Tunner_RFP_Q A_3_-_11-19-12.pdf

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

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

19 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: The top of SF 1447 states that “BIDDER/OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 11, 13, 15, 21, 22, & 27.” Please confirm that offerors do NOT need to complete Blocks 21 (Unit Price) and 22 (Amount) since these items are to be listed in detail in Section B. Will the Government restate the top of SF 1447 as follows: “BIDDER/OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 11, 13, 15, & 27.”

Government Response: The Government will not restate the top of SF 1447. The face page states “SEE LINE ITEM SCHEDULE” for blocks 17-22. Offerors are to complete blocks 21 and 22 within the schedule in Section B.

Question 2: Would the government post the existing OSS&E, CMP, PLM, and SRB on FBO?

Government Response: OSS&E execution plan is provided in RFP attachment 29, disk 1. CMP, PLM, and SRB will not be posted. CMP is contractor unique and dependent on each contractor’s processes and procedures. PLM and SRB are processes, not products, created by individual contractors to meet the requirements of the PWSs.

Question 3: Do offerors need to submit a Safety & Health plan in the current proposal submission?

Government Response: No

Question 4: The period of performance for CLINS 0001 and 0004 appear to not match the TEP discussion found on pg. 206. Basic Ordering period is 18 months long and PES functions for CLINS 0001 and 0004 total to 20 months. Please clarify the period of performance for CLIN 0001 is 10 months and CLIN 0004 is 8 months, to total 18 months for the Basic Ordering period 1.

Government Response: The ordering period and CLIN quantities are not synonymous. 18 months represents the length of basic ordering period 1 during which time the Government may place orders for the respective CLINs. The CLIN quantities represent the estimated quantities for each CLIN that may be purchased anytime during the ordering period. The values in CLIN 0001, CLIN 0004, and the TEP on page 206 are correct.

Question 5: The items listed in Attachment 28 appear to be mostly common spare parts and Large Item Parts (LIP). The Overhaul Instructions, Chapter 2 lists a significant number of special tools, tooling, jigs and test equipment not included in this Attachment. Is this the complete list of GFP? If the items listed in the Overhaul Instructions, Chapter 2 will not be provided as GFP, provide the technical drawings, specifications, and manufacturers for these items.

Government Response: Attachment 28 is the complete list of GFP to be provided. Items listed in Overhaul Instructions Manual, Chapter 2, will not be provided as GFP, however, the technical data for the items in Chapter 2 will be provided via CD to those interested vendors that provide a request for the CD along with prepaid shipping material to fit 1 CD.

Question 6: Do we have anything that defines what kind of transitional support a non-OEM Contractor could reasonably expect from the OEM based upon this Transitional contract that is a contract not to exceed 5 years? What is the plan for the production line GFE/GFP equipment used by the OEM once transition is complete--are we to integrate that equipment into our operation to provide a surge capability?

There should be a transition plan for the Program Engineering, Material Management and Overhaul portion of the effort.

Government Response: Should the transitional contract be awarded as a result of this solicitation, the OEM will not be providing transitional support to the non-OEM contractor. The purpose of the transitional contract is to ensure there is no gap in coverage for the Tunner program. The transitional contract will include 42 months of coverage for MM, Overhaul and PES while the non-OEM contractor is ramping up to take over the responsibility for these support functions as well as to allow for the non-OEM contractor to become qualified for overhaul.

Question 7: Does the 12 point font size requirement include tables and figures?

Government Response: Yes.

Question 8: Should the Source Selection legend be placed on the top and bottom of each page or only on the bottom

Government Response: Per Section L, paragraph A.6., the legend should be at the bottom of each sheet.

Question 9: Does the double space requirement also include tables and figures?

Government Response: Yes.

Question 10: Does the Government have a preference on what software files should be delivered in?

Government Response: Except for the files specifically identified within the solicitation and all attachments, the file format will be within the offeror’s discretion as long as it can be accessed with a Microsoft Windows compatible computer.

Question 11: Section L-900, Instructions to Offerors, B. Volume I (p.193) states that “Proposals must be received by FLCMC/WNKBBA, 235 Byron Street, Suite 19A, Robins AFB GA 31098-1813, Attention:

Deborah A. Simmons/Contracting Officer, no later than 4:00 PM Eastern Daylight Savings Time.” This information should be updated with the correct Contracting Officer and time.

Government Response: Amendment 0001 will update Section L with the correct Contracting Officer and time.

Question 12: In Section B, p.4 it states “For Proposal A, each source other than the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) will propose to all CLINS except for CLIN 0006.” However, in Section L-900, E.

Vol. IV Price iii., it states that “Non-OEM offerors will submit prices for all CLINs other than 0006, 8xxx, and 9xxx.” Will the Government correct the reference in Section B, p.4 so that it states “For Proposal A, each source other than the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) will propose to all CLINS except for CLIN 0006, 8xxx, and 9xxx.”

Government Response: The note for Proposal A is correct as written. Non-OEM offerors shall propose prices for all CLINs save 0006. CLINs 8xxx and 9xxx are within Proposal C; as such, to state in the Proposal A note that non-OEM offerors are not to propose prices for CLINs inapplicable to Proposal A would not be clear.

