Questions_and_Responses_.pdf

1. To meet the government's RFP timeline and question limitation, will the government answer questions as they are received?

Answers will be posted after the question period ends in order to address all questions simultaneously.

2. The Performance‐based Work Statement indicates that there are 31 pages, however Page 29 of 31 is the last page available as posted. Can the government provide pages 30 and 31 and/or advise if the page numbering of the PWS is in error?

The final two pages were removed, as they were blank. According to the attachments section on page 39 of the solicitation, there are only 29 pages in the PWS.

3. AFMCI 21‐133 has been rescinded. We understand that this AFMCI has been incorporated into AFMCI 21‐101. Can the government confirm that AFMCI 21‐133 is the verified guidance to be followed?

If so, can the government provide the Air Force Materiel Command Instruction? Reference PWS Paragraph 1.2.1.

The PWS will be updated accordingly by RFP Amendment.

4. Chapter 13 of the Logistics Requirement Determination Process (LRDP) Handbook identifies the Engineering Requirement Development Package (ERDP) as a development package "paper" form. Can the government confirm that the requirement is to document using this paper form? Reference PWS Paragraph 1.2.2.

Please reference PWS Paragraph 4.5.2 and 4.5.3.1. The ERDPs shall be developed and housed within the developed DMI tool.

5. Will the Government provide workspace at WR‐ALC Robins Air Force Base for all required contractor personnel, as well as government provided workspace at other USAF locales as determined by the government? Reference PWS Paragraph 5.3 ‐ Place of Performance This statement was included to address that Contractor personnel may have to come to WR‐ALC on an intermittent basis for any of the PWS requirements but not require a workspace. Therefore, no workspace will be provided on Robins AFB for contract performance.

6. Can the Government further define the travel requirements for the program such that an accurate estimate can be provided? If not can the Government provide a dollar figure to utilize for travel to ensure that all offers are evaluated consistently? Reference PWS Paragraph 4.4 ‐ Travel Updates and clarifications have been made to the PWS and CLIN structure.

7. Can COTS software (i.e. Oracle, MS SQL, etc.) be proposed to improve schedule and performance, as well as reduce costs and risk to the project?

The mentioned COTS software of Oracle, MS SQL, etc. are considered prerequisite software that will be required to be loaded on the Government servers and separate from the delivered source code for the developed DMI tool since it is the backend software to run most database software.

8. If COTS software is allowed, can an ODC CLIN be added to each period for the initial cost of the software and software maintenance?

No

9. If COTS is allowed, will the standard End User License Agreement (EULA) offered by the software provider be sufficient to meet the Government ownership provisions of paragraph 4.5.3.1?

Please reference Question 7. The developed DMI tool and delivered source code must be government owned. The Government already either has licenses or the software is already approved for use on government servers and would require the purchase of licenses. However, the source code to developed DMI tool shall be government owned.

10. Is there a current contract and incumbent for the F‐15 MSG‐3 effort, and if so, what is the contract number, date awarded, and award amount? If not, is there an existing contract for a similar effort, and if so, what is the contract number, date awarded, and award amount?

There have been no previous F‐15 MSG‐3 efforts. There are no existing F‐15 contracts for a similar effort.

11. Is there an expected number of hours of training and number of persons to be trained associated with PWS Para 4.5.1.8, and if so, what are those numbers?

Please reference PWS Para 4.5.1.8. Within the SPO, approximately 40 people will need to be familiarized with MSG‐3 and the DMI tools. When the four bases listed within PWS Para 4.4 are visited for training, approximately 20 maintainers will be present off and on throughout the visit. Depot training will be similar in nature to the field but longer due to PDM having more tasks.

12. PWS para. 4.5.1.7, “Integration of MSG‐3 Program with the Aircraft and Missile Requirements (AMR) Process”, references transition of the new MSG‐3 maintenance program into the AMR work spec and brochure. Can you provide a copy of the current AMR brochure and work spec or direct us to a source for the same?

The F‐15 AMR Brochure and Work Spec cannot be provided until after award. The information required for the deliverables associated with this requirement can be found in PWS Para 4.5.1.7, which closely resembles the information in the current Brochure and Work Spec with exception of the AMR task numbers and hours associated with each task.

13. The PWS stipulates that Framemaker version 7 or greater will be used. The current approved Framemaker version is Framemaker V11. Given that the new Common Source Database (CSDB) capabilities have been implemented for newer versions of Framemaker (EMC Documentum, Sharepoint and Adobe) specific implementation, which of these CSDB's is the F‐15 currently using?

F‐15 TOMA sustains F‐15 Technical Orders using Framemaker Version 11, which in turn generates a PDF for the official copy. Yes, an editable file would be needed to make updates the Technical Orders that will be developed and/or updated.

14. Who owns or leads the ERR Program ‐ the customer or the contractor?

The Government owns the ERR Program with Contractor support.

15. Does this last only the duration of the contract or is it a long‐term ongoing program?

Only the duration of the contract.

16. Are defects documented on the routine "Work Cards" or on a different "Non‐Conformance" or "Non‐Routine" or "Discrepancy" document?

AFTO 173 cards are created for all discrepancies that are worked at PDM.

