USG_Responses_to_Industry_(F-15_Repair_Support).pdf

Questions Received from Industry US Government Response 1 Will the USG advise if additional information is required in the Contractor’s notification? It appears that para. 4.17 is incomplete.

The PWS has been updated; please reference the PWS attached to the latest RFP attachment.

2 This paragraph is very vague and does not provide enough detail with regards to management of reported SDRs/PQDRs. For example, “the Contractor shall investigate SDRs/PQDRs at no additional cost.”

Will the USG provide further guidance with respect to the outcome of the investigation. Typically, if the investigation reveals that the failure was a result of the SOR (i.e., poor workmanship) then the item will be repaired at no additional cost to the USG/customer;

however, if the failure is a result of mishandling, improper installation, etc., the SOR will be provide a detailed report identifying such and provide the estimated repair cost to return the asset to a serviceable condition.

The PWS has been updated. An updated version has been provided via an amendment to the solicitation.

3 Will the USG advise if it is acceptable to store ALL volumes with the exception of Volume IV (Cost/Price) on a single CD-ROM?

Please provide each volume on a separate CD-ROM as indicated in Section L.

4 Please confirm the requirement is for a total of three

(3) recent contracts versus three (3) from the Prime Offeror AND three (3) from each critical subcontractor. Additionally, if the requirement is for additional past performance contracts for any critical subcontractor(s), is the requirement a maximum of three (3) or exactly three (3) contracts.

All Critical subcontractors must submit three recent contracts for the past performance evaluation.

This is in addition to the three recent contracts that must be submitted by the offeror/joint venture member(s).

5 Will the USG confirm that the CLINs specified for Option V should be 5001AA and 5001AB. Attachment 5 currently has 5005AA and 5005AB.

It should be 5001AA and 5001AB;

this has been corrected in the latest RFP amendment.

6 Will the Government consider allowing a smaller font size (such as 8 or 10) for tables, charts, graphs, and figures?

Times New Roman font should be used. Font size for tables, charts, graphs, figures, etc. should be no smaller than 8.

7 Will the USG clarify the requirement for leased Contractor facilities? Is this requirement for repair facilities only? Can non-cost-reimbursable facilities associated with management functions located outside of Saudi be company owned?

This is in reference to repair facilities located in-Kingdom only. Additional office space should be considered normal costs of doing business and not explicitly or individually priced.

8 Will the USG clarify the place of performance? Are all activities expected to be performed inside the Kingdom, or only AGE/SPV repair actions? Can RRS logistics management be performed outside the Kingdom?

As PWS paragraph 4.1.2 indicates, AGE repairs should be completed in- Kingdom. The location of any remaining requirements are up to the Contractor and/or in accordance with Attachment 1 Source of Repairs.

9 Will the USG confirm that travel approval and reporting under para 4.5 does not apply to normal requested AGE/SPV equipment pickup for repair and only applies to contractor travel request for meetings to RSAF Bases?

Requests to pick up AGE requirement for repair will not be treated as official travel (i.e. CLIN X003) and approval is not required.

10 What CLIN will expediting MICAPs be funded under? Any additional costs associated with MICAPs will fall under the over and above CLIN, X004.

11 What is the official process for the RSAF to identify to the Contactor that AGE is ready for pickup? Since the TAT Calculation begins on the date the RSAF identifies a broken asset ready for pickup, how will this notification be established/tracked for TAT calculation?

The RSAF will notify a POC, as identified by the Contractor, that AGE requires pick/repair. It will be the Contractor’s responsibility to note this information within the Management Information System for Turnaround Time calculation.

12 Since the equipment may be used at multiple locations, will the USG confirm the total number of hardcopy manuals that are to be provided?

Only one hardcopy will need to be provided.

13 Will the USG clarify the approval process for use of other than new or rebuilt OEM parts or does para

4.16.10 serve as approval under the stated conditions?

In this instance, the Contractor should notify the USG PM/PCO as soon as possible for approval.

14 The last sentence appears to be missing information.

Will the USG confirm the notification requirements when unable to identify a SOR within 30 calendar days?

This has been updated within the PWS. Please reference the updated PWS as attached in the amendment to the RFP.

15 Will the USG confirm the correct source for manifest notification to the Contractor? Is it the USG or the freight forwarder?

