RESPONSE_TO_QUESTIONS_2.pdf

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 2

RFP FA8532-17-R-0007

MHU-110/141

1. QUESTION: “Purpose…….with comprehensive technical data packages for the MHU-141.”

How many packages are there or is there just one? There are multiple MDS/configurations on this trailer-which TDP/MDS is the deliverable? The one with the greatest density – say those owned by Air Combat Command?

a. ANSWER:

Greatest Density; or as specified in detail by the IPT in task orders.

2. QUESTION: Mentions drawing tree for both the “MHU-110 and for the MHU-141 trailers.”

Purpose at para. 1.0 does not mention any deliverable related to the MHU-110. Please explain.

“Additionally, the contractor shall provide digital/electronic copies of all drawings related to the MHU- 110 and MHU-141 drawing trees. So this ATO does involve the MHU-110; many of us in industry hear that the MHU-110 TDP is already current, accurate and complete, so why the effort noted on the MHU- 110? Is this correct?

MHU-141 for this particular task.

3. QUESTION: Q&A noted all the trailers to be examines/expected at CONUS bases; what about trailers to inspect/assess at OCONUS bases (e.g. Guam). Locations/count?

Phone calls, email surveys, etc. are required for OCONUS. Requests for feedback from OCONUS base POCs. Anticipate 10 trailers randomly selected/preferred at each OCONUS base for photos.

4. QUESTION: Is there going to be host base support – assistance at these assessment sites (e.g Nellis)? If so what type of local assistance? Any GFP provided at the individual sites/bases – example hand tools, jacks, air-compressor – and suitable work space (e.g covered at Nellis)? What tools would a contractor need and those would reflect what the USAF has already available for use – in serviceable condition. Will the units to inspect be serviceable, mission worthy? Any units that are War Readiness Material? Any units that are cannibalized? Will the trailers be spread out all over the flight/ops area or mustered in one area for the health assessment? Assume free and supported access to host base maintenance records, related to this health assessment. What documentation needs to be in place to access the flight lines at each respective base -and will this be taken care of prior to a CFT arrival?

No. Majority of assessment is visual inspections and reviews, discussions, feedback with on-site airmen.

5. QUESTION: In order to ensure all bids are compare as “apples to apples” – should there be a USG checklist of items and actions passed to industry to quote? Bidder A may be intimate with the AFMC expectations for a health assessment, and deliver a very thorough report. Bidder B may be somewhat unfamiliar with doing it the AFMC way, and deliver a report that does not deliver the depth desired by the Government program office. Differences in methodologies will be borne in the ATO 2 pricing. With different configurations of trailers, a “one size fits all” health assessment may need to be tied to the MDS being examined – might that be the case?

All proposals will be evaluated against the Technical Sub-Factors within attached Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors & Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award of the Solicitation with a pass/fail (either meets or does not meet) evaluation.

No. Field calls, surveys, meeting the customer at each base, and doing the leg work.

6. QUESTION: In order to complete this task order – should not the USG legacy databases be listed – those that the contractor must examine to perform the task? See JEDMICS as one of them.

We will provide TOs, drawings, or access to required systems as needed. Access to these documents and/or systems will not be needed until after award of this contract.

7. QUESTION: As an LPTA, and no technical solutions offered against the ATO, how can the USG ensure a best value proposal(s) is placed on contract? With the disparities across the ATO, not sure the quoted prices will be in a tight range, to note clear understanding of the requirements, and an understood construct to quote by all bidders. And, lastly, not sure the ATO are complete and thorough enough to place on contract, as they are written today.

The purpose of this RFP to for the potential offerors to provide the technical solutions to the Task Orders. Each of the contractors’ proposed process approaches will be evaluated against the Technical Sub-Factors in Solicitations Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors & Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award. Approximately three (3) of the lowest priced, technically acceptable contractors will then be awarded contracts.