4.5.2 All inspections and tasks within the preventive maintenance plan to be performed at the depot level shall have an ERDP developed and housed within the F‐15 Engineering Requirements Review Database.

17. Statement applies to "All inspections and Tasks." not only those derived from MSG‐3 analysis effort.

Need to clarify if contractor will need to develop ERDP packages for non‐MSG‐3 tasks or not. All operators have tasks they perform that are not derived from MSG‐3 analysis ‐ these are usually a regulatory requirement or a business decision (company convenience) the operator chooses to do along with other scheduled MX.

Yes, there will be non‐MSG‐3 tasks that will need ERDP packages developed as well.

4.5.2 The Contractor shall ensure there is no more than 5% deviation from the ERDP development and review performed by the Contractor each month to support the annual 20% ERR goal. Contractor shall ensure at least 95% of analyses are completed on time in accordance with the COR approved schedule.

Electronic copies of each developed ERDP shall be included with the report. (CDRL A002, DI‐MISC‐ 80711A/T, Scientific and Technical Report)

18. Stated ERDP goal is unclear, i.e., "5%" of what? Please clarify.

Ensure there is no more than a 5% deviation from the ERDP review schedule.

19. What is the "20% ERR Goal?" ‐ 20% of what? Please clarify.

Please reference the LRDP Handbook attachment within the PWS. The requirement set within the LRDP Handbook is to have all PDM tasks reviewed once every 5 years with an annual goal of completing a 20% review. All PDM tasks within the developed preventive maintenance shall have an ERDP developed within this contract's period of performance.

4.5.3.1 To address deficiencies in scheduled maintenance requirements capabilities, the Contractor shall engineer a tool that is Government owned and addresses these major issues in maintenance requirements management. The Contractor shall engineer a data management tool that facilitates scheduled maintenance requirements for F‐15 aircraft. The tool shall:

1. Provide the ability for the F‐15 scheduling team to identify, schedule and maintain scheduled maintenance requirements for all F‐15 aircraft. Tool shall allow easy traceability from maintenance write‐ups to tasks.

2. Utilize standardized maintenance requirement processes i.e., FMECA's, FMEA's, etc. and methods to support scheduled maintenance requirements of all F‐15 aircraft.

3. Scheduled requirements tool must consider recommendations from other R&M resources and offer seamless transition of data.

4. Provide reporting tools that offer quick, easy, and accurate review of all scheduled maintenance activities by system, aircraft zone, inspection level, inspection type, and ERDP at a minimum.

5. Provide the ability for future MSG‐3 analysis to be conducted and already developed analysis to be updated.

6. Tool shall provide two‐way traceability between analysis and developed tasks.

7. Scheduled requirements requiring an ERDP will be developed, stored, and updated within the tool.

20. Sounds as though USAF is basically asking for a Maintenance Program Management System (Software). Has the government considered acquisition of a COTS software tool for MX Program Management as opposed to a new one coded from scratch?

Yes, the government has considered acquisition of a COTS software tool but the tool will need to be government owned.

4.5.4 The Contractor shall provide engineering data developed during the course of the MSG‐3 assessment and analysis. (CDRL A001, DI‐MGMT‐80368A, Status Report) (CDRL A002, DI‐MISC‐80711A/T, Scientific and Technical Report)

21. Does the contractor have rights to the use and distribution of the engineering data developed (MSG‐3 resulting tasks and intervals) under this contract (Task descriptions and intervals) or does the Gov't retain exclusive rights?

Please reference the CDRL distribution statement.

22. CLINs 0003, 1003 and 2003, Travel, are designated as “Firm Fixed Price (FFP)” CLINs and Section M states all CLINs which are FFP will be included in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

Question: The FAR reference (FAR 31.205‐46 and FAR 31.2) requires travel to be reimbursed which would indicate the travel CLINs are better served as Cost Reimbursable with the Government including a single estimated costs which would be the same for all offeror’s. Request the government consider designating the travel CLINs as other than Firm Fixed Price and not include travel CLINs in the TEP.

Reference FAR 12.207(a): “Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, agencies shall use firm‐ fixed‐price contracts or fixed‐price contracts with economic price adjustment for the acquisition of commercial items.” (Paragraph b refers to time‐and‐materials and labor‐hour contracts, neither of which are applicable to this requirement.) No change will be made on this basis.

23. Reference paragraph 4.5.3.1 ‐ Requirement #3, R&M resources have a couple of definitions. Can the government please define what is meant by R&M resources and provide examples (i.e. name a system that is considered R&M) for possible data exchanges?

A Reliability and Maintainability (R&M) data resource is REMIS.

24. The RFP appears to be silent on the requirement for font size specifically for charts, graphs, or spreadsheets (Instructions to Offerors page 46 para. B(2)). Will the government accept a font size smaller than 12 for diagrams, illustrative graphics, charts, graphs, and spreadsheets?

A font size of 10 point is acceptable for diagrams, illustrative graphics, charts, graphs, and spreadsheets.

25. Will the government extend the RFP question timeframe beyond Friday, 13 June 2014? Often, the question and answer (Q&A) process is iterative, with the answer to one question prompting follow‐on question(s). Given that the Q&A period closes today and initial offeror questions have yet to be answered, extension of this period will better resolve offeror questions and enable preparation of higher quality proposals.

