Questions and Answers 20 Oct 2009.pdf

SbAST RFP FA8530‐09‐R‐22309 Questions & Answers

Questions 12(a), 13(d), 14, 15(a), 16, & 26 are being re‐answered below. The answers below replace the answers posted on 16 & 25 September 2009.

Questions 12(a): What process will the Government use to make its size determination of the offerors?

Answer 12(a): The government will utilize the process outlined in the FAR and CFR and

SBA will make all determinations regarding size.

Question 13(d): Does the Government believe that every critical subcontractor must be considered to be an ostensible subcontractor under the SBA affiliation rules?

Answer 13(d): No, the Government will refer all issues with ostensible subcontractors to the SBA; the SBA will make all determinations addressing ostensible subcontracting.

Questions 14: The 14 May 2009 industry briefing slides 14 and 15 outlined the 7 Factor Test for ostensible subcontracting. This test addresses use of a large business subcontractor on a particular D/TO to determine if an ostensible subcontracting relationship and therefore affiliation exists on that D/TO. Please confirm that this test will only apply to use of a large business subcontractor.

Answer 14: This test will apply to both large and small business subcontractors and will be used as a tool; the SBA will still follow all CFR regulation in determining the existence of ostensible subcontracting.

Questions 15(a): Why is the Government requiring recertification of business size during the term of the contract which is not “more than five years”?

Answer 15(a): On this contract the Government will be required to determine small business size prior to the award of the basic contract and the award of all D/TOs. All size determinations will be completed by the SBA.

Question 16: Please confirm that H‐912 is intended to address the cases where small businesses become large either through contract novation or merger/acquisition. In the case where a small business becomes large through the process of organic growth, please clarify that the option period will be exercised at the Government’s discretion provided that performance is otherwise satisfactory and the Prime has not fallen below 51% of the labor content performed.

Answer 16: The clause is intended to address the case where small businesses become large either through contract novation or merger/acquisition. The option period may be exercised at the Government’s discretion provided that performance is otherwise satisfactory and the Prime has not fallen below 51% of the labor content performed.

Question 26: Several line items in the C‐130 PGHE Listing are interchangeable units. Is it the intent of the Government for each offeror to have access to multiple interchangeable units in order to show compliance with Attachment 6 PGHE listing?

Examples include Line Items 121 and 126 (Gasoline‐powered Hydraulic Test Stands) and Line Items 113, 120 and 128 (Propeller Synchrophaser Test Sets).

Answer 26: Offeror’s are to have access to all items listed in the PGHE. DCMA will verify the capabilities of all offerors. The parts on the C‐130 PGHE list should be verifiable by DCMA whether by upgrade in TOs or on the PGHE list as long as they are verified by DCMA to be acceptable to support C‐130 Modifications/Upgrades/Enhancements and Maintenance/Repairs. The offeror must identify to the DCMA representative where the part has been upgraded due to changes in TOs.

Background: Section H‐909: Consent to Add subcontractors states that “Prime Contractors will not be allowed to add additional SbAST subcontractors in any labor category in which the proposed labor rates exceed the median SbAST labor subcontractor rate ...

Question 30: Section L instructs the Offeror to develop and submit a single composite subcontractor rate package. Will the Government explain how to calculate the median SbAST subcontractor labor rate from a single composite subcontractor rate package?

Answer 30: The offeror is to submit a single composite subcontractor rate package. This rate package will act as a set of NTE rates that will be applicable to all subcontractor rates.

Background: Section M contains a Government example of calculation for evaluated labor cost on page 88 of 88 of the solicitation. The example lists for Proposed Labor Rate, Prime, Sub 1, Sub 2, Sub 3. However, Section L instructs the Offeror to develop one composite subcontractor rate package.

Question 31: Will the Government correct the TEP worksheet headings to reflect using only the Prime and the Composite Sub Labor Rate in order to calculate the Evaluated Labor cost?

Answer 31: The Government will correct the TEP worksheet.

Background: Section H‐901: Ordering/Selection Procedures and Fair Opportunity, and Section H‐

921: Rate Adjustment Guidelines for Year 6 & 7 make multiple references to FP, T&M, CR and LH rates, as does Section B. However, attachment 8 contains instructions and spreadsheet tabs for ONLY FP and T&M LH rate tables.

