Tunner_RFP_Q A_2_-_11-8-12.pdf

Questions and Answers Tunner 60K Aircraft Cargo Loader Performance Based Logistics (PBL) Acquisition

Request for Proposal (RFP) FA8519-11-R-0003

8 November 2012

The following questions have been received in the AFLCMC/WNKBBA, Support Equipment & Vehicles

– Services Contracting Office on the above referenced RFP for the Tunner solicitation. The questions as well as the applicable answers are provided below for assistance to all potential offerors for the greater understanding of the Government’s requirement.

Question 1: In Section L-900 Instructions to Offeror; C. Volume II, Technical; Subfactor 1: Systems Engineering, p.193 of 211 of the 60K Tunner RFP, it states that “The technical proposal shall include: i) A Systems Engineering Plan (SEP) in accordance with PES PWS paragraph 4.2.1. ” In addition, CDRL 010 states “SEP is due not later than 180 days after contract award.” An SEP is an important, very labor/skills intensive and technical document as evidenced by the CDRL’s 180 day, post-contract award deliverable date. The Government has an approved Tunner SEP in current use. We view this document in the same manner as other Tunner technical documentation such as Overhaul Instructions, Operation and Operator Instructions, etc. and believe it should be provided to all bidders. Not all bidders have access to Government documents for the Tunner which places non-OEM bidders at an unfair disadvantage. The Government, and potentially the OEM, has had 15 years to develop and revise a Tunner-specific SEP and it was developed at government expense. This constitutes a potential unfair advantage to the OEM.

Since the Government has restated several times that an SEP is required as part of the Technical Proposal, will the Government provide the latest, Tunner-specific SEP or as Government Furnished Information (GFI) as part of the RFP or remove the SEP as a requirement for the Technical Proposal?

Government Response: A copy of the Government’s SEP was provided on 13 Jun 2012 in response to a question received as a result of the posting of the draft RFP on www.fbo.gov under the solicitation number FA8519-11-R-0003-DRAFT. As the document was previously provided with the draft RFP, the potential for an unfair advantage to the OEM is not present.

The CDRL does require the SEP to be delivered at 180 days after contract award. The CDRL also requires future submissions to be submitted when changes are desired and require Government approval.

The PES PWS states: “The Contractor shall change the SEP and processes as necessary for continuous improvement.” So, the SEP is a living document that is expected to change from time to time. The SEP for the proposal can be a preliminary or condensed version of the SEP. However, all tenets required per the PES PWS must be addressed.

Question 2: Section L, D. Vol III, Past Performance Factor Page 196, para 5 and 6: Please clarify that on past and current direct government contracts, that we are not required to send the past performance questionnaire (attachment 24) to the government customer if we have been issued a CPAR? If we are required to submit the questionnaire, when are the completed past performance questionnaires due back to the government? Also are we required to fill out any sections in the questionnaire?

Government Response: Potential offerors may send a copy of the questionnaire to the POCs identified in their FACTS Sheets in order to allow the POCs to see what questions will be asked during the interview. However, it is not required by the RFP for offerors to track the completion of the questionnaires. Per Section L, paragraph D.(5): “For each of the four (4) submitted contracts found to have some relevance to the instant acquisition, the Past Performance Team will contact the points of contact identified in the FACTS Sheet(s). A telephone interview will be conducted utilizing the Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment 24). The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s).”

Whether or not a CPAR is available on a particular effort, the performance team will still conduct an interview following the questionnaire.

Question 3: Appendix C – page 19, jj, System Modification – which alters form, fit or function and Page 11 of the MM PWS, table Appendix A: Does the government want the System Safety Plan to meet the D or E version of MIL-STD-882? There is a conflict in the RFP – Appendix A has 882E and Appendix C has 882D. Please clarify.

Government Response: The correct version is 882E. Amendment 0001 will incorporate a revised Appendix C to reference the correct version.

Question 4: Para 4.2 Systems Engineering Plan and Section L, L-900, A.4; PWS 4.2 – 4.2.20 and PWS 4.2.16: RFP PES performance work statement, paragraph 4.2 Systems engineering plan requires a full “blueprint” Tunner Systems Engineering Plan (SEP). Section L RFP instructions, L-900 A.4 regarding page limitations does not exclude the SEP plus response to all systems engineering requirements of PWS

4.2 – 4.2.20, SEP attachments OSS&E (PWS 4.2.3) and System Safety Program Plan (PWS 4.2.16).

Response to these requirements in addition to the other parts of Volume II within the current page allowance results in unfavorable trade-offs between space and level of detail increasing the risks to evaluators in understanding contractor’s true capabilities. In order to meet the level of detail required to meet the response requirements and evaluation criteria of Section M -900,2, Technical Factor, Subfactor 1, would the government increase the current page count from 250 pages to 425 pages for Volume II, Technical Proposal?

Government Response: After a second review and discussion, the SEP will be removed from the page count limitation. Amendment 0001 will incorporate the revisions to Section L.