No.

26. Will the government extend the RFP due date beyond Monday, 30 June 2014? Approximately two weeks remain of the RFP development period. Offeror proposals could significantly change pending the government's responses to their questions. Commensurate with a Q&A period sufficient to clarify all questions, extension of the RFP due date will enable more accurate responses to RFP requirements and yield higher quality proposals.

An extension of proposal submission has been posted.

27. Can you identify what “other programs” besides MS Excel and MS Project?

Not at this time other than stating similar COTS software.

4.5.1.2 The Contractor shall remain within two business days of schedule parameters set forth in the IMS unless revised. If revised, the Government must agree and then the Contractor should be held to the same four‐business day standard described.

28. Please clarify, (there seems to be a conflict as written) is the margin 2 business days or 4 business days?

The PWS will be updated in Amendment 2.

4.5.1.3 For Mechanical Equipment and Subsystems Integrity Program subsystems, the conducted MSG‐3 analysis shall reference the fully developed Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA).

29. Are the FMECAs already completed or is the contractor responsible to "fully develop" them?

MECSIP FMECAs are already developed.

30. If these are existing FMECAs, how many are there?

Approximately 2200 FMECAs

31. If these are existing FMECAs, were they prepared using a "Hardware" or "Functional" analysis approach?

Functional

32. If these are existing FMECAs, and they were prepared using a "Functional" approach, what standard were they prepared to (i.e. MIL‐STD‐1629A, Task 101, para. 3.2 or MSG‐3 2‐3‐2, or some other standard)?

NAVAIR 00‐25‐403 Manual and MIL‐STD‐3034

4.5.1.3 Any gaps in the FMECAs shall be denoted and presented to the client.

33. What is the consequence of a gap which impacts the ability of the contractor to complete the MSG‐ 3 analysis? Is this all "Over and Above?"

FMECA gaps should be addressed while conducting MSG‐3 analysis for the F‐15 and developed as a result of the MSG‐3 process.

4.5.1.3 The Contractor shall also be required to perform MSG‐3 analysis on new systems added to the aircraft by modification, and remove MSG‐3 analysis and accompanying inspection requirements for systems removed from the aircraft.

34. PWS states "remove MSG‐3 analysis…” We understand moving the inspection requirement but not sure what is meant by moving the MSG‐3 analysis. Could you please clarify?

If during the course of this contract an aircraft modification is made, the system/subsystem affected will possibly need to have its analysis archived/removed/updated.

4.5.1.3 The Contractor shall utilize the Airlines for America’s (A4A) MSG‐3 documents and the PPH to conduct the analysis, while specifically using Mil‐Std 1530C for Aircraft Structural Integrity Program analysis in addition to the A4A MSG‐3 documents.

35. Does the use of MIL‐STD‐1053C apply solely to the Fatigue Damage (FD) portion of MSG‐3 Structures analysis? ‐ or does it also apply to the Accidental Damage (AD), Environmental Damage (ED), or Corrosion Prevention and Control Program (CPCP) portions as well?

Based on previous experience other weapon systems have had, MIL‐STD 1530C has been applied to the Fatigue Damage portion mainly but that’s not to say it cannot be used in the other areas mentioned.

36. In a case where there arises a conflict between MSG‐3 Structures analysis and MIL‐STD‐1503C, which specification prevails?

MIL‐STD 1530C

4.5.1.3 Analysis requires the Contractor maintain membership with Airlines for America (A4A), formerly known as ATA in order to ensure timely updates to the MSG‐3 logic flow, at the time of proposal submission and throughout the entire period of performance.

37. It is our understanding that only US Airlines can currently hold membership in A4A. Could you verify the requirement for the contractor to be a member? There is a Maintenance Program Industry Group ‐ MPIG) which authors and revises the A4A MSG‐3 document. Boeing currently chairs the MPIG. If Boeing is our subcontractor is this sufficient?

The A4A membership requirement will be removed since A4A does not recognize associate memberships anymore. This change is denoted in Amendment 2.

38. Is the government aware that the current MSG‐3 document, Rev 2013.1, is available for sale to A4A members and non‐members alike?

See: https://publications.airlines.org/CommerceProductDetail.aspx?Product=176 <https://publications.

airlines.org/CommerceProductDetail.aspx?Product=176%20%20%20> Yes.

39. Is the government aware that the MSG‐3 document is not frequently revised (updated) ‐ typically once every two years or so? (The PPH will typically describe which version of MSG‐3, by revision date, will be used for the analysis. The PPH and analyses are not typically updated if an MSG‐3 revision is released while analysis is underway, rather the version used to start the analysis will be used throughout the analysis effort as agreed in the PPH.)

Yes.

4.5.1.3 The analysis shall be conducted in two phases with the Base Year conducting the systems, power plants, and lightning/high intensity radiated field analysis and Option Year 1 conducting analysis on the aircraft structures. Option Year 1 will also be used to conduct the MSG‐3 zonal analysis and compile all complete analysis into a maintenance plan suitable for TO publication. (CDRL A002, DI‐MISC‐80711A/T, Scientific and Technical Report)

40. Is it the intent that the analysis include powerplants in their entirety or just the interface aspects to the airframe and systems?

The intent is just the interface aspects to the airframe.