This is the freight forwarder.

16 Will the USG confirm DCMA must be present at the time of the asset/exhibit is uncrated as opposed to when the investigation is initiated? Is a DCMA specific waiver for a SDR exhibit authorized in lieu of being present?

In the instance of a SDR/PQDR, DCMA should be present for initial uncrating of the item. The Contractor should follow DCMA regulations and requirements for any waivers to this process.

17 The PWS states VPP will be performed and then states VPP requirement does not apply. Will the USG clarify the requirement?

Please ensure you have reviewed the latest RFP amendment. The latest PWS is attached to the most recent RFP amendment.

18 Will the USG confirm the requirement to comply with all applicable RSAF regulations regarding occupational safety and health is only for work performed In- Kingdom?

Yes; this would apply to only work conducted within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

19 Will the USG confirm that the rating criteria identified in Table 2 is applicable to the AGE/SPV/Hush House Past Performance citations? Several of the criteria are very prohibitive for an Offeror to meet with an

The relevancy criterion was carefully considered based on the scope of the effort. The team reviewed all industry comments and concerns

AGE/SPV/Hush House contract. For example, management of a web-based MIS and management of “x or more” subcontractors at the same time are functions typically associated with an RRS contract, but not AGE/SPV/Hush House.

when developing the evaluation criteria. The USG does expect teaming arrangements will be necessary in some instances to fill gaps where the prime contractor may not have expertise or experience. Additionally, the past performance evaluation will be conducted in accordance with Section M.

20 Based on the combining of the different technical requirements (R&R services and AGE-SPV, Hush House/Open Air Test Cell and Fire and Safety Vehicle Equipment) which of the following carries more weight in the determination of the relevancy of the submitted past performance contract: 1) Criteria identified in Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings; or 2) the technical features and characteristics, and the programmatic/ logistical scope and magnitude of the effort? The ability to submit a Very Relevant past performance contract reference that meets the criteria as specified in Table 2, as well as meeting the programmatic / logistical scope of all three requirement areas is likely limited to only the incumbent contractor. Therefore, should other offerors place more emphasis on Table 2 relevancy requirements or ensuring all areas of programmatic / logistical scope are addressed? The Table 2 requirements could be considered mutually exclusive of the programmatic/logistical scope. For example, an offeror with a qualified MIS and with experience in management of multiple subcontractors is not necessarily consistent with the demonstration of AGE support past performance within the same contract effort. Offerors, other than the incumbent, who do possess experience in all of these areas are not able to have demonstrated each of the areas on one contract effort. Will the Government consider revising wording to reflect the potential for increased competition?

The relevancy criterion was carefully considered based on the scope of the effort. The team reviewed all industry comments and concerns when developing the evaluation criteria. The USG does expect teaming arrangements will be necessary in some instances to fill gaps where the prime contractor may not have expertise or experience. Additionally, the past performance evaluation will be conducted in accordance with Section M.

21 Will the USG provide further pricing instructions and specifically guidance regarding Attachment 5? CLIN X001AA and X001AB include Operations, Management and Repairs with and without Preventative Maintenance Option. Based on the PWS requirements, an offeror can estimate the Operations and Management costs on a monthly basis and this is assumed to go in Column J. However, what is the basis for repair costs which is assumed to be filled in

Unit COM stands for Unit Cost of Money.

Column K. Also, can you please define the acronym “COM.” It is assumed that this is Cost of Material which is not applicable to repairs.

22 Will the USG please define and provide additional guidance regarding Preventative Maintenance? Based on the limited information in the PWS, the Preventative Maintenance is in reference to AGE and Hush House. However, there is no guidance regarding pricing.

CLIN X001 is broken down into CLIN X001AA and X001AB. Providing preventative maintenance for AGE/SPV and fire and safety vehicles is an option at this point in time.

Providing all required maintenance for the hush houses is a requirement. All offeror's should provide a price for CLIN X001AA for providing repair of AGE/SPV and fire and safety vehicles and all maintenance of the hush houses. All offeror's should provide a price for CLIN X001AB to provide repairs and preventative maintenance for all AGE/SPV/Fire and safety vehicles and hush houses. Ref PWS paragraph 4.16.6

23 Based on the significant differences between technical requirements of R&R Services and In-Kingdom on-site repair of AGE, Hush House/Open Air Test Cell equipment, and Fire and Safety Vehicles, will the USG consider splitting these requirements into separate solicitations?

