Post RFP Release QA_ C-5 SDC Solicitation FA8525-22-R-0003.pdf

Question/Answer # Document in Question

Document Date

Document Page Number

Document Paragraph Number

RFP Extract and/or Statement Requiring Clarification/Issue Question Government Response

1 Attach. 25, Section M

27 April 2022 8, 9 D.4 - Relevancy Definitions

Table: Prime Contractor and Critical Subcontractor Relevancy Definitions Column: Scope and Magnitude

The Scope and Magnitude Definitions have monetary thresholds.

The 'Very Relevant' and 'Not Relevant' definitions have an annual monetary threshold requirement. Can the Government please clarify if the 'Relevant' and 'Somewhat Relevant' definitions, which include a monetary range requirement, are to be considered as annual or total program amounts?

The dollar values identified are annual values. Per the table:

"Past Performance contractors or task orders $101M or greater annually…."

2 Attach. 24, Section L and Attach 25, Section M

27 April 2022

27 April 2022

8, 9

D.1 - General

D.4 - Relevancy Definitions

The Offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor in accordance with the format contained in the PPI Tool, Instructions contained in Attachment 21;

Relevancy Table, Attachment 20, and the following paragraphs. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will be responsible for any of the following essential maintenance packages: Engine/Engine Changes, Life Support Equipment, or Machine/Mechanical Items or those entities expected to conduct greater than or equal to 30% of the overall effort, based on the offeror’s proposed price.

How will the Government determine the relevancy for 'Critical Subcontractor' past performance for a small business performing an essential maintenance package on Life Support Equipment when the effort fits none of the criteria in the Relevancy Definitions?

Critical subcontractors' relevancy will be evaluated against the same criteria as prime contractors, regardless if they are large or small businesses. This criteria can be found in Section M, table "Prime Contractor and Critical Subcontractor Relevancy Definitions", page 8.

3 Attach 25, Section M

17 April 2022 8, 9 D.4 - Relevancy Definitions

Table: Prime Contractor and Critical Subcontractor Relevancy Definitions Column: Adjectival Rating 'Very Relevant' Column: Scope and Magnitude: '$101M or greater'

The original DRAFT Solicitation deemed any past performance effort involving similar maintenance support for large military legacy aircraft to be 'Very Relevant'. In the FINAL Solicitation, past performance efforts deemed “Very Relevant” must now involve contracts or task orders exceeding $101M annually. This appears to be an arbitrary dollar value as it does not align with the Solicitation NAICS nor the estimated dollar value for the C-5 SDC program. This requirement is inconsistent with the capability required for this work and will downgrade the evaluation of potential bidders who have accomplished very comparable depot heavy maintenance work on large military legacy aircraft similar to the C-5. A rating based on relevant scope of work is a more appropriate indicator than a dollar amount, as the original DRAFT Solicitation had contemplated.

Will the Government please consider (pursuant to the Competition in Contracting Act) minimizing the restrictive language and provisions to the maximum extent practicable, and to include only those restrictions and stipulations necessary to satisfy the Government's needs?

The estimated dollar value for the C-5 SDC effort has not been nor will it be released to industry. The Scope and

Magnitude definitions within Section M do represent expectations of what will be relevant to this acquisition. It is customary and consistent with DoD Source Selection Procedures for the relevancy evaluation to include looking at programmatic/logistics and scope and magnitude aspects of the past performance efforts submitted by Offerors. In the past the scope and magnitude specifics may not have been released to industry; however, for the C-5 SDC effort, we have included all of these aspects of the relevancy evaluation in the table provided on page 8.

4 Attach. 02, PWS

21 April 2022 14 4.6.5 If additional work is deemed necessary, the Contractor shall provide DCMA and the USG PCO an Aircraft Maintenance Production/Compression Report (AMREP), IAW CDRL A029, for approval that identifies (if necessary) any additional resource and flow days requirements. The Contractor shall follow the AMREP format IAW PWS section 4.25.4 AMREP Request.

Can the Government please confirm the AMREP Request is covered in PWS section 4.23.4?

Yes, AMREP Request is covered in PWS Section 4.23.4.