Question 32: Will the Government confirm that only FP and T&M LH rate packages are required?

Answer 32: Only FP and T&M LH rate packages are required.

Question 33: Would the Government please provide the currently applicable Service Contract Act

(SCA) Wage Determination for this solicitation, and confirm that this will apply to the Warner Robins area only?

Answer 33: We do not plan on putting a wage determination on the basic. Wage Determinations will be done at the order level and it will be completed for the area where the work is to be performed.

Question 34: Reference pages 75 and 76 of the RFP, paragraphs v., vi., and vii.

The Offeror has submitted the Attachment 6, Minimum Capabilities Matrix and PGHE per the RFP requirements. Verification of the Attachment 6 submissions is in process by the respective DCMA representatives. Do these verifications by the DCMA representatives satisfy the RFP requirements of pages 75 and 76, paragraphs v., vi., and vii.?

Answer 34: The completed Attachment 6 Minimum Capabilities Matrix and PGHE along with the technical volume as addressed in Section M 2(F) (pages 75‐76) meet the technical submission requirements. DCMA will do the verification of Attachment 6.

Background: Request for a Change to Vol II, Technical Capability, Page Limitation and

Extension to the Due Date of Proposal to Subject RFP

Question 35: After further review of the requirements of Section L of the RFP, paragraphs v., vi., and vii (Sub‐factors 1, 2, and 3), the RFP states the proposal must include documentation supporting the Certifications, Facilities, and Processes submitted via the Atch 6, Minimum Capabilities Matrix. In order to comply with the necessary documentation, it consumed 75 of the allocated 100 pages for Volume II, Technical Capability, leaving but 25 pages to respond to the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Due to the complexities of the PWS, we believe 25 pages is insufficient to adequately address our understanding of the PWS. I respectfully request a revision of the page limitation of the Volume II, Technical Capability, to 200 pages and extension to the due date of the proposal one to two weeks to provide sufficient time to address this problem.

Answer 35: The government does not approve the increase in pages. However the government is currently looking into extending the RFP mod will be forth coming.

Background: Reference SbAST RFP FA8530‐09‐R‐22309 questions and Answers, 17 through 29, posted 25 September 2009 and Attachment 6 PGHE listings

Question 36: Line item 154 calls out NSN 6635‐00‐018‐5835, part number 65B365 with a nomenclature of X‐Ray Machine Indus. FED LOG list NSN 6635‐01‐394‐5926 as an item to be utilized when NSN 6635‐00‐018‐5835 is exhausted. This NSN (6635‐01‐394‐5926) list the following NSNs as alternates 6635‐01‐417‐1830, 6635‐01‐375‐8382, 6635‐00‐000‐0133, 6635‐01‐196‐3460 and 6635‐01‐344‐6403. This multiple NSN applicability also applies to several attachment 6 PGHE listings such items 66, 76 and 140. This item (154) should be applicable to the C‐130 Technical Order 1C‐130A‐36, page 2‐26 change 23, paragraph 2‐41 Primary NDI Procedure – Radiographic, subparagraph a, NDI Equipment calls out for an X‐Ray Machine Portable, 160 KVP, Sperry, or equivalent. Are the alternate NSNs as listed in FED LOG acceptable alternates per the TO and the FED LOG NSN listing for item 154?

Answer 36: The parts on the C‐130 PGHE list should be verifiable by DCMA whether by upgrade in TOs or on the PGHE list as long as they are verified by DCMA to be acceptable to support C‐130 Modifications/Upgrades/Enhancements and Maintenance/Repairs. The offeror must identify to the DCMA representative where the part has been upgraded due to changes in TOs

Question 37: Line item 160 calls out P/N ASM37M1, NSN 6670‐00‐942‐5854 with a nomenclature of Weighing Kit. This NSN is listed in FED LOG as a Scale, Weighing with eight part numbers of 55800‐3‐50, 64001‐06, AS37M1, JW‐150, M1LW7327, PDO2LEEG17‐50K, PD646‐50K, and PD89LDE646. FED Log also states in the characteristics that the folding ramp is not included in this specific NSN. Is the quantity required by attachment 6 correct as one (1) or should the Offeror be required to have access to quantity of three (3) and should the Offeror be required to have access to the ramp, bridge and stop assemblies as listed in the TO 1C‐130H‐2‐08‐JG‐00‐1?

