Q__A_-_ETA_16-R-0017_-_Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Engineering and Technical Services Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8505-16-R-0017
About this file
Questions and Answers for Solicitation FA8505-16-R-0017
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| FA8505-16-R-0017_Amend_0002.pdf | ||
| FA8505-16-R-0017_Amend_1__(004).pdf | ||
| Attach_1_FINAL_PWS_28_Jun_2016_ETA.pdf | ||
| AW_Examples_Appendix.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach_2_ETA_Approved_CDRLs_28_June_2016.pdf | ||
| FA850516R0017_Solicitation.pdf | ||
| Appendix_B_for_FA8505-16-R-0017_rev7.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach_4_AF_Proposal_Adequacy_Checklist.docx | DOCX document | |
| Attach_8_SGFP_Data_Input_Spreadsheet.pdf | ||
| Attach_1_FINAL_PWS_08_Jun_2016_Engineering_Technical_Analysis.pdf | ||
| Attach3_DD254.pdf | ||
| Attach_2_ETA_Approved_CDRLs.pdf |
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question | Reference | Questions | Answer |
| 1 | 3.1 | Please clarify: Is the Government hosting the GFE computer servers on Robins AFB or is the requirement for the Contractor to host this server equipment off-base? | TADS computer servers are hosted within the Robins AFB enclave. However, any test servers utilized for software sustainment and upgrades are the responsibility of the contractor. |
| 2 | 4.1.2 | How many Contractor personnel is the Government able to host on-site at Robins AFB for this contract? | Maximum of 7-8 personnel |
| 3 | 4.1.2 | For which specific functions/requirements does the Government require on-site contractor personnel? This paragraph is somewhat unclear. | TADS administration/reporting, ETAR/107/339/FAT tracking and reporting, ASIP data processing, Airworthiness |
| 4 | 4.2.1 | What is the current status of TADS ATO/ATC? | ATO/ATC was granted as of 12 Jan 2016 (expires 11 Jan 2018) |
| 5 | 4.2.1 | What actions have been taken to date to renew the TADS ATO/ATC before the expiration date of 11 Jan 2018? | We followed the DIACAP process to renew the current ATO. The next ATO will require the RMP process (or the latest C&A process) to be followed. Contractor is to assume all RMF requirements will be worked by contractor starting in Nov 2016 for next ATO that is due in Jan 2018. |
| 6 | 4.2.4.3 | Regarding historical travel, how many contractor personnel typically traveled to provide on-site support? | One contractor providing Avionics technical assistance |
| 7 | 4.2.4.6 | Regarding the minimum qualification for the Avionics Reliability and Maintainability Investigations: |
- Are there any specific educational or degree requirements for this qualification?
| - What kind of information will the government consider acceptable to meet this minimum qualification? | Greater than 8-years of F-15 military avionics experience with a preference for prior enlisted maintainer experience. PWS updated to reflect. | |||
| 8 | RFP CLIN 0001 | CLIN 0001 description refers to a PWS dated 1 Feb 2016. Is there a different PWS from the one provided dated 8 Jun 2016? | CLIN description will be update to reflect the correct PWS paragraph in amendment 0001 | |
| 9 | Sub factor 1 & 2 | On what criteria will the Government judge if the Contractor's proposal demonstrates a "sound management approach"? | We will look at the provided schedule and approach to include, major activities, milestones, and key dates, and determine if it is reasonable. | |
| 10 | Sub factor 3 | How does the Government expect to evaluate if the contractor's proposal has met the minimum experience requirements? Is the offeror required to provide names and/or resumes of personnel the contractor plans to staff the contract in order to be deemed "Acceptable" on this Sub factor? Please explain. | The contractor should show they have a plan to get the required qualified personnel to accomplish the tasks. Yes, names are required. | |
| 11 | 4.2.1.5 | Please clarify: Does the government want the contractor to perform as the IA manager. | Yes | |
| 12 | 4.2.4.5 | Does the contractor need to plan for aircraft integration, in a contractor facility or via CLS teams, or is it engineering support only. | Only engineering support of avionics modification efforts (may require on-site support) | |
| 13 | 4.2.5.2.2 | Does the contractor need to develop a flight test plan or are you looking for reviews/analysis of plans already developed? | Contractor will be expected to coordinate with the appropriate technical POC’s to assure test plans and First Flight Basis adequately identifies how each applicable criteria within the certification basis is to be tested and validated. | |
| 14 | 4.2.6.2 | Visually inspecting Wings and Fuselage are all external inspections looking strictly for structural cracks, correct? Will the wings be off aircraft and defueled and foam removed so we can boroscope inside? | No. Inspections are internal as well. At PDM the fuselage and Wings are opened up with a majority of the hardware removed to provide excellent access to otherwise inaccessible areas. The wing top skins are removed, foam removed, etc. The fuselage fuel tanks are stripped, secondary power removed, seats removed, engines removed, some of the ECS removed, etc. | |