5 Attach. 02, PWS

21 April 2022 22 4.22.1 - Data Rights and Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA)

Throughout the duration of this contract, the Contractor shall be provided access to USAF engineering and technical data, as data rights permit. In the event a situation arises requiring access Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) owned C-5 drawings and technical manuals the Contractor shall request USAF engineering support through the AFMC Form 202 process described in AFMCMAN 63- 1202. The Contractor shall establish and maintain NDA for USG and OEM owned C-5 drawings and technical manuals. At the Contractor’s discretion, they may establish and maintain Data Rights with the OEM (at no cost to the Government) for C-5 drawings and technical manuals. The USG will not be responsible for any costs associated with access to or acquisition of data.

Is it correct to presume that as long as the Contractor follows the AFMC Form 202 process, the Contractor can attempt to procure OEM drawings through USAF engineering that are currently beyond USAF engineering data rights; rather than attempting to subscribe to an OEM’s data provision service?

Yes. As described, any requests should be made following the Form 202 process and worked through C-5 SPO engineering.

6 Solicitation, FA8525-22-R-

0003, Section

H, H-002- FPIF Cost and

Delivery Incentives &

Attachment 11

C. "The FPIF CLINs under this contract shall utilize underrun and overrun shares of 50/50"

The FPIF scope includes tasks to be performed on all aircraft. The scope also includes repairs and corrections discovered during the PDM process.

These repairs and corrections are not the result of contractor performance, but reflect the aircraft condition prior to contractor induction.

These repairs and corrections are likely to be the primary reason for cost variance and not contractor performance. The FPIF share ratios should correlate to the contractors responsibility for cost variance. Should the share ratios be adjusted to more closely correlate to contractor's responsibility for cost variance?

The bidder's library provides the entire Technical Manual outlining the Programmed Depot Maintenance requirements.

As previously presented to industry, the expectation is that repair activities up to the limits described within the Tech

Manual should be included in your FPIF provided pricing. For repairs exceeding the limits within the Tech Manual, the USG will consider that an over and above action. Since repairs outside the limits described within the Tech Manuals will be considered over and above, the USG's perspective is that risk has been limited; therefore, a 50/50 share ration is appropriate.

7 Solicitation, FA8525-22-R-

0003, Section

L

49 The FAR 52.222-49 Service Contract Labor Standards - Place of Performance clause requires Contractors request additional places of performance of the Contracting Officer in writing before 04:00 P.M. on 17 May 2022.

In accordance with FAR 52.222-49 of the solicitation, would the Government please add Wage Determinations for Houston, Peach & Pulaski Counties, Georgia (WD 2015-4495); Manatee & Sarasota Counties, Florida (WD 2015-4547); and Herkimer & Oneida Counties, New York (WD 2015-4165)?

Yes, an amended RFP was released on 27 May 2022 updating the existing wage determinations. An additional attachment was also released to provide wage determinations for the requested locations.

8 Solicitation, FA8525-22-R-

0003, Section

L

44 For planning purposes, is it expected that the Government will induct aircraft near the end of the last option period, with aircraft flowing past the end of the contract period?

There is no set schedule in place, however, how the contract is structured, the Government reserves the right to issue a task order anytime during any option period, to include the last day of the option period validity.

9 Solicitation, FA8525-22-R-

0003, Section

L

19 Section 1.11 For CLIN X005, the instructions in section 1.11 request that the offeror state whether proposed direct labor rates and indirect labor rates are covered by a Forward Pricing Rate Agreement (FPRA). Additionally if a FPRA is not in place, the Offeror is requested to provide data for the Forward Pricing Rate Proposal (FPRP). However, in section 1.6 the Government requests information about FPRA/FPRR.

Is it the Government's intent that both FPRA and FPRR are acceptable substantiation without providing additional data for CLIN X005?

The intent of the Government is the offeror provides an O&A rate build-up regardless if there is an FPRA, FPRR, or

FPRP. However, if the offeror (prime or subs over TINA) have an FPRA/FPRR then they should provide the

FPRA/FPRR.

C-5 Supplemental Depot Capability (SDC) Post RFP Release Questions and Responses

Question

Document Date

Document Page Number

Document Paragraph Number

RFP Extract and/or Statement Requiring Clarification/Issue Question Government Response

10 Solicitation Attachment 2, PWS

Section 4.31.1 From previous briefings, would the Government please confirm that the aircraft will only be ferried for Induction and FCF and Delivery of the aircraft?