41. Systems/Power‐plant and L/HIRF analysis for two platforms (F‐15C/D and F‐15E) in 9 months (30 days for IMS, 30 days to train USAF, Systems report due 30 days before end of base year)? That's likely 320 MSI's and 100‐200 LHSI's in the base year assuming 2 platforms (C/D and E). Is USAF staffed to be able to support the exceptionally large volume of analysis review and working group meeting/discussion activity this would entail? (MSG‐3 analysis usually occurs over a 2‐3 year period with Systems/Powerplant, Structures, Zonal, and L/HIRF analysis running concurrently ‐ with each of the 4 teams comprised of different people in order to support the working group meeting schedule and material review required.)

Yes, the government is staffed to support the reviews.

4.5.1.3 For MSG‐3 analysis, no more than two individual analyses, performed by the Contractor each month, shall be rejected by the COR for feasibility and/or reliability enhancement of the aircraft once the working groups have approved the analysis.

42. How is the Gov't defining "Individual Analysis?" ‐ Is that one analysis per Maintenance Significant Item (MSI), Structural Significant Item (SSI), Lightning/High‐Intensity Radiated Field (L/HIRF) Significant Item (LHSI), or aircraft Zone?, or one per failure mode, or something else?

Individual analysis is defined as a zone or subsystem with the applicable MSIs, SSIs, FHSIs, and etc.

grouped within each analysis.

43. Per MSG‐3, subject matter experts (SMEs) from both the contractor (OEM/Supplier role) and the government (Operator/Regulator role) will comprise the working groups which by consensus will approve the MSG‐3 analysis. The working groups will perform and/or vet the analysis per the procedures agreed to by all parties via the PPH. What objective basis would the government's COR use to override and reject the analyses of the contractor and the government's own SMEs with respect to feasibility and/or reliability enhancement after the fact? (The intent of MSG‐3, and a specific reason for its success, is that decisions are made by the consensus of all parties with everyone present and participating in the discussion. A third party with veto power, far removed from and not participating in the actual discussions, deciding suitability after the fact is not a recognized aspect or practice of MSG‐3.)

After the working groups have completed the reviews and the deliverables provided, not all changes requested by the groups may not have been incorporated in the deliverables.

44. Why would the government's evaluation of the contractor's performance be contingent upon disagreement between government's own SMEs and its CORs?

After the working groups have completed the reviews and the deliverables provided, not all changes requested by the groups may not have been incorporated in the deliverables.

4.5.1.3

The report shall also compare current scheduled maintenance tasks to the MSG‐3 developed tasks, while documenting the projected efficiencies that can be achieved with implementing the MSG‐3 maintenance plan.

45. Our costing assumption is that all “current scheduled maintenance tasks” are identified in the current ‐6 TOs and the respective FSMPs, Is this correct?

No, the current PDM Work Specifications have additional requirements that are not in the 1F‐15A/E‐6 Technical Orders or the respective FSMPs. Currently, there are approximately 400 PDM tasks, not including most of the Hourly Post‐flight Inspections in the 1F‐15A/E‐6.

4.5.1.3.5.1 The Contractor shall leverage the existing C‐5 WR‐ALC Maintenance Database to engineer the F‐15 Maintenance Database for the designated weapon system.

46. Can the Government provide a detailed description of the layout, content, and schema of the C‐5 WR‐ALC Maintenance Database?

The C‐5 IDE is a modularized web‐based SQL database on a Government server, which hosts several application modules all sharing a common back‐end database populated via data feeds from multiple legacy systems. The system is approved to operate in a .mil environment with the Authority to Operate (ATO) and Authority to Connect (ATC) already in place.

4.5.1.6 The Contractor shall participate as a member of a Maintenance Program Integrated Product Team (MPIPT) or MPO‐based upon the proven MPO processes used in the commercial aviation industry.

47. Can USAF provide some clarity regarding their vision for this team ‐ methods, roles and responsibilities? (This would be very helpful in determining our approach and aid in preparing a detailed SOW. We have some good ideas in this space but would like to better understand USAF's vision.)

The specific methods, roles and responsibilities have not been identified yet other than stating what it should accomplish and the support needed. The FAA guiding document for CASS should be utilized.

4.5.1.6

(1) Ensure maintenance tasks are accomplishing their primary intent and the assigned interval is appropriate through analysis of maintenance data and associated task tracking numbers;

48. Does the current USAF PDM maintenance recording system permit recording the routine maintenance task which resulted in the discovery of the discrepancy/nonconformance? (In order to perform this type of analysis ("Non‐Routine Analysis") the defects noted as discrepancies must be tied back to the originating MX program task. The discrepancy's record and the MX recording system must provide a field in which to document the originating task.)

The MWR system USAF PDM uses ties each discrepancy/nonconformance write‐up to an operation number. The operation number can be traced to a Work Specification Code, which is linked to a Task Number.

4.5.1.7 The Contractor shall provide all technical data necessary to facilitate the transition of the new MSG‐3 maintenance program into the AMR Brochure/Work Spec as directed.

49. Please elaborate the government's specific meaning of "all technical data" and "as directed" in this context.

The information required for the deliverables associated with this requirement can be found in PWS Para 4.5.1.7, which closely resembles the information in the current Brochure and Work Spec with exception of the AMR task numbers and hours associated with each task. This information covers “all technical data” for this requirement and “as directed” was included for possible additional information that may be needed or at different times throughout the PoP.