Question 13: Because the contractor will be providing engineering services/ program engineering support, will the Government be including the Changes – Fixed Price, Alternate III (when architect-engineer or other professional services) in Section I of the RFP?

Government Response: Since the engineering support is not the primary service in this effort, it has been determined that Alternate III is not applicable to this RFP.

Question 14: The first sentence of H-908 states that “Contractor's sole and exclusive remedy for breach by the Government shall be termination for convenience damages, task order proposal preparation costs, task order award, and/or reinstatement if deemed feasible by the Government in its sole discretion.” This sentence appears to contradict the disputes process set forth in Section I-417 Disputes (FAR 52.233-1).

In addition, because Contractors cannot know the nature of a given breach prior to its occurrence, specifying the appropriate “sole and exclusive remedy” appears premature. As a result, will the Government consider deleting this sentence in its entirety?

Government Response: Amendment 0001 will incorporate a revised H-908 with the first sentence deleted in its entirety.

Question 15: The 60K Tunner SEP has been requested twice now. What was received is the WR- ALC/GRV System Engineering Plan – Revision 1.5, this is not the 60K Tunner SEP; we are not sure you are aware of this. We are requesting the USAF approved 60K Tunner SEP that is currently in use.

Allowing the incumbent to have this but requiring us to write one places us at a distinct disadvantage.

Can you please clarify if it is your intent to provide us with the USAF approved 60K Tunner SEP.

Government Response: The Government will not provide the SEP developed by the OEM.

Question 16: This question concerns the GFP, specifically the Government Owned Tooling with a value of $3,640,450- (see RFP page 205/211). In our previous request for a list of GFP, the tooling was not provided nor is it provided in Attachment 28. Can you provide us a list of Government owned tooling with the noun nomenclature, part number, manufacturer, quantity and price? Not having this information places us at an unfair advantage and will not allow you to make a like item comparison.

(3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): For evaluation purposes, the Government will calculate a TEP for the OEM and non-OEM based on the following:

a. Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs will not be included in the TEP.

b. The transitional CLINs 8001- 9008 are not included in the basis for award and will be excluded from the TEP.

c. OEM’s TEP will be based on adding all FFP/FPI(F) CLINs (excluding 0001 and 0005) for each Ordering Period, as further described below, plus $3,640,450.00. Because Government-owned tooling valued at $3,640,450.00 will not be available for use by any non-OEM source, and to ensure an equitable evaluation of price, the value of the Government-owned tooling that the OEM possesses will be added to the sum of the CLINs to develop the OEM’s TEP.

Government Response: Attachment 28 is the complete list of GFP that is to be provided under the contract. Potential offerors will not be at an unfair advantage without the list of Government Owned Tooling because the Government is including the price adjustment to the OEM’s TEP, should the OEM choose to propose. The data provided to date, as well as the data to be provided as a result of Question 5 above, is for all of the tooling required to accomplish all CLS tasks in the RFP and is adequate for proposal purposes.

Question 17: The guidance provided in FAR 16.203-4(d) suggests using an economic price adjustment clause in the event that (i) the contract involves an extended period of performance with significant costs to be incurred beyond 1 year after performance begins; (ii) the contract amount subject to adjustment is substantial; and (iii) the economic variables for labor and materials are too unstable to permit a reasonable division of risk between the Government and the contractor. Given that the 60K Tunner procurement satisfies these 3 elements—with respect to the third element, the current economic environment features considerable price volatility (commodity prices, etc.) and obsolescence issues could substantially impact parts availability-- would the Government consider using an economic price adjustment clause tied to a standard index such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index for the Transportation Equipment Manufacturing subsector?

Alternatively, would the Government consider a contract provision whereby the Contractor and the Government would re-negotiate material management/ parts prices once such prices deviate a certain percentage (e.g. 15%) from the Contractor’s quoted prices on a per CLIN basis? Such a contract provision would come into effect with a price increase or price decrease greater than the stated percentage.

Government Response: This issue was brought up and thoroughly discussed during the acquisition planning phase of this effort. The Fixed-Price Incentive-Firm Target (FPI(F)) pricing arrangement allows for both the Government and the contractor to share in any cost overruns and underruns based on the 50/50 share ratio. This arrangement has proven very effective for the Tunner program and is the arrangement that has been chosen and vetted. The Government will not include an EPA clause, nor will the Government include a contract provision allowing re-negotiation at a later date.

Question 18: To ensure that the non-government advisors supporting the Government in connection with the 60K Tunner procurement will not gain an unfair competitive advantage in future procurements (i.e., access to offeror’s proprietary information and potential Organizational Conflict of Interest concerns), will the Government please clarify what procedures and processes it has implemented and will implement to ensure that no such competitive advantage arises?

Government Response: The procedures and processes identified in the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 1 July 2011, as well as FAR 3.11 and 9.5, for requiring non-disclosure agreements, conflict of interest statements, disclosure of financial information from non-Government advisors, etc. are in place and have been implemented in order to screen for and prevent conflicts of interest. Further, offerors must provide their consent before the non-Government advisors are given access to any proprietary information.