That is correct. Any other additional movement of the aircraft will be the Contractor's responsibility.

11 Solicitation- Attachment 4

TCTO line Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 16 & 17

For the TCTOs identified in the list, should offerors assume the Government is providing the material as GFE?

Yes, for TCTOs that will be executed, the Government will provide the required material as GFE. Any deviations to this will be coordinated with the awardee prior to award of a task order.

12 Solicitation

Attachment 4 TCTO Would the Government please check and confirm whether this TCTO is correct for C-5M?

This TCTO is not applicable to C-5M; please disregard use/inclusion of this TCTO for this requirement.

13 Solicitation

Attachment

10, GFP

For the list of items that the Government is providing as GFP, is the intent that these items will be used for a rotable parts pool? Also, will these parts be received by the successful awardee in Ready-for-issue (RFI) condition?

The items listed as GFP items are known difficult to sauce items, and are planned to be made available due to this reason. There is not a rotable pool available. If these items were to become unserviceable, it will be the Contractor's responsibility for any repair actions. In the event these items become unserviceable, and a serviceable replacement can be found, it could be made available. The intent when these items are initially provided is for them to be in a ready for use/serviceable condition.

14 Solicitation Attachment 11

The draft solicitation package provided on 21 March included an excel version of the FPIF calculations. In that version (in excel) there was a tab that named "Schedule Flow Days" that enumerated the schedule incentives and disincentives based on flow days. The final solicitation Attachment 11 does not include this information.

Has the incentive and disincentive been removed or was that an oversight in leaving out the schedule incentive when converting the excel file to .pdf?

This was an oversight. An amended RFP will be released updating this attachment to the excel version that contains the schedule incentive information.

15 Attach. 24, Section L

27 April 2022 2 II.A - General 3rd paragraph

The Offeror must submit an email request to the Buyer/PCO indicated on the face page of the solicitation to receive access to the PPI Tool via DoD SAFE https://safe.apps.mil/

Offeror requested access to the PPI Tool via email to aliscia.pitts@us.af.mil on 16 May 2022. Offeror has not received approval for access.

Can the Government please provide an estimated date to when Offeror will receive access?

The PPI tool has been sent for those who have requested it.

If you plan on proposing and have not yet contacted Ms.

Aliscia Pitts to request the PPI tool, please do so.

16 Attach. 02, PWS

21 April 2022 26 4.24.10 The Contractor shall have access to aircraft weighing facilities and equipment IAW T.O.1-1B-50. The Contractor shall address Weight and Balance qualification procedures within their C-5 SDC Management Plan/Production Plan.

Offeror acknowledges that 1C-5CM-5-2 states "a weight and balance will be completed at PDM".

Can the Government please identify a Task Card associated with the weight and balance?

A task for Weight and Balance does not exist in the 6WC-8.

The requirement for Weight and Balance is covered in TO

1C-5M-6, Chapter 1.

17 Attach. 02, PWS

21 April 2022 26 4.24.11 - Wash Facilities/Rack

The Contractor shall have access to a wash facility with the capability to perform an aircraft wash year-round IAW 1C-5M-23-1 “Aircraft Washing and Cleaning.”

Reference requires year-around wash facilities, however, there weren't any task cards provided defining aircraft wash requirements. Can the government provide wash task cards?

C-5 Aircraft Wash requirement is covered in TO 1C-5M-23-1.

For PDM, it is common practice for the complete aircraft wash to be amended to only include the interior wash due to the complete depaint/paint requirement. Aircraft coming in for UDLM may require A/C wash IAW TO 1C-5M-23-1 on a case-by-case basis.

18 TO 1C-5M-2-

5CL-1

15 May 2012 1-4 WARNING NOTE “Discontinue all fuel system maintenance when lightning is occurring within a 5 nautical mile radius.”

Can the Government please clarify if this applies only when an aircraft is outside of a hangar and fuel work is being accomplished, or does it also apply to an aircraft housed in a hangar?

SPO concurs that this requirement is only for A/C that are not in a fully enclosed hangar

19 TASK CARD

0591-5164

24 July 2017 1 through 4 Applicable to entire card

Task Card 0591-5164 Functional check of the autopilot system.

Task Card 0591-5164 has a "Draft - Not for Operational Use" watermark.