4.5.1.8 The Contractor shall initiate a comprehensive training program to ensure successful implementation and acceptance of the program, as directed .

50. Please elaborate the government's specific meaning of "as directed" in this context.

The Government will possibly need to provide some input on the content, amount of training, personnel to be trained, and etc.

51. Who is to be trained?

System Program Office personnel and maintenance personnel (civilian and military) at a minimum will need to be trained.

52. Is this training Ongoing or One‐Time?

Ongoing during the PoP at WR‐ALC and other Air Forces Bases as specified.

53. To what degree or standard are personnel to be trained?

Assume no one being trained has experience with MSG‐3.

54. Are the US Gov't members who will make up the working groups already trained and experienced in all types of MSG‐3 analysis, or will initial training need to be accomplished by the contractor?

No Government members have experience in MSG‐3, only RCM.

55. How many contractor employee positions will be supportable on base for this effort during the Base, Option One, and Option Two years?

Zero.

56. Solicitation incorporates by reference FAR 52.212‐1, FAR 52.212‐4, FAR 52.212‐3 and FAR 52.212‐5 are attached. Addenda. While the clauses are available at the FAR website, does the Government intend to post these clauses as an addenda with the solicitation since FAR 52.212‐5 would identify the FAR clauses for which the contractor shall comply?

No. As stated in block 27a, the referenced clauses/provisions are incorporated by reference and must be adhered to. No additional clause addenda is attached in the solicitation.

57. Since PWS sections 4.4, 4.15 and 4.15.1 all address the need for contractor travel but do not specify the travel requirements, (1) how will the Government determine price reasonableness among all offerors as each offeror establishes its “Firm Fixed Price” for travel, and (2) as travel is reimbursable, shouldn’t the contract include FAR 52.216‐7 Allowable Cost and Payment?

1. Further clarification has been made to the travel requirements.

2. Wording has been changed to avoid confusion, but as the CLIN is Firm Fixed Price, FAR 52.216‐7 does not apply. Please see the prescription located within the clause itself. The wording has been changed on the solicitation to avoid confusion.

58. While the Firm Fixed Price CLINs are identified as a Quantity of 1 with a U/I of LO (or Lot), for purposes of submitting invoices via WAWF, will the contract be structured such that the Firm Fixed Price for an annual performance period be stated as payable in twelve equal monthly amounts?

The billing instructions have been updated to clarify this. Please see Amendment 2.

59. When referring to “providing application maintenance support of existing applications”, what existing applications currently used require contractor maintenance support?

Leveraging the existing C‐5 applications will require maintenance support.

60. Do you plan for the Integrated Data? Environment to be hosted on the Government‐owned servers and on the Government network?

Yes

61. What does the letters “LI” refer to?

PWS has been updated and reference removed.

62. Does the Government intend to establish and fund a separate contract line item for such purchases, and would the purchased equipment and/or material represent Contractor Acquired Property with title vesting with the Government?

PWS has been updated and reference removed.

63. How much travel do you anticipate? Number of days away?

Please reference updated PWS Paragraph 4.4 and the Travel SubCLINs located on Amendment 2.

64. Will contractors have the ability to use the existing data base (modify application), or does leveraging just imply use of ideas (functionality, data contents) gained from viewing the data base?

Contractors will have the ability to use the existing database to make modifications. C‐130 and C‐5 are using the same database. They have a CCB process to keep changes in both systems moving in the same directions and possibly add to the baseline configuration.

65. What version of Windows Server and release version is running on the F‐15 production server and database server and are there expected plans to upgrade?

2008 is the oldest with newer ones available.

66. What version of MS Access is running on the F‐15 production server and database server and are there expected plans to upgrade?

2007 & No

67. Is MS SQL currently running on the F‐15 production server and database server? If so, what version and release number is in use and are there any plans to upgrade?

Yes, the 2008 version is running.

68. What version of Microsoft SharePoint is running on the F‐15 production server and database server and are there expected plans to upgrade?

2007 & No

69. What is the policy and frequency for backing up production database applications?

Nightly

70. What is the policy for data recovery in the event of corrupted or lost data?

This is PM directed and software dependent.

71. Is there a development server/environment at Robins AFB for DMI database application development?

Yes

72. Are all locales confined to the contiguous United States?

Yes

73. The TRAVEL CLINs stipulate Firm Fixed Price (Base, Option 1, Option 2). Is it the Government’s intent to include TRAVEL in the total evaluated price as a firm fixed price? In addition, please confirm Travel will be reimbursed on a cost reimbursable basis, however, because the TRAVEL CLINs are Firm Fixed Price, the Contractor’s final invoice for each Period of Performance (Base, Option 1, Option 2) may bill up to the TRAVEL Firm Fixed Price ceiling.

Yes, Travel will be included in the TEP as a Firm Fixed Price. The Travel CLINs and Sub‐CLINs are all Firm Fixed Price, not Cost Reimbursable, please see the CLIN structure on the RFP, particularly Amendment 2 for clarification. Invoices may be submitted by Sub‐CLIN after travel is completed.