This USG will not be splitting these requirements into separate solicitations.

24 Please confirm that all repair costs are “straight pass through” with no fee added. Fee is only added to “Unit Cost” which is assumed to be all other costs (Operations & Management).

Please be advised that Unit COM stands for Unit Cost of Money.

25 When is the award date? The projected award date is 30 Dec 2016; please note this date is subject to change.

26 Do we have to price out all 2779 line items? Pricing for each individual item does not need to be provided; the costs associated with all repair should be included in the overall unit cost for

CLIN X001.

27 Do we have to list SOR? The SORs currently identified via Attachment 1 should be utilized until an additional source is approved via the processes identified in PWS 4.17.

28 Do we have to use the price matrix for every line item we quote?

All prices that are to be submitted, which will be evaluated, must be submitted via the Price Matrix. Any prices received outside this established spreadsheet will not be evaluated.

29 Do we have to submit COPD information for all these items that we quote?

No.

30 Will the Air Force consider amending solicitation FA8505-16-R-0007 to allow for consideration of key personnel past performance?

The USG will not evaluate key personnel as a part of the past performance evaluation.

31 Limited information was provided to support pricing development of the “Operation, Management, and Repairs” CLINs in the RFP. These CLINs request that offerors provide one target cost value, for any possible range or depth of repair quantities on Aircraft parts, AGE/SPV and Fire and Safety Vehicles in the period of performance. Offeror believes the USAF will not be able to conduct a fair competition on the evaluation of price if offerors are not provided the firm quantity of repairs and the Aircraft flight hours needed for each line item to be priced. Scope definition is necessary for any Contractor to develop an accurate proposal and execute efficiently upon contract award; therefore, Offeror believes the solicitation should be amended to account for these quantities and hours.

Any information the USG has pertaining to the quantities, hours, etc. has been provided. This information should be used to develop the prices associated with

CLIN X001.

32 If it is determined that based on the information provided in response to number one above that an FPIF contract type is appropriate based on the scope of work, the following issues need to be addressed:

The target profit percentage, profit adjustment formula percentage, and ceiling price percentage has been predetermined in the solicitation for the Fixed Price Incentive (firm Target) CLINs. The FAR contemplates a negotiation of these values—it does not complete that they be determined up front prior to receipt of proposals. FAR Subpart 16.403-1, states, “A fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract is appropriate when the parties can negotiate at the outset a firm target cost, target profit, and profit adjustment formula that will provide a fair and reasonable incentive and a ceiling that provides for the contractor to assume an appropriate share of the risk.” Establishing these values prior to receipt of proposals does not give offerors an opportunity to distinguish themselves among the competition or propose values they believed to be fair and

This question is still under review and a response will be posted separately.

reasonable. If the contract type remains unchanged, offerors should be given the opportunity to propose these values and the proposed values should be subject to negotiation and evaluation by the USAF.

33 In addition, out of the six (6) CLINs within each base and option year, three (3)are predetermined as cost-reimbursable no fee. The costs under these CLINs are allowable and are required by the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and should therefore be fee bearing.

FAR 16.302(b) provides that cost-no-fee contracting may be appropriate for research and development, but it does not indicate that it is appropriate for this type of work. Rather, FAR 15.404-4recognizes that an opportunity for fee is more appropriate. FAR 15.404(a)(2)states, “It is in the Government’s interest to offer contractors opportunities for financial rewards sufficient to stimulate efficient contract performance, attract the best capabilities of qualified large and small business concerns to Government contracts, and maintain a viable industrial base.” FAR 15.404(a)(3) further states: Both the Government and contractors should be concerned with profit as a motivator of efficient and effective contract performance. Negotiations aimed merely at reducing prices by reducing profit, without proper recognition of the function of profit, are not in the Government’s interest. Negotiation of extremely low profits, use of historical averages, or automatic application of predetermined percentages to total estimated costs do not provide proper motivation for optimum contract performance. Consistent with the forgoing, Offeror requests that the solicitation be amended to allow for fee for these CLINS.

