2nd Post RFP Release QA_C-5 Supplemental Depot Capability_round 2.pdf

# RFP Document Sec # RFP Wording Question to the Government Government Response

1 Q&A's General Question When will responses to questions submitted on or prior to 31 May 2022 be made available, and will those responses include all non-proprietary questions and answers submitted by all competitors?

Responses to Questions submitted prior to the 31 May deadline were posted to Sam.gov on Friday, 24 June 2022.

Solicitation, Amendment 1

Part I, Section H, H-001 C-5 SDC PDM Flow Day Requirements;

and, H-002 (B) Target Flow Days for Each Induction

For Aircraft 4 in the table in the H-001 clause the Flow Day Metric is 390 Days. In table H-002, however, the Target Flow Days is identified as 290 Days.

Would the Government please confirm that the flow days for Aircraft 4 should be 390 Days in both tables?

The flow day requirement is 390 days. An amendment is in work to correct the table in H-002.

3 PWS Section 3.2.1 Government Furnished Material For those items identified as Government Furnished Material, is the Government providing these items at no cost or should Contractors be including the estimated cost of those items in their pricing (ERRC Code T items)?

The Government will provide items listed on the GFP listing at no cost.

It will be the awardee's responsibility to maintain that equipment in a serviceable condition while in their possession.

4 Data Library Appendix A

30 - 100 Percent Replacement 75 - 100 Percent Replacement 100% Replacement DLA Managed Items

General Questions regarding Data provided

1 - Would the Government please explain why there are a significant number of parts listed at greater than 100% replacement?

2- For the line items where quantities are greater than quantity 1, is the replacement percentage indicative of the percentage of replacement for the total quantity or is it reflective of replacement of the full quantity per aircraft at the percentage rate noted?

(i.e. In the 100% Replacement DLA Table (line item 2), is the historical replacement value at 33% reflective of replacing 1 each 33% of the time or does it reflect replacing a quantity of 2 each 33% of the time?)

3 - For the items identified as 0% replacement, is it safe for offerors to assume that we do not need to include cost for these items in our material pricing or should we develop some type of risk factor for these items, should any of them need to be replaced?

The information provided in the spreadsheets identified was provided to offeror's as information only, in an attempt to be as transparent with industry as possible, with data we have collected for historical replacement rates. 1- There should not be any actual replacement percentages above 100%. For any that are represented as above 100% in the spreadsheet provided, these should be capped at 100% replacement.

2- For the data that has been provided, If the QPA is 2 or more, than the replacement percentage factor is based on the QPA.

3- The Government will not direct any offeror on how to interpret the information that was provided or in how to utilize the data for pricing purposes. It is up to each individual offeror to determine their own stance on risk, etc. in developing their pricing.

Bidder's Library:

Appendix A - 100% Replacement AF- Managed Items

FY22_GFM

Appendix A - 100% Replacement DLA- Managed Items FY22

Appendix A - 30-100 Percent Replacement

Appendix A - 75-100 Percent Replacement

All pages in all four documents (lists)

Issue:

Duplication of Part Numbers / National Stock Numbers (NSNs)

In evaluating the material of the four documents (lists) provided, we identified numerous duplicate Part Numbers / NSNs.

Should the contractor include these duplicates in our pricing submission with the proposal?

The information provided in the spreadsheets identified was provided to offeror's as information only, in an attempt to be as transparent with industry as possible, with data we have collected for historical replacement rates. The Government will not direct any offeror on how to interpret the information that was provided or in how to utilize the data for pricing purposes. It is up to each individual offeror to determine their own stance on risk, etc. in developing their pricing.

Any duplicate entries should be considered an error.

Bidder's Library:

Appendix A - 75-100 Percent Replacement

All pages Issue:

Clarification on quantities

In evaluating the material on the four lists provided, we understand the different quantities of material that in the 75-100% list, column AX (Average REP%) is the average quantities; but in column AY (Highest REP%) is more than 100% replacement per aircraft.

Please clarify that the quantities in the Highest REP% columns are correct.

There should not be any actual replacement percentages above 100%.

For any that are represented as above 100% in the spreadsheet provided, these should be capped at 100% replacement.

Bidder's Library:

Appendix A - 30-100 Percent Replacement

All pages Issue:

Clarification on quantities

In evaluating the material on the four lists provided, we understand the different quantities of material that in the 30-100% list, column AJ (Average REP%) is the average quantities; but in column AK (Highest REP%) is more than 100% replacement per aircraft.

Please clarify that the quantities in the Highest REP% columns are correct.

There should not be any actual replacement percentages above 100%.

For any that are represented as above 100% in the spreadsheet provided, these should be capped at 100% replacement.

C-5 Supplemental Depot Capability (SDC) Post RFP Release Q&A, Round 2

L3Harris Questions