NSS_Q&A.pdf

Noise Suppressor Sustainment

RFP: FA8534-17-R-0007

Questions and Answers

1. How is travel and shipping to be handled? Is travel and shipping to and from each site to be included in a firm fixed price contract?

Government Response: Travel will be cost-reimbursable, no –fee, handled on a case by case basis (CLIN X018). Shipping is the responsibility of the contractor and the price shall be included in the cost of the repair – see PWS paragraphs 4.4 and 4.4.8.

2. Going through the price breakdown sheet, the items 4.4.1.37 and 4.4.1.43.2 appear to be the same thing. I’m assuming these are both 180 day inspections. Can you clarify?

Government Response: The price breakdown sheet has been updated.

3. We have noted that in the RFP the Inspection, Acceptance and FOB (Shipping) point are noted as

Origin for all CLINs. However, PWS 4.4 Task Requirements states that “The contractor shall be responsible for all shipping costs associated with repairs with the exception of Halon cylinders as described below; . . . “ , and PWS 4.8 Shipping states that “The contractor shall be responsible for the cost of shipping Government property to and from a contractor or subcontractor’s facility, as well as to a new Government facility in conjunction with a NS relocation”. Final Acceptance Test Procedures (ATP) will be executed at Destination onsite where the repaired or relocated NSS is located. We recommend the shipping, inspection and acceptance terms be changed to FOB Destination, except perhaps for Halon bottles.

Government Response: All shipping, inspection, and acceptance terms should be ‘destination’.

4. We have noted that the RFP includes FAR 52.244-2 Subcontracts. The only cost reimbursable CLIN on this contract is for travel to our understanding. The Government would also receive and negotiate our proposal for any unique CLINs. We therefore do not believe that the Government would have a role in approving subcontracts. We request that this clause be reviewed and if possible deleted.

Government Response: No. The Gov’t is required to evaluate major subcontractors.

5. Regarding L-900 Volume II Subfactor 2, this states “. . . install a Novec FSS that meets all requirements and is functionally equivalent to the Novec FSSs already installed in USAF T-10s, ... “. It appears that an alternative to the current T-10 Novec system can be provided. Please confirm. Can the USAF define the standards or provide a specification that will be utilized to determine if the system “meets all requirements” and “is functionally equivalent”? For example, a) what are the minimum concentration levels and the time required to maintain? b) what are the operational temperature ranges for the system?

c) will an alternative to the pneumatic activation stations be allowed? d) will an alternative control panel be allowed? e) is it a requirement that the fire bottles remain in a controlled environment, i.e. bay/room

5 & 6? f) what type of testing will be required for an alternative system, full discharge or mathematical calculations? If a full discharge is required, who pays for testing the alternative system?

Government response: Confirm that alternate Novec FSS may be proposed. A & B: Reference Section L, Subfactor 2(c). C: No. D: No. E: Yes. F: Full discharge to be paid for by offeror.

6. Related to the above, the cost of converting the fleet of NSS to the Novec FSS configuration will be a significant part of this contract. If an alternative is proposed should this be addressed under Subfactor

2?

Government Response: Yes.

7. We have noted that the RFP requires the performance of work at overseas US military bases, but does not include FAR 52.228-3 Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act). Please clarify.

Government Response: Clause will be added.

8. The current RFP includes FAR 52.246-5 Inspection of Services—Cost Reimbursement – Does this clause apply, as the only Cost Reimbursable Line Item is travel and not services?

Government Response: Yes, travel is still considered a service.

9. The RFP includes FAR 52.243-2 Changes—Cost Reimbursement with Alternate I. As the only cost reimbursable CLINs are for travel, does this clause apply?

Government Response: Yes.

10. L-900 references Attachment 5, Electronic Format for All Proposal Volumes. We did not see this with the RFP.

Government Response: Attachments are still being finalized.

11. L-900 references RFP Checklist, Attachment 2 and Cross Reference Matrix, Attachment 8. We did not see these with the RFP.

Government Response: Attachments are still being finalized.

12. L-900 references RFP Attachment 3, Microsoft Excel Price Model and RFP Attachment 4, Microsoft

Excel Cost Model. We did not see these attachments with the RFP.

Government Response: Attachments are still being finalized.

13. L-900 references RFP Attachment 6, Past Performance Information (PPI) for Offerors, and

Attachment 7, Relevancy Assessment. We did not see these attachment with the draft RFP package.

Government Response: Attachments are still being finalized.