Can the Government please confirm that this Task Card is valid to use in preparing Offeror's proposal response?

SPO concurs that this card is valid for preparing Offereors proposal response

20 TASK CARD

0591-4067 & 0591-4161M

28 Feb 2017 1 Step 1 Task Card 0591-4067 and Task Card 0591-4161M Remove aircraft battery and remove APU battery.

Both Task Cards (0591-4067 & 0591-4161M) state that the batteries need a capacitance check every 105 days and to route them to the backshop.

Can the Government please identify a Task Card and/or provide instructions to accomplish the capacitance check?

Reference the General Series Avionics Technical Data, TO 1- 1A-14. Capacitance checks are common place within the DoD Avionics community, and all are instructed early on about the 1-1A-… General Series Technical Orders.

21 TASK CARD

0591-6004 24 July 2017 1 Equipment Required Task Card 0591-6004 Magneto-Optic-Imager (MOI) is not commercially available for purchase.

Would the Government consider providing this equipment?

This MOI equipment is available from Quest Integrated and is currently available for purchase. We send our equipment to them for annual calibration. https://www.qi2.com

22 TASK CARD

0591-6005 1 July 2020 1 Equipment Required Task Card 0591-6005 MOI is not commercially available for purchase. Would the Government consider providing this equipment?

This MOI equipment is available from Quest Integrated and is currently available for purchase. We send our equipment to them for annual calibration. https://www.qi2.com

23 TASK CARD

0591-6005 1 July 2020 1 Step 3 Task Card 0591-6005, Step #3 Task Card 0591-6005, Step #3, does not have an Inspection Index number for reference. Can the Government please provide the Inspection Index number?

Inspection Index Number FF 40 is identified in Step 3 of SVWC 0591-6005…not sure why this question was asked…

24 TASK CARD

0591-6038

25 April 2018 1-4 Steps 1-5 Task Card 0591-6038 MOI is not commercially available for purchase. Would the Government consider providing this equipment?

This MOI equipment is available from Quest Integrated and is currently available for purchase. We send our equipment

25 TASK CARD

0591-6039

28 Feb 2017 1 Step 1 Task Card 0591-6039 MOI is not commercially available for purchase. Would the Government consider providing this equipment?

This MOI equipment is available from Quest Integrated and is currently available for purchase. We send our equipment

26 TASK CARD

0591-6024

15 May 2029 1 Steps 1-3 Task Card 0591-6024 The Task Card 0591-6024 Inspection Index calls for Radiographic and Eddy Current Inspections, however, only Eddy Current equipment is required in the Task Card. Can the Government please provide clarification?

0591-6024 will require both Eddy Current and Radiographic inspections. Inspection Index Numbers AF 14 and 15 are unchanged. AF 16 will require Radiographic as the primary inspection method. This work card is currently in revision to clarify the requirement, but this is the way forward.

27 TASK CARD

0591-6043 28 Feb 2017 1 Equipment Required Task Card 0591-6043 The Non-Destructive Testing Manual has required equipment as

"Bondmaster 1000 or 600". The Task Card has Sondicator and Harmonic units. Can the Government please confirm the Task Card units are "Bond Testers"?

SPO concurs that the units listed in SVWC 0591-6024 are bond testers.

28 TASK CARD

0591-6050

15 May 2019 1 Step 1 Task Card 0591-6050 Task Card 0591-6050, Step 1 does not have an Inspection Index reference. Can the Government please provide an Inspection Index reference?

SVWC 0591-6050 is being inactivated.

29 TASK CARD

0591-6058

24 July 2017 1 First Note Task Card 0591-6058 The Task Card references 0591-6032. Should the reference be 0591- 6062? Can the Government please provide clarification?

SPO concurs that the SVWC Reference in 0591-6058

SHOULD BE SVWC 0591-6062

Question

Document Date

Document Page Number

Document Paragraph Number

RFP Extract and/or Statement Requiring Clarification/Issue Question Government Response

30 TASK CARD

0591-6058

24 July 2017 1-4 Steps 1-2 Task Card 0591-6058 Task Card 0591-6058 has a "Draft - Not for Operational Use" watermark.

Can the Government please confirm that this Task Card is valid to use in preparing Offeror's proposal response?