74. In PWS Paragraph 1.1, the Government implies that the project includes the “maintenance program for the F‐15 fleet…” Will the Government please clarify that the requirements include all mission design series including C, D, and E models?

All MDSs are to be included.

75. PWS section 4.3.3 states “the contractor may be required to purchase equipment and/or material the accomplishment of the objectives/tasks of this PWS. The requirement for purchases and availability of funds must be identified and approved by the COR, prior to purchase.” Question: If the contractor anticipates a requirement for purchasing equipment/material, is the contractor required to include the anticipated cost within the proposal submission? If so where should it be documented? Currently, there is no ODC CLIN in the RFP document.

PWS has been updated and reference removed.

76. On page 47, paragraph 3b of the RFP instructions it states the Total Compensation Plan (TCP) must be limited to 4 pages. Since this RFP does not require a formal cost proposal which would contain much of the supporting detail required to support or assess a TCP, can the page limit be increased to 10 pages to ensure respondents have the space to address the requirements in FAR 52.222‐46?

Yes, see Amendment 2.

77. Can the Government provide documentation, such as user manuals, source code, architecture diagrams, etc., for the currently in use government owned C‐5 WR‐ALC Maintenance Database (PWS 4.5.1.3.5.10) application to provide insight into system architecture and technologies to be leveraged to support F‐15 requirements? This documentation will enable prospective bidders to understand the scope and scale of the integration efforts required.

The C‐5 IDE is a modularized web‐based SQL database on a Government server, which hosts several application modules all sharing a common back‐end database populated via data feeds from multiple legacy systems. The system is approved to operate in a .mil environment with the Authority to Operate (ATO) and Authority to Connect (ATC) already in place.

78. Given the unknown state of development requirements for integration of the C‐5 WR‐ALC Maintenance Database into the F‐15 MSG‐3 program, is the government willing to consider proposals that include a Level of Effort for requirements definition, then a fixed price effort for modification/development of DMI applications?

No. The current C‐5 IDE is currently on the production server and will require minor changes to be leveraged.

79. Is it the government’s expectation that development or enhancements to baseline C‐5 WR‐ALC Maintenance Database application will be merged with current baseline or operated as an independent instance, e.g., there will be two separate software configuration items, one for C‐5 and one for F‐15?

Contractors will have the ability to use the existing database to make modifications. C‐130 and C‐5 are using the same database. They have a CCB process to keep changes in both systems moving in the same directions and possibly add to the baseline configuration.

80. In PWS paragraph 4.5.3.5, will development and/or testing and integration environments for DMI be made available by the Government or is it expected that non‐productions environment will be contractor owned/operated?

Government severs will be made available.

81. In PWS paragraph 4.5.3, will the F‐15 Program Office allow for Contractors to have access to the C‐5 WR‐ALC Maintenance Database that is to be leveraged for DMI from off‐site locations to the Warner Robins servers by use of RSA token, or approved certificate authority, or similar technologies to access to Air Force networks from non‐Air Force sites?

The database is setup to be used inside the .mil network and is Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) enabled with HW, SW, Policies, Procedures, Tokens, and etc. approved and in place to authenticate identities and protect information through the use of unique digital certificates and key pairs.

82. In PWS paragraph 4.5.3, will the Government consider other more cost effective or capable solutions, instead of the C‐5 WR‐ALC Maintenance Database, to fulfil the requirements for DMI that are not hosted within Robins hosting environment, but are certified and accredited and accessible through Air Force networks?

Yes as long as it is government owned and another contractor is able to sustain it in a follow‐on contract.

83. In PWS paragraph 4.5.3, if the DMI Database is hosted within the Robins hosting environment, who is responsible for ongoing maintenance and certification and accreditation of those servers?

The hosting environment maintains the servers.

84. In PWS paragraph 4.5.3, will the contractor be required to adhere to existing development/deployment process or does the Government desire a separate independent process be proposed?

The contractor will be required to adhere to existing EITDR and C&A processes.

85. PWS Para 1.2.2 indicates that the Engineering Requirements Review (ERR) Program is only at the depot, WR‐ALC and KAL. Is this accurate? Will there be no ERR activities for places other than these two places?

Paragraph 1.2.2 states the following, “…Accomplishing ERRP ensures all new and existing tasks performed during Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) by WR‐ALC and Korean Air Lines (KAL) are engineering justified with supportability elements identified upfront so the task can be performed as scheduled.” The LRDP Handbook currently states the ERRP is only for tasks performed at depot, e.g.

WR‐ALC and KAL for F‐15.

86. PWS Para 1.2.3: Requires “…providing application maintenance support of existing applications, updating all supporting documentation…” What are these applications?

Leveraging the existing C‐5 WR‐ALC Maintenance Database will require support.

87. PWS Para 1.2.3 Requires “…DMI activities shall be integrated into a web‐based Integrated Data Environment (IDE)…” Are the existing systems all web based or is this a new requirement?

Yes, they are web based.

88. PWS para 4.5.2 Requires that “…All inspections and tasks within the preventive maintenance plan to be performed at the depot level shall have an ERDP developed and housed within the F‐15 Engineering Requirements Review Database…” Is this an existing data base? Is it web based? Is all software current in EITDR and compliant with C&A? Is Authority to Connect (ATC) and Authority to Operate (ATO) current? Is there a requirement for the C‐5 WR‐ALC Maintenance Database that the F‐15 MSG‐3 Program will leverage?