14. L-900 specifies that the page limitation for the Written Technical Proposal is fifty (50) pages (not including the ATP). We are asked to also provide among other things comprehensive work plans and

PWSs for Subfactors 1 & 2, and describe our Resource Planning and Program Management capability in

Subfactor 3. We think the page limitation should exclude the ATP, PWS, and proposed Bill of Material, and then be increased to approximately 150 pages.

Government Response: Concur; page limit will be increased and ATP, PWS, and bills of material will not count against it

15. L-900 references Attachment 9 SOO for Sample Task 1, and Attachment 10 SOO for Sample Task 2.

We did not see these attachments.

Government Response: Attachments are still being finalized.

16. L-900 D. Volume III para 2 Past Performance Format referencing submitting FACTS sheets for 3 contracts. Paragraph 6 references submitting 4 contracts under Volume III, Past Performance. Please clarify. We also do not see any reference to the FACTS sheet as an RFP attachment, nor did we see the

FACTS Sheet.

Government Response: Paragraph 2 has been updated to reflect four (4) contracts.

17. L-900 D. Volume III para 7. Past Performance Questionnaire references RFP Attachment #13

Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. We did not see this attachment.

Government Response: Attachments are still being finalized.

18. L-900 Volume D. para 9 Client Authorization Letter references Attachment #15 sample client authorization letter. We did not see this attachment.

Government Response: Attachments are still being finalized.

19. The RFP includes FAR 52.216-27 Single or Multiple Awards. However, M-900 I. Basis for Contract

Award A. Source Selection Methodology states that “The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation”. Please clarify if the Government may award to two or more sources under this solicitation. If the Government may award to two or more offerors, please describe in detail how this would be implemented.

Government Response: Clause has been removed.

20. The RFP includes FAR 52.222-23 Notice of Requirement for Affirmative Action to Ensure Equal

Employment Opportunity for Construction. Since this contract is for services, does this clause apply?

Government Response: Clause has been removed.

21. We note that under M-900 there is a statement under Item 4: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and

Magnitude of Effort and Complexities is reserved and will be filled in with the final RFP.

Government Response: This portion has been updated.

22. We note that under M-900 Para F. Cost/Price Proposal Factor the draft RFP notes that this item is reserved and will be filled in with the final RFP.

Government Response: Yes.

23. We have noted that the unit of measure for CLINs 0001 – 0008 is “Each”. We ask that this be changed to “Lot”, which would support invoicing of partial delivery of services as noted below.

Government Response: Yes, will change ‘EA’ to ‘LO’.

24. We have noted that the RFP includes the Clause 52.232-1 Payments, but does not include any provision for progress payments or performance based payments. FAR 52.232-1 states in part “Unless otherwise specified in this contract, payment shall be made on partial deliveries accepted by the

Government if --- (a) The amount due on the deliveries warrants it; or (b) the Contractor requests it and the amount due on the deliveries is at least $1,000 or 50% of the total contract price.” We expect that orders under the contract may take up to 12 months to complete, routinely exceed several hundred thousand dollars, and that simultaneous performance of multiple orders will be required. These factors would justify progress payments or payment for partial delivery. Can the Government confirm or clarify that it will make interim payments on partial services delivered against a CLIN with unit of measure “1

Lot”? Could the payment for partial delivery be justified by documentation of cost incurred?

Government Response: Concur. Progress payments will be added.

26. PWS 4.4.1.35 Technical Order Conversion references converting all technical orders to the currently approved USAF electronic format, and makes reference to 4.4.13 and 6.2.1. 4.4.13 references both the conversion of the T.O.s and providing updates. We believe that 2 different efforts are called for here a) the conversion of all the T.O.s should be a separate 1 time line item, or perhaps be split into sub-Line

Items for each NSS type b) there should be a separate Line Item for T.O. updates, which would be priced as a unique CLIN as updates or changes are identified during the 8 year period of the contract. We also suggest that the RFP note that the T.O. conversion effort be funded at the time of award, as without the conversion the T.O.s cannot be readily updated.

Government Response: Concur. PWS, appendices require modification. A note has been added to

Section B (Minimum Guarantee) that the TO conversion will be funded at time of award.

26. Similar to the above, we note that the supply of ECPS per CDRL A009, TMCR updates per CDRL A014, and Product Drawings/Models and Associated Lists per CDRL A011 should be identified as Unique Tasks

“To be Negotiated”. The scope and number of ECPs, T.O. changes and drawing updates cannot be quantified and priced up front. These will be recurring requirements throughout the 8 year period of the contract.

Government Response: ECPs will be unique. Product drawings/models will be unique. TO changes will be pre-priced at a per-page rate.