Answer 37: See Answer 36.

Question 38: The C‐130 Technical Order 1C‐130H‐2‐08‐JG‐00‐l, section 08‐00‐12 page 2‐47, paragraph 2‐3 list the personnel and special tools required to weigh a C‐130 aircraft.

Subparagraph 4. Special Tooling and Test Equipment list electronic platform scale kit with no specific part number, however page 2‐51 in section 08‐00‐12 shows a detailed picture of the platform weighing scale, ramps, bridge and stop. The diagram also shows a data plate from the Scale with the part number AN60‐5. Is this item (AN60‐5) specifically shown in TO 1C‐130H‐2‐08‐JG‐00‐l a suitable alternate for Attachment 6 line item 160?

Answer 38: See Answer 36.

Question 39: The Government’s stated in the Questions and Answers posted on 25

September 2009, in the answer to question 27 “The Offeror will be responsible to have access to specific part numbers/NSN in attachment 6 in order to meet the work requirement.” There are 25 line items on the Attachment 6 PGHE tooling list that the NSN does not correlate to the part number and or the nomenclature. The items numbers are 1, 5, 16, 21, 38, 51, 68, 69, 71, 73, 76, 80, 81, 83, 94, 102, 104, 110, 113, 120, 128, 130, 139, 144 and 161. For items that the NSN/Part Number/Nomenclature does not directly correlate to each other, what is the preferred item the Offeror is to have access too, the NSN, the Part Number, or the Nomenclature?

Answer 39: See Answer 36.

Question 40: Item 140, NSN 6130‐00‐548‐1667, part number K1, Power Supply has a supplier listed as cage code 97533, Rapid Power Technologies, Inc. The supplier (Rapid Power Technologies) no longer manufactures this item. Can the Government provide the Offeror the specific process or work scope this item is associated with in order to identify replacement items? Or will the Government provide a current part number/NSN for this specific work scope item?

Answer 40: Rapid Power Technologies was bought out by DYNAPOWER, the parts database identified a substitute NSN: 6130‐00‐329‐3486 to replace the K1 Rapid Power Supply System NSN: 6130‐00‐548‐1667. The cage code for the company that manufactures the power supply system is 80058. The power supply system is used to support the C‐130 M/U/E and M/R system sustainment power supply requirements. Refer to answer 36

Background: Reference SbAST RFP FA8530‐09‐R‐22309 questions and Answers (17 through 29, posted 25 September 2009.

Question 41: Based on the Government’s answer to question 26, will the government be extending the due date for the submittal of Attachment 6 Minimum Capabilities Matrix, for at least seven (7) days from the issuance of the amended Attachment 6?

Answer 41: The government will accept attachment 6 Minimum Capabilities Matrix up until the closing date of the RFP. Please see Amended Answer to Question 26, found on the first page of these questions and answers.

Background: Reference the answer to question 25. The offeror agrees that the nomenclature listed in attachment 6 item 1 is for a Rudder Lock. When researching the specific part number for the Rudder Lock in TO 1C‐130H‐4‐15‐1 it is shown as part number 7435085‐10 in figure 13 Rudder and Elevator Safety Lock Installation on page 13‐2 item 10 and shown as a drawing on page 13‐1, item 10. Fedlog list this Rudder Lock part number 7435085‐10 as NSN 1730‐01‐145‐0194 Lock, Aircraft Ground Safety.

Question 42: Request the Government review this item again for utilization of the Rudder Lock part number from the 1C‐130H‐4‐15‐1 titled Ground Handling Equipment, USAF Series C‐ 130E/H, HC‐130H/N/P, LC‐130H and MC‐130P/W Aircraft and update the Attachment 6 item 1 part number to 7435085‐10, NSN 1730‐01‐145‐0194.