| 15 | 4.2.8.3 | CDRL A004, para 4.2.1.8 mentions both monthly and business day reports. The 1423 only calls out monthly reports. Do you expect a daily status report, or each day rolled up into the monthly? | Daily reports on open 107/202’s with monthly metrics reports. | |
| 16 | 4.2.4.3 | The last sentence states the contractor shall deliver a Maintainability Investigation report within 14 business days of upon returning from on-site support {IAW CDRL A004). This contradicts the frequency stated in CDRL A004 of "The reports are to be done monthly and are due 10 working days after the completion of the month." Which is correct? | The CDRL A006 has multiple deliverables that are required. CDRL requires Maintainability Investigation reports within 14 business days is in agreement with the PWS paragraph 4.2.4.3. The monthly status reports are due monthly within 10 working days after completion of the month. | |
| 17 | 4.2.6.4 | The last sentence states the contractor shall deliver a POM Repairs/Finding report for each tail number within 10 business following the final functional flight check. (IAW CDRL A004). This contradicts the frequency stated in CDRL A004 of "The reports are to be done monthly and are due 10 working days after the completion of the month." Which is correct? | The CDRL A006 has multiple deliverables that are required. CDRL requires PDM Repair/Finding report by tail number required within 10 business days following functional check flight is in agreement with PWS paragraph 4.2.6.4. The monthly status reports are due monthly within 10 working days after completion of the month. | |
| 18 | 4.2.5.2.6 | It's stated to refer to an example Final Compliance |
Report in the Appendix yet there is nothing in the
| Appendices of the PWS related to a Final Compliance Report. Will this be provided? | See attached “AW Examples Appendix” word doc. | |||
| 19 | 4.2.5.3 | It's stated to refer to AFLCMC Standard Process for | ||
| Reportable Airworthiness Flight Authorization. Will this be provided? | See attached “AW Examples Appendix” word doc. | |||
| 20 | 3.1 | How long after contract award will Government | ||
| Property/Services be provided? | Answer varies depending on property/service. Paragraph 3.1 is meant as an overall requirement should government property/services be required. On-site contractors will be provided with government computers as well as network and system access as required. This process can take anywhere from 2 weeks to 2 months to get in place. | |||
| 21 | Section L | Attachment 3, Cross Reference Matrix not provided. The attachment 3 provided is the DD254. | See attachment. | |
| 22 | Attachment | As this is a competed action - I am deeply perplexed by the Proposal Adequacy Checklist (PAC). This is an LPTA...all about low price. Are you planning on conducting cost and price analysis? | The government is not requiring certified cost and pricing data. The attachment is not required and will be removed. | |
| 23 | Where the PWS contains specific education requirements in order to satisfy minimum qualifications, will the Government approve a waiver/substitution of education requirements based on personnel with equivalent/relevant experience? | No | ||
| 24 | 4.2.5 | There are no minimum qualifications stated for PWS Section 4.2.5. but this support seems highly specialized/unique—does the Government require specific qualifications for this support? | To be proficient in Airworthiness Engineering Analysis. PWS updated to reflect. | |
| 25 | 4.2.5 | Within PWS section 4.2.5 there are several references to examples in “the Appendix” but this does not seem to correlate to the Appendix found in PWS section 6.0—can you provide the applicable Appendices? | See attached “AW Examples Appendix” word doc. | |
| 26 | 4.2.2.1 | The last sentence of PWS paragraph 4.2.2.1 appears to be incomplete—please provide remaining content. | “a rolling 5 year period from the date of the report.” | |
| 27 | RFP | For labor pricing, please confirm that Offerors are only to price at the overarching CLINs (0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001). Section B of the RFP says to price overarching CLINs, but Section M (relative to TEP) says “Offerors will propose a unit/lot price for all CLINs.” | Each offeror is to propose for each CLIN. Offerors will not propose to any of the sub-CLINs (i.e. CLIN 0001AA, 0001AB, etc.) or CLINs that are not separately priced. | |
| 28 | RFP | (7) Section L refers to a Cross Reference Matrix as Attachment 3, but the Attachment 3 posted on FBO is the DD254—please provide the applicable matrix. | Matrix Added | |
| 29 | Section L | (8) Section L refers to an Attachment 6, but nothing in the RFP package is labeled Attachment 6—please confirm that the page labeled “Instructions to Offerors, Electronic Format for All Proposal Volumes” (found in between Section L and Section M) is in fact Attachment 6? | Yes, It will be labeled Attachment 6 to Section L. | |
