FA8509-20-R-0007 Contractor Questions (Update April 6).pdf

DATE

RFQ #

RFQ TITLE AFLCMC ON-SITE DEPOT SUPPORT (OSDS) FOR AFSOC C-130WEAPONS SYSTEMS and SUB-SYSTEMS

Q&A # DOCUMENT REFERENCE

(SOW PARAGRAPH, CLIN STRUCTURE, etc)

QUESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 Is there an incumbent in this position or will this be a 100% re‐hire? Incumbent is Zenetex, LLC

2 If there is an incumbent can we have the current contract number and information? Incumbent is Zenetex, LLC Contract# FA810817D0010 / FA810818F0042

Is there a primary facility number in the 1 SOMXG that we will perform our primary duties or that our CM will reside?

Primary office is in building 90700, Eason Hangar.

Will all off‐site support be issued as a separate task order since there isn’t a travel CLIN? There is a Travel CLIN (0004) on the contract. Travel will be tasked on an as needed basis within the yearly order.

5 Will there be an opportunity for a site visit? Site visit instructions are attached, dated 12 March 2020.

6 PWS Pargraph 5.9 Could the Government please clarify their Fall Protection support per the above discussion i.e. overhead retractable harness assemblies, cranials; aircraft stands etc.?

Fall protection equipment is government provided and is a combination of resources based on the area and type of work performed. For example hangars have retractable lanyard reels that work with harnesses. Other types for example include work platforms, transportable stands with protective rails, and JLGs. Harnesses and bump caps are available for checkout from unit support sections consolidated tool kits. The Contractor is responsible for use enforcement and ensuring Knock‐it off is called if safety concern needs to be addressed before proceeding on a task.

7 PWS Pargraph 5.29 The referenced paragraph has a subparagraph that is not chronologically numbered 5.16.1. Correct reference will be updated to 5.29.1.

8 PWS Pargraph 2.6 & 5.19.1 Reference to para 5.19.1 does not exist in para 2.6. Correct reference will be updated to 5.31.1.

9 PWS Pargraph 6.18 The referenced paragraph (5.11.1) does not exist in the provided PWS document. Correct reference will be updated to 5.23.

10 PWS and CDRLS Table 6.1

CDRL/Deliverable Table Inconsistent recipient requirements between the PWS and CDRLs. Emails provided without Billet. Examples 3 and 4 below have same requirement per PWS and different requirements in the applicable CDRL. Could the Government please clarify the recipient requirements between the PWS and the CDRL block 14 (Distribution) which refers to block 16 (REMARKS), or clarify which document has preference over the other for recipient delivery?

Government preference is to give precedence to the PWS Section 6, CDRL Table and update the CDRLs to reflect offices then provide specific email lists after award..

11 PWS Pargraph 2.3.1 OSDS CDMT support shall entail all levels and all facets of maintenance such as ground handling, servicing.

Could the Government please provide examples of the above discussion i.e. Ground Handling and servicing?

Some examples are but not limited to: towing, jacking, shoring, mooring, grounding, systems servicing/de‐servicing for maintenance, application of aircraft power, systems operations, lock out/tag out to prep aircraft for maintenance et‐cetera.

12 PWS Pargraph 2.3.1 Will the OSDS CMDT be required to support multiple launches and recoveries within the OSDS CDMT SCOPE of work?

The OSDS CDMT will not launch or recover aircraft. The CDMT may be required for post OCF/FCF debrief of maintenance the team has performed.

13 CDRL A008 Blk 4: 4.3.4 The following are required within CDRL A008: ‐ Respirator Protection Program, ‐ Confined Space, ‐ Lost Tool or Broken Tool Procedures. Would the Government accept the Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) requirement (AFI‐10‐220_1P (series) to supersede the CDRL A008 required items listed in the above discussion requirement due to double documentation?

As long as adequately addressed in the GOPs to ensure understanding at the local level the Government would accept this recommendation to avoid duplicate work.

14 Section L, Attachment 2, pg

Section L, C. Volume II, Written Technical

Proposal, 2. Mission Essential Services;

paragraph 3. Format and Specific Content, sub‐ paragraph c. and CDRL

A00H, Contractor Mission Essential Plan

Paragraph 3. Format and Specific Content, sub‐paragraph c.states: "The technical proposal encompassing the two task scenarios and four subfactors should not exceed 40 pages total." Should Offerors submit the Mission Essential Plan as an attahcment to Volume II? Is it considered outside the 40‐page limit?

Yes. The ME plan is separate. The 40‐page count limit is for the two task scenarios and four subfactors.

15 Section L, Attachment 2, pg

II. Volume Organization, A. General, sub‐paragraph

Will the government allow Charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, font to be 8 point?

8‐Point is acceptable.

16 General Is the current incumbent contractor fully manned to the current Team Compliment requirements? An additional supply technician position has been added to this contract that did not exist on the current contract.

FA8509‐20‐R‐0007

3/19/2020

17 PWS 4.2.5.13 states: The following are examples of maintenance tasks and is not all inclusive, but provides the contractor with some examples of aircraft mechanic depot support tasks:

C. Structural aircraft, to include in-tank structure repair, component repair or overhaul, fabrication, bonded repairs, cold working etc

1) Will the government allow the use of government owned Gas detectors to ensure a safe Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) prior to entry and maintenance in tanks?