Answer 42: The C‐130 SME reviewed this part in their parts catalog and stated that the Part

Number was the same number in this catalog. The part will be accepted as verified by DCMA if it has been changed due to changes in TOs.

Question 43: Reference the Government’s answer to question 29, please provide the Offerors access to a bidder’s library or post the drawings on FBO to allow the Offerors to access the Air Force drawings for Attachment 6 items 15, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 58 line items.

Answer 43: The drawings will be provided if they are available and releasable currently they are not available for release. During the verification process the offeror must show DCMA they either have the stated equipment or must be able to produce the equipment according to all safety/manufacturing specifications to support the requirements of the SbAST program.

Background Section L paragraph 2.a.vii states: “The Offeror should fill out the cross reference matrix at RFP Attachment 13 indicating where in their proposal the information can be found as it relates to Section L (Instructions to Offerors), Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award), the technical requirements document (Performance Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) and the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL).” However, Attachment 13 only lists RFP requirements from the MCM, and has no provision for the PWS, CLINs, or CDRLs.

Question 44: How should the PWS, CLINs and CDRLs be addressed in Attachment 13?

Answer 44: See Answer 19.

Background: Section L paragraph 2.f.ii states: “Volume II shall include a cross reference matrix which references the Performance‐based Work Statement (RFP Attachment 1), by paragraph number, to the corresponding proposal paragraph which addresses the referenced item.” However, Section L paragraph 2.f.iv states that the written Technical Proposal shall address the three Mission Capability Subfactors (Certifications, Facilities, and Processes) and does not mention addressing the PWS requirements.

Question 45: How should the PWS, CLINs and CDRLs be addressed in the Technical

Proposal?

Answer 45: The Technical proposal should address the way the offeror is meeting the requirements found in the PWS and MCM.

Background: The cross reference matrix is again described in Section M, paragraph 1.

However, Section M, paragraph 2 describes the evaluation process for the three Mission Capability Subfactors, but does not address an evaluation of the offeror’s approach to the PWS requirements, CLINs or CDRLs.

Ques

Answ

Back b t O c

B c m N a N

Back stion 46:

describe wer 46: Th determin kground: Re Subcontr maintena stion 47:

both M/U/E the two FAC Other word considered wer 47: Th RFP Sect stion 48:

B1 of all “#9” respec contractor wer 48: Con area.

stion 49:

must posses NDI person.

access to NDI equipme wer 49: The certific Qualifie address availabl access t stion 50:

Hangar, Since th company if a le requirem wer 50: The verifica kground: Th the join to 13 CF arrangem

How will ed in Secti he CLIN’s a ne technica eference R ractors. A ance/repair

Quest And mainte CTS sheets ds, could Very Relev he governme tion B iv.

Refer team membe ctively.

permitted ntractor is

Curre ss current . However

C‐130 PGHE

ent?

e C1 specif cation leve

ed. The of the C‐130 le at the o to this equ

Refer Space for his is a S to “posses ease or o ment?

e offeror m ation proce he Governme nt venture

FR 121.103.

ment, and i the PWS, ion M parag and CDRLS w al acceptab

RFOP Secti A Very Rel r.

tion: Will enance/rep from each one cita vant in the ent will be rence Excel er MCM & P Will the G to make th s permitted ent MCM Spe NDI capab r MCM Spec E and NDI fication ad el of perso fferor team PGHE and N offeror tea uipment.

rence MCM.

r Gov’t Per mall Busin ss” if that other simi must own or ess.

ent has s will not b . However, if one of t

CLINs an graph 2?

will not be bility.

ion M‐900, levant rati each Pres air on a s critical ation with e aggregate e evaluatin l spreadsh PGHE tabs ( Government he appropri d to make t ec C1, NDI bility IAW G1.2 C‐13 equipment ddress spec onnel the o m must poss NDI equipme am hangar f

Several i rsonnel, W ness acquis t term mea ilar contra r be leasin tated that be aggregat , the Gover the subcont nd CDRLs b e evaluated

, Relevanc ing requir ent/Past P single task sub in the M/U/E an e?

ng in the a heet “6_Min (1‐9) are issue a c iate change the appropr

I, Requirem the ‐36 a 30 PGHE Re and tools.