SPO concurs that this card is valid for preparing Offereors proposal response

31 TASK CARD

0591-5061

1 July 2020 47 Step #10 Task Card 0591-5061 Operational check of the aircraft communication systems.

Task Card 0591-5061, Step #10, references a Functional Check of the IFF system IAW T.O. 1C-5M-2-8-2, Chapter 4. Chapter 4 has been deleted.

Can the Government please clarify/verify the correct Chapter?

Refer to Chapter 5, which covers all IFF now.

32 1C-5M-6WC-

1 November

Numerous Identified Numerous Identified Numerous Identified Numerous task cards give direction to route components to certain locations at Warner Robins AFB. The task cards are written as work being accomplished organically. How will these specific directions be handled by the contractor?

Offerors were provided information to contact Robins Business Office, if they would like to engage in conversation with Robins ALC to utilize these resources, contact:

402MXW.OBP.Workflow@us.af.mil. These services are primarily local manufacturing activities. Fulfillment of 100% of the PDM requirements is the Contractors responsibility.

The path you take fulfill these requirements is up to each individual offeror.

33 Attach. 24, Section L 27 April 2022 2 II.A - Table Volume V "Cost/Price" is limited to 5 pages. Will the Government revert the page limit to "N/A" for the Cost/Price

Volume as was stated in Section L of the Draft RFP dated 7-30-2021?

Yes, an amendment to the solicitation will be issued to change this page limit to "N/A".

34 Solicitation Section L, II (D) Volume III (2.) Past Performance Format

Section L, II.D.2, reads, “Each offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor shall utilize the PPI Tool to complete information for three (3) active or completed contracts (with at least one year of performance history) in the past three (3) years from the issuance date of the RFP that the offeror/joint venture member considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort.”

Is it correct to assume the requirement is for three or more contracts to be entered into the PPI tool for the offeror and its critical subcontractor together? Is it for three contracts from the offeror and three contracts for each critical subcontractor?

It is three (3) contracts from the offeror and three (3) contracts for each critical subcontractor. Information is to be submitted via the PPI Tool.

35 Solicitation Section L, II (C) (4.3) Engineering and Repair Narrative

Section L, II.C.4.3, reads, “Approach should also include a sample material certification submission”, and “Narrative description shall be limited to eight (8) pages to include sample certifications.”

Sample certifications are 4 to 20 pages. Is is the Government’s intent to have the sample certifications attached as an addendum?

Sample certifications should be attached to volume II, technical proposal.

36 Attachment 2 - Supplemental Depot Capability

(SDC) PWS &

Attachment 6 -

C-5 SDC

CDRL's

PWS, Section 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.2 &

CDRL A009

Ths solicitation requires Earned Value Management reporting for each Task Order on a monthly basis.

In order to keep the cost of reporting and review on the Government side, would the Government advise if ("EV Light") tailoring and requiring only Top Level Hands-on-Labor reporting with LOE spreads be sufficient?

Alternately, would the Government be able to provide sample reporting templates for review or advise what level of reporting is required (i.e. are all formats 1-7 required or some subset thereof)?

All formats (1-7) are all required. Sample reporting can be found in the Department of Defense, Earned Value

Management Implementation Guide. The IMS format is Microsoft Project. Additional formats should be delivered via a Microsoft Suite product, depending on the deliverable. At this time, "EV Light" is not being considered; however, the Government would like to reiterate the tailoring of CDRL

A009 to holding an initial Integrated Baseline Review (IBR) and Schedule Risk Assessment (SRA) on the basic

Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM). Any additional IBR/SRA activities would only be required for task order specific tasks, not initially covered during the initial IBR/SRA.

37 Solicitation Attachment 9 The solicitation currently requires extensive Mil-Spec packaging requirements. Would the Government include packaging language similar to the following for non-deliverable items transferred between the Prime and its subcontractors:

"The Contractor shall package and mark the supplies and services to be provided in accordance with prevailing industry standards for the type of commodity shipped under this TO. All packages will be clearly marked with applicable contract number and will contain appropriate packing slip?"

The Government is not going to provide an overarching lightening of requirements for shipping. If, in execution, the

Contractor would like to submit a request to change the shipping requirements for specific items, these requests will be worked through C-5 Program Office Engineering.

Solicitation #