CLINs currently identified as Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) will remain as such. The USG position is that a CRNF pricing arrangement for this work is appropriate.

34 Offeror requests the USAF provide the quantity of AGE/SPV and Fire and Safety Vehicles that may require repair or preventative maintenance on an annual basis in order to develop an accurate target cost value that can be compared against competitors.

The USG has provided all historical repairs that have been conducted over the past three year timeframe.

As noted on the F-15 Repair Support Price Matrix, the USG expects a constant amount of items for repair even with the introduction of the F-

15SA and a 20% increase in repairs each year for AGE, given the historical information provided.

35 Offeror requests input on the current or projected number of repair candidates that will be on hand in Saudi Arabia at the time of contract award. If this information is not able to be provided, Offeror requests a statement be added to the RFP and forthcoming contract that all parts in inventory in Saudi Arabia are in a Ready for Issue (RFI) condition.

This information will not be provided. Any information available has been provided. The statement requested to be added to the RFP is outside USG control and will not be added to the RFP.

36 Offeror requests clarification on the list of repair parts requested to be priced. Included within FedBizOpps, there is a file titled “Question 1 Attachment RRS Parts "which includes 3,395 parts between four separate tabs. There is also a file titled “RRS Repair History 12 Jan 2015 v1” that includes 2,779 parts. Offeror requests clarification on what list of parts and applicable tabs to use in support of pricing.

Please refer to the updated GFP/GFE/Repair Spreadsheets in the amended solicitation. The attachment 1: ‘SGFP Data Input Spreadsheet’ will be made up of several spreadsheets: 1 for Repairs and multiple to cover the different types of GFE & GFP. The RRS & AGE/SPV Repair History spreadsheets should used to build your proposal. The SGFP Data Spreadsheet for Repairs has the same items as the RRS Repair history.

37 If Attachment 1 is the master list offeror should use to estimate, what is the significance of the LANTIRN CAP NS, P00002 CAP and P00003 FLTS CAP tabs?

Please refer to the updated GFP/GFE/Repair Spreadsheets in the amended solicitation

38 Should Offeror remove any part from Attachment 1 that has the comment “USG removed from Att 1…” or “Please Delete…” in column O?

Please refer to the updated GFP/GFE/Repair Spreadsheets in the amended solicitation

39 What is the significance of Sheet 2 in the RRS Repair History 12_Jan_2015 file?

Please refer to the updated GFP/GFE/Repair Spreadsheets in the amended solicitation

40 The RFP includes a statement that “Any purchase over $3,500 has to be competed against three contractors.

If competition cannot be accomplished, contractor is required to submit sole source documentation to PCO/ACO prior to purchase. Impacts cost and schedule resulting in a delay in ability to achieve TAT requirements.” Is this requirement pertaining to all procurements under the RFP, or just Other Direct Cost Items? This levies a large administrative burden on the Contractor and the Government, significantly increases cost and puts a difficulty on the Contractor

This is listed above and applies to the CAP CLINS. This will not be removed. Standard FAR/DoD procurement laws and regulations still apply.

to be able to perform to the turn-around-time requirements of the PWS.

41 Offeror requests the ability to propose the cost and fixed fee for the “Other Direct Cost” CLINs under a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type. This allows for the contract to be established with an accurate cost based on the Contractors assessment of the scope required, as well as the correct fixed fee applied.

The IGE for this has been provided;

the fixed fee portion of this CLIN will be determined post award.

42 Is Offeror correct in assuming that all Travel requires approval? The timing of travel approval or disapproval could hinder contractual performance.

All travel will be approved by the

PCO.

43 There are various Organizational Conflict of Interest clauses included in the RFP that reference applicability to a “Major Defense Acquisition Program.” Does the USAF classify this contract as a Major Defense Acquisition?

No, this is not classified as a Major Defense Acquisition Program.

44 Many of the Organizational Conflict of Interest clauses state that “the Contractor or any affiliate of the Contractor is prohibited from participating as a prime contractor or major subcontractor in the development or production of a weapon system under the major defense acquisition program or premajor defense acquisition program, unless an Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan has been incorporated into the contract.” An Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan was not called out in the RFP to be provided in support of this competition, please provide this requirement in the RFP or remove the applicable clauses.