2) Will the government provide cold working equipment?

1) Yes. 2) Yes. All specialized support equipment and facilities is to be provided by the government on an as needed basis.

18 PWS 6.3 CDRL A002 states: The Contractor shall electronically submit a Small Business

Participation Report IAW CDRL A002 and PWS

Paragraph 4.6. The Small Business Participation Report is due semi‐ annually, beginning six (6) calendar months after the contract award date, and shall be submitted electronically via the electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) to the WR‐ALC SBO [CDRL

A002, DI‐MGMT‐81642].

Since this effort is a Small Business (SB) Set‐Aside, will a SB Participation Report need to be submitted? As this effort is a SB Set‐Aside, this requirement will be removed from the CDRLs and PWS in a future update.

19 GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2 HAS BEEN CORRECTED AS FOLLOWS (AND ABOVE): Incumbent is Zenetex, LLC Contract# FA810817D0010 / FA810818F0042 20 After a complete review of the TCTO’s provided in the downloads on the subject RFP it looks like we are missing a drawing from the TDP. Drawing # ‐ 201123070 – Operational Ground Acceptance Test. This is called out in the TCTO. Has this been provided?

Although referenced in the TCTO the contractor should follow the TCTO 1C‐130‐2068 instructions for use of the published technical order procedures for production installation. Use of ground ATP 201123070 will not be used in the technical evaluation submissions.

21 Performance Based Work

Statement; SSP Attach 2, Section L; SSP Attach 3, Section M

c. Volume II, Technical Factor, Subfactor Four, WFP Control.

REFERENCES:

PWS: 4.3.1. Quality Management System: The Contractor shall develop and utilize a Quality Management System (QMS) that complies with the requirements of the latest version of Aerospace Standard (AS) 9100 at the time of Basic contract award.

Section L: Subfactor Four, WFP Update/Control. The offeror shall provide a detailed narrative ... to ensure an AS9001 compliant process is realized.

Section M: Subfactor Four, WFP Control. Subfactor 4 is met when the offeror provides a detailed narrative ...

to ensure an AS9001 compliant process is realized.

QUESTION:

We think that there is no AS9001 standard. (There is an ISO 9001 quality series and an AS9100 series.) We believe that the references to an "AS9001 compliant process" may be a typo and should be AS9100. Please clarify.

The correct standard is AS9100.

22 SSP Attach 2, Section L

Volume II. A. General, 4.

Page limitation; C.2

Mission Essential Plan; C.3 Subfactor One, PWS

Attach G UDLM Planning Template; and C.3

Subfactor Three, PWS Attach I Work Flow

Package

The exclusions from the page limitation of 40 pages do not list the Mission Essential Plan, PWS Attachment A and Attachment G (required for Scenario 1, Subfactor One), or PWS Attachment I (required for Scenario 2, Subfactor Two). After completion, Attachments G and I each require more than 40 pages.

QUESTION: Please confirm that all three items (Mission Essential Plan, PWS Attachment G UDLM Planning Template Samples, and PWS Attachment I Work Flow Package (WFP) Templates) are excluded from the page count.

This approach is acceptable.

23 SSP Attach 2, Section L

Volume II, C.3 Subfactor One, PWS Attach G UDLM Planning Template; and C.3 Subfactor Three, PWS

Attach I Work Flow Package

We intend to submit the Mission Essential Plan in MS Word and PWS Attachment G and PWS Attachment I in MS Excel as proposal appendices, each as a separate file. Please confirm this approach is acceptable.

This approach is acceptable.

24 SSP Attach 2, Section L

Volume II, C.3 Subfactor One, PWS Attach G UDLM Planning Template; and C.3 Subfactor Three, PWS

Attach I Work Flow Package

PWS Attachments G and I, which are required to be completed for Subfactors One and Three, are prepared in MS Excel Workbook format. Therefore, we will submit these attachments as appendices, each as a separate file. Our Excel attachments use the mandated table format depicted in the PWS attachments. These tables contain the details of our technical approach to complete the scenarios. Rather than copying these long tables into the Word file, please confirm that the narrative in Volume II may use cross references to these attachments, submitted as separate files.

This approach is acceptable.

25 Recommended CO Scenario 1, Subfactor 2

Does the Gov't intend for the Contractor to use any additional chart or table beyond those in Attachments A and G to answer Scenario 1, Subfactor 2?

No.

26 Recommended CO Scenario 1, Subfactor 2

Is the intent that the Contractor use the on‐equipment WFP document in Attachment 1 to show the "task breakdown into discrete sub‐steps with estimation hours for each sub‐step" as part of the Execution Schedule.

No.

27 Recommended CO Scenario 1, Subfactor 2

If no to the above question (Question 26), does the Gov't have a specific format for the "task breakdown into discrete sub‐steps with estimated hours for each sub‐step" to populate the Execution Schedule asked for in Subfactor 2?

Please show in Attachment G. Mx Planner Tab, add lines as needed to complete estimate.