cific NDI e offeror te sess this ent that i facilities items requi Wash Rack, sition, man ns outrigh actual rel ng the Hang t if the of ted for pu rnment has tractors i be evaluat

d. The PWS cy Definit es past ef

Performance k order, o e aggregate nd another aggregate a nimum_Capab labeled as corrected v es?

riate chang ment states nd have as equirement . Which i equipment c am must po equipment.

s on the C . The off ire a comp etc.) in ny of these ht ownershi lationship gar facilit fferor is a rposes of stated th s determin ted under

S and MCM w tions Appl fforts that e citation r will the e with rega r with ma as describe bilities_Ma s “#1” inst version of ges to the s that the s a minimum states: M is correct capability ossess to b The G1.2

C‐130 PGHE

fer team mu any to “po order to e items ar

ip. Can th would sa ties before a joint ven size deter at if the ed to be a the TA‐PP will be ev licable to t included be requir e Governmen ard to the aintenance/ ed on page atrixes_Sb tead of “# this file

SbAST MCM e contracto m 1 Lvl II Must posses with resp and NDI be consider 2 specifica list that ust possess ossess” an meet the c re not feas he Governme atisfy the e the DCMA nture, the rmination, offeror is an ostensib

PT process valuated to o Critical d M/U/E AND red to show nt consider “AND”? In /repair be

85 of the

AST.” Cell #1” through e or is the

M in this or/teammate I certified ss OR HAVE pect to the red NDI ation should be s or have item (e.g.

capability.

sible for a ent clarify “possess”

A SbAST MCM members of pursuant s a teaming ble s o l D w r n e e l h e e d E e a y

M f g subcontractor, then the prime and ostensible subcontractor would be deemed to be affiliated and the number of employees for each company would be aggregated for a size determination.

13 CFR 121.103(h)(2) of the SBA’s Size Regulations provides that individuals and/or entities involved in a joint venture are affiliates and, thus, the number of employees for each company would be aggregated for a size determination. 13 CFR 121.103(h) clearly states that a joint venture need not be a separate legal entity. That section also states that the “SBA may also determine that the relationship between a prime contractor and its subcontractor is a joint venture, and that affiliation between the two exists, pursuant to paragraph (h)(4) of this section.” This provision clearly states that a joint venture may exist either explicitly through a separate legal entity or implicitly, as recognized by an SBA determination.

13 CFR 121.103(h)(4) states that “A contractor and its ostensible subcontractor are treated as joint venturers, and therefore affiliates, for size determination purposes.”

This provision reiterates that a joint venture may exist in a teaming arrangement even when a separate legal entity is not established.

13 CFR 121.103(h)(3) provides an exception to the affiliation rules for joint ventures.

Under this exception, the parties of the joint venture are not aggregated for purposes of size determination as long as each party meets the requirements of a small business under the applicable standard for the contract, if certain other conditions are met.

One of those conditions is that if the contract is other than a “bundled” contract and the value of the contract, including options, is greater than $10 million. 13 CFR 121.103(h)(3)(B)(2). Because the value of this contract is estimated at more than $400 million, this exception applies to the SBAST contract. Thus, the exception to affiliation and aggregation applies to all joint ventures offering for this contract.

There is nothing in this provision that permits this exception to be applied to only one type of joint venture. Therefore, the exception should apply in an equivalent manner to an expressly declared joint venture or a teaming arrangement determined by the SBA to be a joint venture pursuant to the ostensible subcontractor rule.

Question 51: Please confirm that the Government will apply the exception to affiliation in 13 CFR 121.103(h)(3)(B)(2) to all offerors who are determined to be joint ventures (either expressly declared joint ventures or teaming arrangements determined to be joint ventures due to the ostensible subcontractor rule ).

Answer 51: The Government will follow the procedures outlined in 13 CFR 121.103. SBA will make the determination regarding ostensible subcontracting and joint venture determinations.

Background: In response to a prior question regarding the Government requiring recertification during the term of the SBAST contract, the Government replied that the regulatory basis for that recertification is 13 CFR 121.404(g)(3)(v) and 13 CFR 121.1001.