If you are proposing and there is an OCI, please provide the USG notice, and, if applicable, provide an Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan.

45 Per DFARS 252.204-7012, Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting, has a requirement for Covered Defense Information (CDI). Has CDI been identified for this particular contract and if so, please provide a listing?

Clause 252.204-7008 applies to the Repair Support effort. Per the DFARS, this clause must be used in all solicitations. Clause 252.204-7012 applies to the Repair Support solicitation. Per the DFARS, this clause must be used in all solicitations and contracts. Clause 252.204-7009 also applies to the Repair Support effort. Per the DFARS, this clause must be used in all solicitations and contracts for services that include support for the

Government's activities related to safeguarding covered defense information and cyber incident reporting."

46 Under Section L section A2 there is no distinction between proposal text, tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, schematics, drawings and figures. Is it acceptable for tables, charts, graphs, diagrams, schematics, drawings and figures to use a smaller than 12 point font as long as it is legible?

Times New Roman font should be used. Font size for tables, charts, graphs, figures, etc. should be no smaller than 8.

47 Offeror requests a Table of Contents be added to the

PWS.

A table of contents will not be added at this time.

48 An additional requirement for MIS was added to section 2.0 of the PWS after the pre-solicitation was released. Offeror would like to request that this requirement be removed, as it is unrealistic for the large number of entries that will be entered into the MIS system that there will be only 5 inaccuracies every 3 months.

The Management Information System requirements stand as-is and will not be amended.

49 Offeror recommends that the USAF review the CDRLs provided due to inconsistencies found between the PWS and the CDRLs (at least 1 error found by Offeror).

The CDRLs have been reviewed and inconsistencies were not found.

50 For clarification, what is the difference between repairs with (CLIN 0001AB) and without preventative maintenance (CLIN 0001AA)? Is CLIN 0001AB for AGE equipment repairs and CLIN 0001AA for F15 related repairs?

The preventative maintenance portion references PWS paragraph 4.16.6, where if requested, the Contractor will provide standard preventative maintenance for all items. Prices should be submitted (CLIN 0001AA) not conducting preventative maintenance and conducting preventative maintenance (CLIN 0001AB).

51 CLIN 6007 is listed as FFP in Section M and one of the questions/answer, but in the Solicitation itself it's listed as NSP - which one is it?

This price will be determined at a fixed rate at time in which this CLIN is exercised.

52 Para 4.16.6 AGE Preventive Maintenance: Q - Does the preventative maintenance of AGE/SPV and fire trucks include daily pre use inspections?

It would include preventative maintenance in accordance with the technical manuals/commercial manuals for all equipment.

53 Para 4.16.6 AGE Preventive Maintenance: Q- Does the preventative maintenance include scheduled and non-scheduled maintenance which is currently being performed by the end user?

Yes.

54 Para 4.16.6 AGE Preventive Maintenance: Q- Will USG be providing a full list of F15 AGE/SPV equipment?

Will AGE be limited to specific types of F15 equipment i.e. powered or non-powered?

The USG has provided a list of all F- 15 AGE/SPV that has been historically repaired. A comprehensive list will not be provided.

55 Para 3.6 Return/Retention of Government Property: Q

- Should a statement be added to the RFP for authorized CAP/GFP usage subtracted from the remaining CAP/GFP balances? Is the contractor required to purchase expired shelf life items for older stock inherited from previous contractors and managed on this contract?

To date, there is no approved GFP that has a shelf life requirements.

Any existing GFP from the current contract will be transferred to this contract, as these items are the property of the RSAF.

56 Para 4.8.1 Transition Activities: Q - Second paragraph, last sentence needs clarification. Contains "Error!

Reference or source not found."

This has been corrected and an updated PWS has been provided.

57 How is TAT supposed to be calculated for the base PoP? 4.15.1 states average aggregate TAT in base year and option years; however, 4.15.1.4 states annual aggregate average. Which one is it?

The TAT will be measured on a annual basis, even for the base period, which is 24 months. The TAT will be a measurement of the average aggregate TAT for the items specific via 4.15.1.

58 Para 4.15.3 RRS WIP: Q- Why doesn't WIP have any exclusions? AGD/AWP will impact <120-days WIP objective.

There will be no exclusions for the WIP measurement.