal, reducing competition and the government's ability to find a cost-effective solution for this requirement.

Is it required to show past performance for all the scope or for part of it?

Past performance will be part of the evaluation. Review Section M Paragraph D.5. This section states that if an offeror does not have past performance, they are rated neutral.

Their proposal would not be deemed non-compliant.

USG would be looking for experience in the entire scope of our effort. Or as much as the Offeror is able to provide.

57 Is this evaluation being done as best value or lowest price?

This is a best value source selection.

There will be a tradeoff decision to be made by the source selection authority and will be based on the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors as set out in section M. (Section M paragraph B.2).

58 We are tracking to business size standard 1200FT do you see that increasing, decreasing, or staying about the same?

This is full and open competition. It is not a small business set aside.

PSI Draft RFP Q&A #2