TH-1H_Pre-Solictation_Conference_Minutes.pdf

TH‐1H DLM Pre‐Solicitation Conference Thursday, 16 August 2018

Central Georgia Technical College Sonny Watson Health Science W Building

The conference started at 8:45 A.M.

The attendees* were as follows:

Lt. Col. Patrick Maddox, Robins AFB Mr. Michael B. Covington, Robins AFB Mr. Michael P. Beasley, Robins AFB Ms. Evelyn F. Ryberg, Robins AFB Maj. Shayla Canty‐Smith, Robins AFB Ms. Kelly H. Bryan, Robins AFB Mr. Tyrone D. Hendrix, Robins AFB Mr. William J. Grun, Robins AFB Mr. Ray Goorah, Robins AFB Mr. Donald W. Cleaton, Robins AFB Mr. Robert S. Sieg, Robins AFB Ms. Molly I. Barker, Robins AFB Ms. Samatha H. Bartlett, Robins AFB Ms. Robianna N. Reeves, Robins AFB 1st Lt. Kevin F. Hinman, Robins AFB Mr. Michael Sensey, Vertex Aerospace‐Crestview, TCS Mr. Douglas Lundy, Vertex Aerospace‐Crestview, TCS Mr. Shannon Williams, Vertex Aerospace‐Crestview TCS Mr. William Hanig, Science and Engineering Services LLC Mr. Michael Smith, Science and Engineering Services LLC Mr. Joseph Moore, Summit Aviation, LLC Mr. Rich Enderle, Arista Aviation Services LLC Mr. Rob Dodson, Arista Aviation Services LLC Mr. Daryle Pilkinton, Arista Aviation Services LLC Mr. Michael Baergen, Bell Helicopter Textron Inc Mr. Zachary Gibson, Bell Helicopter Textron Inc Ms. Patricia Shepard, Bell Helicopter Textron Inc Mr. David Dean, S&K Technologies Mr. Larry Dempsey, Erickson Incorporated Mr. Robert Hoskins, TCS Aerospace Mr. John McWhorter, TCS Aerospace

*a reflection of all attendees who RSVP’d via email

Questions answered that were provided prior to conference:

1. PWS Para. 4.1.2. Place of Performance: These services will be performed at the Contractor’s facility. The facility shall include adequate hangar space to accommodate up to five work in progress helicopters simultaneously, within a 600 mile radius of Cairns Army Airfield (Ft. Rucker, AL). Will the USG expand the 600 mile radius to a 1000 mile radius from Cairns Army Airfield (Ft.

Rucker, AL)?

A: The 600 mile radius was established by the end user, the 19th Air Force Air Education and

Training Command (AF/AETC). Our customer’s requirement is based on AC availability and funding for pilots to pick up and deliver aircraft in one day.

Performance Work Statement Questions

2. Para. 4.9.3 States that received shipping containers received that are no longer suitable shall be disposed of and replaced with new containers that meet the requirements of the AFMC Form 158.

Who is responsible for this expense?

A: The Government expects the contractor to anticipate the repair and replacement of the containers. Repair and replacement of containers will be handled using over and above procedures when necessary.

3. Para. 4.12 Travel – Will any OCONUS travel be expected?

A: No OCONUS travel will be expected, all CONUS

4. Para. 4.25 – What CLIN encompasses the engineering effort described in PWS Section 4.25? This

PWS section is only listed in CLIN 0002, but the labor categories appear in the price matrix for

CLINs X007, X009, and X011. Is engineering support considered O&A or part of the PDM task?

A: The Government is asking that the offeror have engineering expertise required to handle normal PDM included in the FFP CLINs. If engineering expertise is required associated with

CLINs X007, X009, and X011 requirements which are outside the work spec requirements, they would be handled using O&A procedures.

5. 202 Engineering Request is incorporated as apart of normal standard work?

a. Yes, a 202 is standard.

b. On the basic PDM package there are certain requirements which are standard. However, if you have a beam that is cracked with a 202 that would be considered over and above because it is an unanticipated repair.

6. Is there an expectation in the work spec that the contractor has the capability to do 202 with designated Engineering authority?

a. Yes, the contractor should be able to provide a plan to repair the item and SPO Engineers should approve it.

7. Will the engineer be required to make a repair decision?

a. The contractor’s engineer should develop a plan to correct the deficiency that is subject to approval by SPO Engineer.

8. Para. 4.25.4 – Engineer will be required to make repair decisions. Will authorization be granted for this individual to make Material Review Board (MRB) decisions as well?

A: The contractor will not be granted MRB decision authority. All final decisions will be provided by the SPO.

9. Para. 2.25.5 States, “The contractor shall provide qualified tests pilots and flight engineers in the performance of the contract. The qualified personnel shall be utilized when the Government does not possess the expertise to accomplish this task, such as mishap investigations, re‐qualification of components and subsystems.” Should this be taken to mean that Government pilots and flight engineers would be utilized for FCFs, ground turns, and any other flight or ground operational requirements?

A: The contractor is responsible for providing qualified (IAW 8210 C) pilot for all functional check flights (FCF), ground turns, and any other flight or ground operational requirements.

Flight engineers are not used on this aircraft.

10. There is no requirement for the AF to sign off for a flight check?

a. The contractor is responsible to certify that the aircraft is airworthy at delivery. The

Government is not required to sign off for the “flight check”.