13 CFR 121.404(g) states the general rule that “A concern that qualified as a small business at the time it receives a contract is considered a small business throughout the life of that contract. Where a concern grows to be other than small, the procuring agency may exercise options and still count the award as an award to a small business.”

This section goes on to discuss three exceptions to that rule which require recertification. The first exception is a contract novation, and the second exception involves a contractor’s growth due to merger or acquisition. The third exception applies to long‐term contracts with durations of more than five years (including options). SBAST is not structured to have a duration of more than five years, and therefore, the general rule of 13 CFR 121.404(g) should apply. Under the SBAST contract, the regulation merely provides that recertification be required only upon contract novation or growth of a contractor due to merger or acquisition.

13 CFR 121.1001 provides guidance on who may initiate a size protest or request a formal size determination. We are unsure as to why this regulation was referenced.

This regulation does not address nor appear pertinent to the question at issue.

Question 52: Please confirm that the Air Force is applying a standard that is more restrictive than required under the SBA Small Business Size Regulations 13 CFR 121.404(g) for recertification during the term of the SBAST contract.

Answer 52: The Government will be following 13 CFR 121.404.

Question 53: What is the specific regulatory reference and language that allows the government to override the general rule in 13 CFR 121.404(g) which states that “A concern that qualified as a small business at the time it receives a contract is considered a small business throughout the life of that contract.” ?

Answer 53: The government will not be in conflict with the general rule found in 13 CFR

121.404(g)

Question 54: Why did the government reference 13 CFR 121.1001 in its previous answer?

Answer 54: This reference should not have been included in the Governments response, please disregard.

Background:

• Note 11 on page 5 says “The following contract line items are Cost Reimbursement. The applicable rates are set forth in the attached Rate Tables.”

• Subparagraph (g) on page 16 says “Subject to the provisions of paragraph (f) above, with the exception of Cost Reimbursable (CR), cost/price proposals for D/TOs shall utilize rates that are no higher than those set forth in the attached Rate Tables.”

• Subparagraph (4) at the top of page 17 says “ If a CR D/TO is contemplated as a result of issuance of an RFOP, contractors will be required to prepare proposals citing a proposed estimated price for labor and an estimate of material, travel, and other direct costs to include applicable factors. Proposals shall identify the labor categories, the number of hours, and the proposed labor rates for each category. Each RFOP for a CR type D/TO will identify the type fee arrangement to be used (i.e., award fee, incentive fee, or fixed fee), and the fee will be proposed and negotiated at the D/TO level.

• H‐921 – RATE ADJUSTMENT GUIDELINES FOR YEARS 6 AND 7 (page 24) says “Adjustment of contractual FP, T&M, CR, and LH rates for Year 6 (days 1827 – 2191) and Year 7 (days 2192 – 2556) will be calculated using the Global Insight, Inc.,…”.

Question 55: Attachment 8 ‐ Contractor Pricing Submission, does not include a prime or subcontractor worksheet for cost reimbursement labor rates. Please confirm that cost reimbursement labor rates are not required in the proposal.

Answer 55: Cost reimbursement Labor rates are not required in the proposal.

Background:

• H‐909 CONSENT TO ADD SUBCONTRACTORS (page 21) says “….Prime contractors will not be allowed to add additional SbAST subcontractors in any labor category in which the proposed labor rates exceed the median SbAST subcontractor labor rate that was incorporated at initial contract award for that particular labor category for that particular prime contractor, unless the proposed subcontractor was a critical subcontractor on another prime contractor’s team with rates established at the time of contract award. For critical subcontractors at the time of award who are being added to another prime contractor’s team after award, and for subcontractors already on a prime contractor’s team who are being added to another prime contractor’s team, the rates already on contract will be utilized, without being subject to the median for the prime contractor to whose team they are being added.”

• H‐925: USE OF SbAST SUBCONTRACTORS AND VENDORS (page 26) says in (a)(1) “SbAST Subcontractor: A subcontractor whose rates are found in the rate tables attached to the prime contract is considered an approved subcontractor for that prime contractor. Only SbAST Subcontractors may be used as first tier subcontractors for labor.” Subparagraph

(c) says “Prime contractors will not be allowed to add additional SbAST subcontractors in any labor category in which the proposed labor rates exceed the median SbAST subcontractor labor rate that was incorporated at initial contract award for that particular labor category for that particular prime contractor, except as set forth in Clause H‐909.”