No, there is not an existing F‐15 database. Please reference paragraph 4.5.3.1, item 7 for the requirement to have a tool developed to develop, store and update ERDPs.

89. PWS para 4.5.2 is a Base and Option Year 1 Task with Updates As Required in Option Year 2 and it requires “… Revise work cards to comply with TO revisions…” However PWS para 4.5.1.4 requires Standard Visual Work Cards (SVWC) as an Option Year 2 Task. Are each of these paragraphs describing different workcards, i.e., para 4.5.2 is describing updates to existing Air Force ‐6 workcards, whereas the SVWC requirements are defined in 4.5.1.4? Does 4.5.2 refer to Air Force ‐6 workcards only? When does the Government require SVWC to be developed?

The MPIPT and ERR program shall be set up so work cards can be revised to comply with TO revisions.

The referenced work cards are the SVWCs developed in Option Year 2 and current 1F‐15A/E‐6WC TOs that may need to be changed as a result of the analysis.

90. In PWS paragraph 4.5.2 requires workcards to comply with TO revisions. Who will be responsible for TO changes? How will these changes be communicated to work card developers? Can the Government provide an estimate of how many different SVWC are to be developed, including an estimated number of pages expected?

The contractor will be responsible for providing the changes. The number of SVWCs developed will be contingent upon the number of tasks performed at PDM as a result of the MSG‐3 analysis. Currently, there are over 400 PDM tasks in the F‐15 PDM Work Spec. More are expected as a result of this contract.

91. PWS Paragraph 4.1.1 requires project leads for each individual objective area for the day‐to‐day execution of REP, DMI, LI and ERR as required. Please define LI, and provide additional explanation on the duties and scope of the LI requirement?

PWS has been updated and reference removed.

92. PWS Paragraph 4.5.1.8 requires an MSG‐3 Field and PDM Maintenance Training Program stating that the Contractor shall “initiate” a comprehensive training program to ensure successful implementation and acceptance of the program…” What locations will require training and how often? How many sessions are anticipated? How many attendees? Can this training be virtual, on‐line sessions?

Please see updated paragraph 4.4 and 4.5.18.

93. PWS Paragraph 4.5.2 there is a requirement to house ERDP data in the F‐15 ERR database. Does this database already exist in the F‐15 program office, or is this database the same as the existing C‐5 WR‐ ALC Maintenance Database?

No, the F‐15 does not have an ERR database.

94. In PWS paragraph 4.5.1.5 says, “… Contractor shall update the BOM…” Does this requirement imply that a physical configuration audit of aircraft be accomplished? In what format should updates to the BOM be delivered? The PWS indicates that BOM data be provided in spread sheet format. Are we required to make the input to the G005M system or provide a spreadsheet only?

Based upon the MSG‐3 analysis, ERDPs and SVWCs, a BOM will be developed/updated and provided in the format listed in paragraph 4.5.1.5.

95. PWS paragraphs 2.1 and 4.5.1.2. provide inconsistent direction regarding the due date for changes to the IMS within X number of days after COR approves IMS changes. The table in 2.1 says 2 days and

4.5.1.2 says “…be held to the same four‐business day standard…” Please clarify the time requirements for delivery.

PWS has been updated.

96. In PWS paragraph 4.5.1.3, the Government indicates that the Contractor performing MSG‐3 analysis is required to maintain membership in A4A in order to ensure timely updates to MSG‐3 logic flow, etc.

Similarly, in the Proposal Evaluation Criteria in Subfactor One, The Government stipulates that “the offeror’s planned approach includes their planned qualifications, membership verifications (including verification of membership submitted with the proposal, with specifically Airlines for America (A4A), are required in by PWS Paragraph 4.5.1.3…” Does the Government intend that the Contractor must be an airline or commercial cargo carrier, as only those entities are eligible for membership in A4A?

The A4A membership requirement is being removed since A4A does not recognize associate memberships anymore.

97. In PWS paragraph 4.5.1.3, MSG‐3 analysis requires reference to FMECAs, how many FMECAs are available for reference at this time, and how many should be expected to be reviewed as part of the MSG‐3 program?

Approximately 2200 FMECAs have been developed.

98. PWS paragraph 4.5.1.3 indicates that the “Contractor should be required to perform MSG‐3 analysis on new systems added to the aircraft by modification…” How many modifications should the Contractor expect to be executed during this 3 year period of performance?

Assume there will be a maximum of 5 system level modifications within the 3 year period of performance.

99. PWS paragraph 4.5.1.3.5.2 describes requirements for the F‐15 Database. This database shall include SVWC data, reliability and maintainability data, maintenance failure statistics, etc. Does the existing C‐5 WR‐ALC Maintenance Database that is to be leveraged include these data elements, and does it enable “two‐way tracking” of requirements, and allow for tasks to be linked in order to users can see if a single MSG‐3 analysis created multiple tasks? Or is this a new software capability development required?

Yes, those data elements are available but the “two‐way tracking” between the MSG‐3 analysis and ERDP does not exist. The ERDP only links the analysis to the inspection requirement.