11. Para. 4.37.3 – TCTO’s generated while aircraft are in DLM shall be complied with in conjunction with DLM is chargeable to the O&A CLIN. Will the delivery date be adjusted to compensate as well?

a. Yes

12. Para. 4.37.4 – Same question as item #6 above.

a. The 103 will capture any TCTOs.

Work Specification Questions

13. Para. 1.2 Approximately how many Contractor Field Teams are estimated to be required per year?

Concurrently? Approximately how many UDLM “drop‐ins” can be expected?

a. For the purposes of the RFP the Government will provide estimated hours based on historical data. This will be a part of the formal RFP.

b. The Government had one contract field team during the life of the current contract. The current contract has experienced 2 hard landing aircraft.

c. IAW the PWS the requirement is to accommodate 5 aircraft simultaneously. The contractor is required to provide personnel to assist Government Engineer to assess the aircraft damage.

14. What type of explosive could be expected to arrive with the aircraft?

a. There will be no explosives on this aircraft.

15. Are there any areas that will require a scan or structure to be removed? Such as skins?

a. Yes, according to the work specification the requirement involves removing skins where applicable.

16. How many rubber hoses will be replaced

a. The Government requirement is to replace all rubber hoses utilized for fluid transfer.

17. Are alternatives to Cor‐Ban 35 allowed to be used?

a. No

Section L and M Questions

18. Para. 2.a.iii. – Paragraph includes requirement for evidence of the Quality Management System compliance to AS9110 or equivalent. Will AS9100 certification be accepted as equivalent? AS9110 is not mentioned in any other document.

a. No, 9110 compliance is required for inspection and repairs.

Panel Discussion Questions

1. Is there a vision where all contracts are to make 9110 the standard?

a. For this contract, it will be required to be compliant with 9110.

2. Details around the CSI program? Appendix E, how will we handle the items? Is this a requirement or not?

a. Per the PWS para 4.26.2, the contractor is required to have a CSI program.

3. Are the FLIR bulbs currently removed going into PDM?

a. There are no FLIRS on the aircraft.

4. Is there any special tooling the Government will supply?

a. The Government will not provide any special tooling other than the vibration test equipment (VXP).

5. Are we expecting them to show that they have that or show a plan to have that?

a. Please refer to L&M page 5.

6. Are the cabin and tail boom fixture required at the time of the contract?

a. Please refer to L&M page 5.

7. Question referencing the PPI Tool. All contractors and subcontractors have to have recency in the last 3 years? The past performance section is specific to TH‐1H?

a. Refer to revised L&M on how PPI will be evaluated.

8. Cycle times. The target is 165 days. Do you normally meet that schedule?

a. 165 days is a basic PDM package requirement. O&A will assess how many additional days will be added.

9. Does the AFI for AMRAP not apply to this contract?

a. Yes, the AMRAP applies.

10. Does the AMRAP apply a schedule revision?

a. Yes, when the Government starts AMRAP it’s at 165. Once the revision has been made at a

45 day review we update AMRAP.

b. If the contractor finds a late find the PMO will have to go to SPO to get approval. It will extend the delivery schedule if it’s a critical item and it is approved.

11. Average turnaround time on package to reset date?

a. Depends on the circumstances of the request.

12. Who is the current maintenance provider?

a. M‐1

13. Engineering approval/response time?

a. 202s is 3 days tops

Individual Meeting Questions:

1. Look at the recency definition and table. Requests an expansion on the window for the engineering subfactor for the critical subcontractor. As well as the prime past performance relevancy table.

2. 9110 requirement is not mentioned in the solicitation and the PWS. Will be a limiter for a lot of people. Getting a new certification for another company is a long process.

3. Take the point that it says compliant for 9110 and not certified.

4. Update the PWS to incorporate the saying “shall be compliant with 9110” or whatever the requirement will be and that it does not state “certified in 9110”.

5. How many days will the formal solicitation be released?

a. 30 days for solicitation

6. On the PWS it talks about all the mechanics being FAA certified. Is that with flight or structure?

a. Refer to PWS para 4.21.16.

7. 4.39.2 Categories of findings. The only paragraph that we’ve seen category of findings. Defines minor, major, and critical. This is going in and putting additional classifications for defects.

a. Clarification will be provided (categories vs. minor/major)

8. Would we be able to have a discussion before these findings are rejected?

a. No, there will be no discussions.

9. Changes requested to PWS Para. 4.22.1

a. Changes have been made please refer to PWS para 4.22.1.

10. Changes requested to PWS Para. 4.23.12

a. Changes have been made please refer to PWS para 4.23.12.

11. For the CLINs that say “notice to proceed” the number of days should be 120 instead of 165 on

RFP.

a. RFP will be updated.

12. On Page 3 of 143 in the Part I – The Schedule Section B, third paragraph sates “FAR 52.219‐9 Small

Business Subcontracting Plan and FAR 52.219‐8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns WILL be evaluated for all offerors”. This is inconsistent with Section L, which reads, “Large Business offerors shall not utilize the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the place of the Small Business

Participation proposal.”

a. The language on page 3 of 143 will be corrected in the final solicitation.

13. Rough Timeline for Solicitation of the TH‐1H

a. Post questions from Pre‐Solicitation conference.

b. RFP release in Mid‐September.

c. Offerors will have 30 days to submit a proposal.