27. Under the PWS 4.4.2 it is noted that the Contractor will evaluate unique tasks required against a

USAF issued SOO, and provide an evaluation (RIIR), PWS and cost estimate. It is also noted the

Contractor may be required to travel. Travel is identified in the RFP PWS 4.10 as cost reimbursable.

Under PWS 4.10 it also states that an order will be issued at the beginning of each year for travel to the various bases for performing asset evaluations. We have the following questions: a) will the Contractor’s labor costs to perform the travel and evaluation be billable, or is the Contractor required to carry these non-travel costs under overhead expenses? b) will a separate CLIN be added to the RFP schedule allowing the Government to order this travel once a year for the various organizations? Or will this travel fall under the existing CLIN 0018?

Government Response: Travel itself is a direct charge and will be billed under the travel CLIN 0018. The evaluation (RIIR) and associated report (CDRL A003), which is a set level of effort and does not include associated travel costs, will be pre-priced.

28. Reference PWS 5.2.3 Security Clearance we understand that it is not expected that Contractor personnel will require security clearances. We have found however that a) having to clear personnel through every individual base security office is time consuming b) security requirements can even be conflicting between bases c) many NSS are on flight lines which require stricter access privileges than a contractor’s base pass provides d) at certain bases ½ to a full hour per employee can be lost each day waiting for authorized escort. For these reasons we are requesting that the USAF consider sponsoring

Contractor personnel through the security process so we may obtain Common Access Cards.

Government Response: We are not able to grant CACs under these constraints in the current foreseeable future.

29. Will the USAF issue all ECPs evidencing the latest configuration, addressing obsolete parts, system changes, material types, and/or component replacements?

Government Response: To the extent that we have them available. All bidders will bid against the same configuration.

30. Regarding reoccurring task 4.4.1.6 Turning Vanes, this references repair or replacement of obsolete circuit cards and actuators. Most locations now have the touch screen and revised actuators wired for connection to the PLC facility control system. We suggest this task be revised to reflect the latest configuration, with any possible circuit card replacements being handled as “unique” tasks.

Government Response: Concur. See updated PWS section 4.4.1.6.

31. Reference PWS 4.4.1.19, there is a difference between the costs associated with HVAC replacement in the various NSS. Recommend these be broken out independently by test cell type or removed from reoccurring tasks.

Government Response: Please reference exhibits C07, D07, E14, F14, G14, and H02.

32. The various PWS tasks associated with the Novec fire suppression system work are specific to the existing T-10 Novec fire suppression system. Pending the Government’s decision to accept alternative designs, will the reoccurring tasks for Novec fire system repairs be cancelled in favor of unique tasks?

Government Response: No, but they will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Eight locations are currently equipped with Novec FSSs that these tasks will apply to (1ea at Dannelly Field ANG, Davis

Monthan, Hickam, and Osan, and 2ea at Hurlburt Field and Kunsan).

33. Reference L-900 Section D. Volume III Past Performance Paragraph 3 Ordering Type Contracts

Submission. We understand that the basic ordering contract and series of orders would be considered as one (1) project under the Facts Sheet / Past Performance submission. Can you please confirm this understanding? If a series of orders is submitted against a single basic ordering contract, is there a limit on the number of orders that may be submitted?

Government Response: No limit on number of orders; PCO will identify clause number with limitations.

34. Reference L-900 Volume III Past Performance, Paragraph 2. Along with the five (5) page summary describing the role of the offeror, joint venture member and critical subcontractor for this acquisition, we ask that the Government consider allowing the Offeror to submit a summary of their company background, history and capabilities, as was done on the previous USAF NSS Long Term Contract RFP. If the Government agrees we suggest a page limit of ten (10) pages.

Government Response: Concur. Change from 5 to 10 pages.

35. We have been following this solicitation and are very interested in this opportunity. We are a small business Fire Protection Contractor with extensive experience in providing and installing Special Hazard

Suppression Systems for Jet Engine and Gas Turbine applications. Since 1999 we have been the an OEM fire protection supplier for PW Power Systems (formerly Pratt & Whitney Power Systems) providing fire suppression system protection their Aeroderivative gas turbine power plants worldwide. We have also provided and installed numerous fire suppression systems protecting other Gas Turbines and also

Engine Test Cells.

Our question is as a potential Sub-Contractor for the Fire Suppression portion of this solicitation will we be able to access a list and contract information of the interested General Contractors when this solicitation is formally published? We would like to be able to contact the General Contractors and provide them with our capabilities and qualifications.

Government Response: The USG is unable to release any information on potential offerors. However, the USG is including this subcontractor’s information (at their request) for potential contractors to reach out to them. This contractor is Associated Fire Protection, CAGE Code: 0DS58.