Question__3_Question3.docx

Question: Can the USAF provide workload factors for both Repair Support and Supply Services as the basis for our proposed Target Ceiling for the FPIF CLINs within each solicitation?

For the F-15 Repair Support effort costs should be based on the historical information provided, everyone should assume an annual increase in repairs for AGE of 20% and assume a constant workload for RRS repairs.

For the F-15 Supply Services effort, the government has provided the authorized bin fill quantities for each bin, by NSN/P/N that each bin should be filled to. The Government will not be providing usage for each individual item. Cost projections should be based the necessary management/labor to manage all parts, conduct inventories, refill bins, and the purchase of all consumable items.

First some background. I can see the value to the USAF and RSAF of managing this effort via an FPIF CLIN with a share line, the incentive is to drive out cost. I also notice on your FedBizOps you've provided some historical data of data on repair support and the list of consumables. My concern is, after award, how can the contractor manage the amount of scope for repair support and the quantity of consumables if, for example, the RSAF drastically increases operations. Without a workload factors for both repair support and supply services provided by the USAF, the contractor is assuming significant risk if F-15 ops tempo changes drastically. With workload factors in the RFP, if ops tempo does exceed the workload then its its easier for us to work to get a contract mod to align with that delta from the workload factor. Without a workload factor we'd probably have to go down the REA process, something that none of us want to do. Also, without workload factors, the USAF might get proposals with widely different assumptions of the ops tempo that would drive our proposed FPIF target cost. That could dilute your ability to see which contractor has the most cost effective approach to managing these contracts. For example, if contractor A assumes 3 tires needed a year at a cost of $10 each and it cost them $1 to manage each tire to get to the bins, that proposal would be $33. If contractor B assumes 6 tires needed a year at a cost of $9 and it costs them $.50 to manage each tire, that proposal would be $59. Contractor B is clearly more efficient but contractor A is cheaper in target cost.