100. PWS paragraph 1.2.1 refers to AFMCI 21‐133 and to the Depot Maintenance Transformation goals.

Is AFMCI 21‐133 a valid and current publication (it’s not listed on the Air Force e‐publishing site and appears to have been rescinded in Dec 2013)? And are Depot Maintenance Transformation and eLog21 the guiding strategies, goals, and programs to be used to guide a Contractor’s approach to objective one in this PWS?

The PWS has been updated to reflect AFMCI 21‐133 being rescinded. No, they should not be a guide to the Contractor’s approach.

101. The RFP directs the use of Times New Roman, 12 point font for all text with no exceptions for graphics or tables. Will you allow smaller text for graphics and tables? Recommend at least 10 point font, Arial Narrow.

A font size no smaller than 10 point is acceptable.

102. Paragraph 5.3 of the PWS states that work may be performed at the Government or Contractor facility and paragraph 4.8.7 provides guidance for personnel working outside of a Government facility but requiring computer access to information. How many Contractor Spaces will the Government provide for this contract?

Within paragraph 5.3, WR‐ALC was included to address that Contractor personnel may have to come to WR‐ALC on an intermittent basis for any of the PWS requirements but will not require a workspace.

103. In PWS paragraph 5.5, Expertise, the PWS notes that expertise on “MSG‐3 Maintenance Program Development Capabilities on aged military and commercial aircraft” is required. Is this exclusive to only “aged” and on both “military” and “commercial” aircraft?

The contractor is responsible for providing personnel with expertise in MSG‐3 maintenance program development capabilities on aged military and commercial aircraft.

104. PWS paragraph 4.5.1.3, will OEMs be involved in providing analysis and data for ASIP and MECSIP, and will the Contractor be required to interface with the OEMs, and if so, will the Government facilitate this interaction?

As part of the working groups, the OEMs will be asked to participate and provide input. The Government can facilitate the interaction if needed.

105. PWS Paragraph 4.5.1.6 addresses the requirement for a Maintenance Program Office (MPO) and the Maintenance Program Integrated Product Team (MPIPT), based upon the proven MPO processes used in the commercial aviation industry. It does not appear that the MPO or the MPIPT are defined in any of the references in Appendix 1 of the PWS. We request that the Government provide a reference for these teams.

The specific methods, roles and responsibilities have not been identified yet other than stating what it should accomplish and the support needed in paragraph 4.5.1.6. The FAA guiding document for CASS should be utilized.

106. In the PWS, Section 4.5.2, what is the time schedule for completion of this task? Is the goal to develop an ERDP for all depot level inspections and tasks completed during Base and Option Year 1?

How many depot level inspections and tasks are currently in the existing F‐15 maintenance plan?

All inspections and tasks within the preventive maintenance plan to be performed at the depot level shall have an ERDP developed and housed within the F‐15 Engineering Requirements Review Database. These should be developed during the Base and Option Year 1 while the MSG‐3 analysis is being accomplished and the plan developed. Currently, there are approximately 400 PDM tasks, not including most of the Hourly Post‐flight Inspections in the 1F‐15A/E‐6.

107. In the last paragraph of the section, what does the "5% deviation from the ERDP development and review performed by the contractor each month to support the annual 20% ERR goal" mean? Is the annual 20% ERR goal a general goal per the LRDP Handbook or is it associated with this PWS in some way?

Ensure there is no more than a 5% deviation from the ERDP review schedule. The requirement set within the LRDP Handbook is to have all PDM tasks reviewed once every 5 years with an annual goal of completing a 20% review. For this contract, all tasks performed at PDM should have an ERDP developed within two years thus accomplishing the LRDP goal within 2 years as opposed to 5.

108. Section 5.4: Is this a severable or non‐severable task order?

This is a non‐severable contract.

109. Please provide all existing F‐15 maintenance program documents (ex: Maintenance Planning Document (MPD), list of current maintenance tasks and inspections, list of SSI, etc.)

These documents cannot be provided due to the large volume and distribution statements associated with each.

110. Please list all subsections included in each of the (5) major categories requiring MSG‐3 analysis:

systems, power plants, high intensity radiated field, structures and zonal. (Example: Systems may include pneumatic, hydraulic, mechanical, etc.)

The systems analysis will include the following subsystems but not limited to Fuel, Landing Gear, Egress, Environmental Control System, Flight Controls, Hydraulics, Oxygen, and etc.

111. In the PWS, Section 4.5.1.3, "Analysis requires the Contractor maintain membership with Airlines for America (A4A), formerly known as ATA in order to ensure timely updates to the MSG‐3 logic flow...".

According to the A4A, A4A membership is limited to airlines only. Can we assume demonstrated ATA membership will satisfy this requirement?

The A4A membership requirement is being removed since A4A does not recognize associate memberships anymore.

112. The USAF primarily operates the F‐15C and F‐15D variants of the aircraft. Are these two F‐15 variants or model versions of the F‐15 or are there other variants included? If there are any variants of the F‐15 included in the project scope, please list all the variants. Also, if possible, can the USAF provide a brief description of what systems are different from the baseline model that would require separate MSG‐3 evaluation.

The USAF operates F‐15C, F‐15D and F‐15E variants.