• The instructions for the Cost/Price Proposal (page 79, 4th paragraph under iii) says

“Each Offeror shall submit, for the Offeror, each critical subcontractor, and no more than one non‐critical subcontractor as defined in RFP Clause L‐900(2)(f)(iii), 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.”

• Section M (subparagraph i , middle of page 86) says “Offerors will propose a percentage based on the anticipated work to be performed by the Offeror (including, in the event of a joint venture, each joint venture member), each critical subcontractor, and no more than one non‐critical subcontractor as defined in RFP Clause L‐900(2)(f)(iii) that will be applied to the AF estimated hours for that labor category.

• Section M (last paragraph ii at the bottom of page 86 and top of page 87) says “Each

Offeror, critical subcontractor, and no more than one noncritical subcontractor as defined in RFP Clause L‐900(2)(f)(iii), will propose a Material Handling Add‐on Factor for FP only. No Material Handling Add‐on Factor will be proposed for T&M/LH. The AF has estimated a material cost based on analysis of historical data. This material cost Page 87 of 88 Request for Proposal FA8530‐09‐R‐22309 will not be disclosed to the Offerors. Offerors will assign a percentage of the material cost to the Offeror (including, in the event of a joint venture, each joint venture member), each critical subcontractor.”

Question 56: These provisions are not consistent with the subcontractor composite rates to be included on RFP Attachment 8 ‐ Contractor Pricing Submission. Please clarify.

Answer 56: Subcontractor composite rates should be submitted in accordance with attachment 8.

Question 57: Since individual subcontractor rates are not identified in the Cost/Price

Proposal, please clarify which subcontractors are pre‐approved and which will require Government consent to add.

Answer 57: Sub‐contractors which are included on one of the contracts will be pre‐approved for addition under additional prime contracts. Sub‐contractors that are not on any of the contracts will require Government consent prior to being added.

Background: Reference solicitation attachment 6 tab C_130_PGHE_Matrix (1‐9 and summary).

Question 58: Line item 35 calls out P/N 3401357‐1, NSN 1730‐00‐904‐8206, Sling Radome, this item is not in the 1C‐13A‐4 or the 1C‐130H4‐15‐1. Can part number 404058‐1 from the 1C‐ 13H4‐15‐1 figure 1 item 420 be utilized instead of item 35?

Answer 58: See answer 36.

Question 59: Line item 64 P/N MA1 NSN 4140‐00‐302‐9534 appears to be a very similar item to line item 65 P/N D12722B NSN 4140‐00‐ 567‐8489. Can either item be substituted for the other?

Answer 59: See answer 36.

Question 60: Line item 73 list P/N A/A32H‐4A and NSN 4920‐00‐264‐0378 the NSN and PN do not match in FEDLOG. NSN 4920‐00‐264‐0378 is a Tester Latch, which is obsolete, while part number A/A32H‐4A is the Cargo Conveyor Kit. Recommend the list be updated to NSN 4920‐01‐ 7041 P/N 51500‐100.

Answer 60: See answer 36.

Question 61: Line item 77 calls out NSN 4920‐00‐306‐4326 as part number 3401161‐3, however FEDLOG list the NSN for this part number as 1740‐00‐306‐4376, which is the correct item the Part Number or the NSN? If the part number is correct then this item (3401161‐3) is a part of line item 57, P/N 3400849‐1 NSN 1740‐00‐775‐4330 / 174000‐734‐0712 in accordance with TO 1C‐135H4‐15‐1 figure 5 item 5 (3400849‐1) and figure 5 item 25 (3401161‐3). Should the offeror have both the assembly part number 3400849‐1 and an additional 3401161‐3 adapter?

Answer 61: The part number is correct. See answer 36.

Question 62: For Labor Categories where no Critical Sub is bidding a rate, does this mean that

Non‐critical subs will not be allowed to have a rate for these categories?

Answer 62: You are allowed one non‐critical sub and they can only have labor rates for Labor

Categories LC‐79 through LC‐84.