| 30 | Section L | (9) The RFP includes conflicting direction about how to deliver the proposal to the government. Please confirm that proposals are to be delivered via mail or hand-delivered. | Proposals can be hand delivered or via mail as long as they are received by AFLCMC/WWQK by the closing date/time as stated in Section L. | |
| 31 | Section M | Section M states that “Travel CLINs shall be priced as a FFP unit” but Section B shows the travel CLINs as cost reimbursable, no fee—please confirm travel is CRNF? | Section M will be updated. The CLIN is CRNF | |
| 32 | Section L | Please confirm the proposal requires two volumes only—the opening paragraph in Section L states proposals should be submitted in “three (3) separate volumes | Only two volumes are required | |
| 33 | Is there a deadline for submittal of additional questions? | Questions were due 24 Jun 16. | ||
| 34 | RFP CLIN 0001 | Does the number 12 mean 12 FTEs ( Full Time employees required for CLIN 0001)? |
CLIN 0001 as an example, Quantity U/I Unit_Price Amount
| 12 MO | No. It is a quantity of 12 and the unit of issue (U/I) is months (MO). All offerors should propose a price based on a per month basis. | |||
| 35 | 4.2.5.1 | (1) PWS 4.2.5.1 states “The Contractor shall complete on average 23 ADF evaluations per 12-month period of performance.” PWS 4.2.8.3. Technical Reports Table, CDRL No. A004, PWS Paragraph 4.2.5.1. states “As required (up to 9 per 12 month period of performance).” Please clarify the number of ADF evaluations required per 12-month PoP. | PWS 4.2.5.1 listing has been updated to 9 | |
| 36 | 4.2.3 | (2) The PWS requirements outlined in 4.2.3 Engineering Configuration Management (CM) are very complex and require significant expertise in F-15 CM, as well as F-15 sustainment, processes, CM-related data systems, and engineering; while the minimum qualifications cited in PWS Section 4.2.3.8 does not appear to correlate with the level of aptitude required to support the PWS CM requirements. Please clarify the qualifications of the people required to support PWS requirements 4.2.3. | A minimum of 3-5 years is required. | |
| 37 | 4.2.2 | (3) What are the minimum qualifications for the people supporting Engineering Analysis (PWS 4.2.2)? | Update to: No basic qualifications beyond a H.S. Diploma | |
| 38 | 4.2.7 | (4) What are the minimum qualifications for the people supporting Logistics Engineering Support Requests and First Article Test (PWS 4.2.7)? | Update to: No basic qualifications beyond a H.S. Diploma | |
| 39 | 4.2.1.11 | (5) What level of experience for the IT team listed in PWS 4.2.1.11 is required, i.e. junior, midlevel, senior, or expert? | A minimum of 3-5 years is required. | |
| 40 | 4.2.3.8 | (6) What level of experience for the CM team listed in PWS 4.2.3.8 is required, i.e. junior, midlevel, senior, or expert? | A minimum of 3-5 years is required. | |
| 41 | 4.2.4.6 | (7) What level of experience for the Avionics Reliability and Maintainability Investigation team listed in PWS 4.2.4.6 is required, i.e. junior, midlevel, senior, or expert? | Greater than 8-years of F-15 military avionics experience with a preference for prior enlisted maintainer experience. | |
| 42 | 4.2.6 | (8) Reference PWS 4.2.6, Is NLIGN experience required? What proficiency level? | No, but it is preferred. | |
| 43 | 4.2.1 | (9) Is existing TADS experience required for personnel supporting PWS 4.2.1? | No, but it is preferred. | |
| 44 | 4.2.6.6 | (1) The PWS states a contractor “shall coordinate with Etegent to discuss issues regarding Nlign software” and “The Etegent point of contact will be provided by the Government”—Additionally, Appendix B says access to necessary software will be provided by the Government, so is there an expectation that an Offeror should price support pertaining to Etegent. | Yes, each offeror should include a quote from Etegent as part of their pricing. | |
| 45 | Sub factor 3 | Sub factor 3 mentions requirements related to “expertise and experience of key personnel” |
Q: Assuming that the minimum requirements were met, are respondents required to list key personnel by name in their proposal to be evaluated ‘Acceptable’ on this sub factor?
Q: Is corporate expertise & experience sufficient to be evaluated ‘Acceptable’ on this sub factor if the minimum requirements listed are met?
| Offeror must either submit key personnel names or show verifiable information of corporate experience that meet minimum requirements in accordance with Sub Factor 3 | |||
| 46 | 4.2.1.2 | Will the program’s current version of the Software Design Description be provided upon award? | No |
| 47 | 4.2.1.3 | Will the program’s current version of the Interface Design Description be provided upon award? | No |
| 48 | Section L | (1) What is the minimum font size allowed for graphics | 8pt for all graphics, charts, tables, etc |
| 49 | What does the "Contractor’s facility " mean | The building the offeror/awardee will be working from |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .