6Feb08.doc

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

RFP FA8530-08-R-21758

6 Feb 08

Question: Does the Government want the effective date of certification for all NDI, Ground Engine Run, Aircraft Alignment & Symmetry/Wing Joint Planarity Check, and Fastener Hole Cold-work qualified personnel? For example if we list 55 current certified personnel in NDI Level II, multiple types, with different certification dates by level and type for each qualified person. Do you want to see all 55 personnel individually? Are you asking for current number of qualified personnel for the entire team when the requirement is met with one certified person meeting the type of certification/capabilities/qualifications?

Answer: Using the example provided in the question, if 55 current certified personnel in NDI Level II were listed, then the required information would have to be provided for each of the 55 personnel individually. It is up to each Offeror to determine how many personnel meeting the requirements they will include in their response.

Question: Amendment 0001 now clearly states the filled in FACTS Sheets should be “no more than both sides of two 8 1/2 x 11 pages.” Additional pages to address Paragraph O of the FACTS Sheet is only addressed in the FACTS Sheet, Rev 1, and it says “information is limited to two pages beyond the page limitation of the Facts sheet information.” Please confirm that “two pages” means both sides of two 8 ½ x 11 pages? Please confirm the maximum number of pages for any past performance reference is two double-sided pages (or 4 single sided pages) for the filled in FACTS Sheets, two double-sided pages (or 4 single-sided pages) for Paragraph O information, and one possible additional page for Section M info?

Answer: The only change made to the FACTS Sheet via RFP Amendment 0001 was the deletion of the column “Fill-in for the Proposed Effort” in Paragraph O. No other changes were made. In addition, RFP Amendment 0001 did not make any changes to L-900(2)(f)(i) regarding page limitations for the FACTS Sheets. As stated in Questions and Answers dated 30 Jan 08: “In total, the most single pages to be submitted for one relevant contract is 8 (3 pages FACTS Sheet, four pages – two double-sided sheets – for relevancy, and one page if needed for unfavorable assessment).”

Question: There are two items listed in the RFP Attachment 6, C-130 Peculiar Ground Handling Equipment List, that cannot be identified for use or applicability in the C-130 series technical manuals. Can the specific Technical data requirement or specific task requirement be identified for the two pieces of equipment listed below. Neither the NSN or part number is active in the Government Fedlog system.

49200007917510

64WRF301-1-2

Wing Device

4920P402508-1

TO 1C-130H

Template

Answer: An answer will be provided in the immediate future.

Question: Regarding L-900(2)(g) Volume IV - Cost/Price Volume. The RFP states need for narrative for Add-On factors and SCA identification:

Each Offeror shall submit, for the prime contractor and each critical subcontractor, a narrative description of the composition of the proposed Material Handling Add-On Factors, Crisis Pay Factors, Overtime Factors, Subcontract Add-On Factors, and OCONUS Labor Adjustment Factors.

Each offeror shall also identify, for the prime contractor and each critical subcontractor, which labor categories it has identified as covered by the Service Contract Act and which labor categories it has identified as exempt from the Service Contract Act.

The Prime Pricing Submission is limited to 13 pages and the Subcontractor Submission is limited to 10 pages. The Attachments that cannot be altered use the whole total page limits. How (format) and where does the narrative and SCA identification go in the proposal?

Answer: As stated in L-900(2)(a), there are no page limitations for the Cost/Price Volume. The pricing spreadsheets (RFP Attachments 9 and 10) are only part of the Cost/Price Volume. The required narrative information (composition of proposed add-on factors and adjustment factors and identification of SCA labor categories) is to be included in the Cost/Price Volume. The Offeror may provide the narrative and SCA identification in their own format, so long as the information is easy to identify and understand.

Question: Section L-9009(2)(ii)(a) (subfactor 2, Facilities), from both the original and amended solicitation, clearly states that “documentation evidencing possession of and/or access to facilities” is required. Also, Solicitation Attachment 5, Specification G1.2, states that “The offerer shall possess or have access to C-130 peculiar ground handling equipment, NDI equipment and tools.” To be consistent with the foregoing the Instruction 1 footnote at the bottom of the last page of Attachment 6 should be modified to reflect possession of or access to these items:

Request that such footnote be modified as follows:

From:

Complete “Prime/Sub Assigned Number” cell by inputting the assigned # (from above table) of the Prime and/or Subcontractor(s) that possess the equipment.”

To:

Complete “Prime/Sub Assigned Number” cell by inputting the assigned # (from above table) of the Prime and/or Subcontractor(s) that possess and/or have access to the equipment.”

Answer: This will be modified in an RFP Amendment.

Question: Regarding the following question/answer posted 5 Feb 08:

Can the following items be substituted for the item listed in RFP Attachment 6?

6670009425854

AS37M1

Weighing Kit

Substitution: GEC AN60 and AN30 weighing kits

6630011152398 H52

Meter Conductivity

Substitution: 1152

635000185835 65B365 X-Ray Machine

Substitution: Lorad LPX160

6625004485420 500A

Frequency Meter

Substitution: Fluke MegaOhmeter

6625005571168 97204

Ramp Test Set

Substitution: AN/ARM186 test set

6625006490417 6T4

Stroboscope Model

Substitution: GenRad 1542B

6625006494456 D0165-503-3-1 Analyzer Spectrum

Substitution: TS-148A

6625006495070 43A

Test Set

Substitution: 91348158

6625002242252 4D3573 Multimeter

Substitution: AN/PSM 37

Answer: As stated in Questions and Answers dated 29 Jan 08, “It is necessary to show full compliance with each item on the list. However, for items that the offeror believes are obsolete or believes to have been replaced by newer items, the offeror may substitute the newer items. Any such substitutions must be clearly identified by the offeror.”

Will the Government review these items and approve/disapprove them before the proposal is due? The purpose was to demonstrate that waiting until submittal may mean technical non-compliance unless we have a POC that will address these items before submittal.

Answer: If an Offeror believes any items on the list are obsolete or have been replaced by newer items, they may submit a question prior to the proposal due date identifying those specific items and identifying their recommended substitute item, understanding that the answer will be provided to all Offerors. Other than in cases of obsolescence or newer replacement items, Offerors may not make substitutions to the list.

Question: Reference Amendment 0001. Where is the GHE list now? In one place it calls out "Tab" and another attachment 6, which was not part of the revised matrix.

Answer: RFP Attachment 6 was not revised by RFP Amendment 0001, and therefore was not attached to the amendment. Only those attachments that were changed by RFP Amendment 0001 were attached to the amendment. Although RFP Attachments 4, 5, and 6 were contained in the same Excel file, they each have their own tab and are separate RFP attachments.

Question: We have reviewed all questions and even through the Q&A from the industry exchanges in order to try to interpret how to fill out the MCM. The definition of “category” seems to be what is causing confusion when the Government makes the statement, “Offerors may use up to 4 critical subs in each category.” We interpret each category to be each individual cell. In other words, each bidder can consider all 12 critical subs when showing compliance with each requirement, but we cannot put more than 4 subs in any one cell. Is this correct?

If we are not allowed to consider the whole team when showing compliance with each requirement, then this provides extreme favoritism to the large OEM primes. They will be able to fill in the MCM all by themselves (as prime), then they have 12 empty slots they can fill anywhere they want (or where they will fit) in order to manipulate their median rate. Whereas a smaller company is forced to find at least 3 (or 4) subs with duplicate capabilities, just to scrape together a team of 12 different companies. This is not a level playing field. There are so many inconsistent requirements in the MCM, that it is extremely difficult to find 3 different groups of 4 subs that meet every requirement. For example, in the Maintenance column, besides maintenance capability, the Government also requires us to include facilities that are CMMI 3 when there is very little need for CMMI 3 to perform maintenance tasks on a C-130. Filling that slot with a CMMI certified company limits the amount of other subs that can be used to provide or reinforce maintenance capability. As another example, in the Modification Column, the Government requires extensive backshop capability, when in fact, most C-130 modification facilities do not need tire shops, hydraulic shops, oxygen shops, or perform fuel tank repair (and so on). In Development, the Government requires the backshops mentioned above, a C-130 wash rack, and an enclosed Paint Hangar, yet most development work is performed in an engineering facility conducting design efforts using Personal Computers, engineering models, and so on. We realize bidders could use the same subs over and over in the 3 columns, but then that bidder would be limited to a very small team, putting them at both a technical and pricing disadvantage to a large OEM.

We request that the definition of “category” for the purpose of completing the MCM be, “any individual cell underneath the column headings of Development, Modification, and Maintenance within the matrix.” with the restriction that no more than 12 subcontractors cumulative are used to complete the MCM.

Answer: No. The three categories are Development, Modifications, and Maintenance, shown across the top of the matrix.

Question: With regard to the Minimum Capabilities Matrix (MCM) Requirement G1.2 (C-130 Peculiar GHE) under both the Hangar, and Paint/Depaint – Is it acceptable to enter “See Attachment 6” or “See Proposal Appendix 2” or similar wording, to be compliant in each cell in row G1.2 under Development, Modification, and Maintenance?

Answer: No. Offerors are to follow the instructions at the bottom of the Minimum Capabilities Matrix in completing the matrix.

Question: In the revised RFP, Section M, Sub Factor 3 – Processes, it still requires each bidder to demonstrate their ability to organize and manage subcontractors. Since all references to subcontractor management were deleted from Section L, we assume this was left in accidentally and no longer is applicable. Please advise if this assumption is correct?

Answer: Yes, this is correct. This oversight will be corrected via another RFP Amendment.

Question: Prime Contractor Pricing Submission, Rev 2 (RFP Attachment 9) has been amended to add years 6 through 10 for Prime Add-on factors. Please confirm that Subcontractor Pricing Submission, Rev 1 (RFP Attachment 10) will be amended to also add years 6 through 10 for Add-on factors.

Answer: Yes.

Question: Amendment 0002 only extended the Add-On Factors out to Year 10 for the Prime Pricing spreadsheet. Will this be done for the Sub's Pricing spreadsheet as well?

Answer: Please see answer provided above.

Question: The RFP states: "Offeror must submit a labor hour and material percentage breakout spreadsheet. The percentages for FP/LH labor breakout, T&M labor breakout, CR labor breakout, and for material cost breakout must each add up to 100% (i.e., T&M must add up to 100%, FP/LH must add up to 100%, CR must add up to 100%, and material must add up to 100%)." Attachment 9 contains a single Labor Workload and Material Distribution Percentage worksheet. Since Attachment 9 does not provide three separate labor breakout worksheets for FP/HR labor breakout, T&M labor breakout and CR labor breakout, please confirm that only one labor distribution worksheet is required in Attachment 9 and would be applicable to all contract types for evaluation.

Answer: Attachment 9 will be revised to provide three separate Labor Workload and Material Distribution Percentage worksheets (one for FP/LH, one for T&M, and one for CR).

Question: RFP Reference L -900(2)(G) PAGE 101 / Excel PRIME pricing files. Referenced Clause contains: “Offeror must submit separate Labor Rate Spreadsheets for the prime contractor and all critical subcontractors which, when taken as a whole, must reflect a labor rate for each of the labor categories identified. It is incumbent upon the Offeror to ensure that his team has proposed rates for all labor categories. Offeror must submit a labor hour and material percentage breakout spreadsheet. The percentages for FP/LH labor breakout, T&M labor breakout, CR labor breakout, and for material cost breakout must each add up to 100% (i.e., T&M must add up to 100%, FP/LH must add up to 100%, CR must add up to 100%, and material must add up to 100%).” Additionally, at M-900(c)(iv), other information is provided.

The combination of the above noted RFP references seem to indicate that the Government is requesting separate and unique allocations of man hours across subcontractors for (1) T&M; (2) FP; and (3) CR rate tables. However the Government provided excel file at the first worksheet –Labor Workload and Material Distribution – seems to allow for only one such distribution. We recommend only one Labor Workload and Material Distribution apply to all contract types.

Answer: Please see answer provided above. There will be three separate Labor Workload and Material Distribution Percentage worksheets.

Question: Does the Government still intend for Offerors to submit their Small Disadvantaged Business Targets under FAR 52.219-24 in Volume III – Present and Past Performance? In the Questions and Answers released 30 January 2008, the Government indicated that this information would be provided as part of the Small Business Subcontracting Plan which is to be submitted as part of Volume I. If the Government does intend for this information to be provided as part of Volume III, would you please detail the evaluation factor or subfactor that will be applied? The only thing currently listed in Section M pertains to the evaluation of an Offerors’ prior compliance with 52.219-8 and -9.

Answer: The information required in Volume III regarding Small Disadvantaged Business Targets, FAR 52.219-24, is required to be submitted in Volume III and is specific to Small Disadvantaged Business targets only. Identification of SDB targets in this volume is different from the submission of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, which covers all small business categories. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan covering all categories is required to be submitted as part of Volume I. Provision of the required SDB Targets in Volume III is treated as a “pass/fail”: Offerors who provide the required information receive a “pass” on this portion of Volume III. Offerors who do not provide the required information receive a “fail” on this portion of Volume III, which may impact their overall confidence rating.

Question: In Attachment 8, Present/Past Performance FACTS Sheet, does the Government intend for the Offeror to submit a separate table detailed in Paragraph O for each of the subcontractors that it utilized on the Program identified in Paragraph B? If yes and if the list of such subcontractors exceeds two pages, please detail the criteria that the Offeror should use to determine which subcontractors should be included in the tables.

Answer: This information is to be provided separately in the table format contained in the FACTS Sheet for each subcontractor utilized in performing the effort. If the information exceeds the page limitations, offerors should provide information for the subcontractors performing the highest percentages of the effort.

Question: Reference L-900(2)(a) Amendment 0001: The instructions state that the cross reference matrix does not count towards the page limits. Since "Volume II - Written Technical Proposal" is the only page limited volume, it is our understanding that the cross reference matrix is only required for Volume II. Please confirm whether a cross reference matrix is required for all volumes, or just Volume II.

Answer: A cross reference matrix is only required for Volume II.

Question: Reference L-900(2)(d) Amendment 0001: Is "Offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 and FAR 52.219-9 Alt II" the same Plan as CDRL A001? If so, is the CDRL requirement to submit A001 "sixty (60) days after basic contract award" superseded by L-900.2.d Amendment 1?

Answer: No. CDRL A001 is the Subcontractor Management Plan, which is to be prepared and submitted IAW CDRL A001. This is separate from the Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 and FAR 52.219-9 Alt II.

Question: Reference L-900(2)(d) Amendment 1: Does "the completed and signed RFP" refer to the completed file, FA853008R2175822Jan08.RTF, as amended (110 pages), or does it include all the completed RFP Attachments? We assume it is the completed FA853008R2175822Jan08.RTF only (no attachments) because attachments are addressed in other volumes. Please confirm or correct.

Answer: It is the completed RFP, as amended. The attachments that are to be completed and submitted with the proposal are addressed in other volumes.

Question: The February 4 Q&As included the following answer: Attachments 9 and 10, and Clause 52.216-29, will be revised via RFP Amendment to include a 10% cap on profit/fee for T&M rates/orders in addition to the 10% cap on profit/fee on LH orders, as LH is a variation of T&M. All cost type orders will be subject to the 10% cap on fee set forth in FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(C). There is no specified cap on profit for FP orders, and profit on these efforts will be negotiated at the D/TO level.”

The 10% fee cap in cited FAR clause only applies to CPFF contracts for other than Development. Since F2AST contemplates both Development, and Cost Reimbursement contract types in addition to CPFF (e.g., CPIF), the 10% fee cap would not apply on all CR contracts. Rather the 15% cap should apply in accordance with FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(A). Please confirm.

Answer: It is not anticipated that F2AST will be utilized for the type of effort covered by FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(A). However, in the event that these type of services are ordered through F2AST, the 15% cap will apply. However, fee is subject to negotiation and Offerors should not assume that they will be automatically entitled to 15% fee.