RRS Follow-on Solicitation_Government Response to Industry 2.pdf

No. Reference Industry Question/Feedback Gov't Response 1 Questions and Answers

Performance Work Statement (PWS) 4.18:

Relationship Between Proposal Source of Repair (SOR) Restrictions and PWS 4.18 The Government’s response to Question 44 indicates that only qualified SORs listed in the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) X002_Sample Repair Year tab are acceptable for proposal purposes. However, PWS 4.18 requires the Contractor to identify, evaluate, and recommend qualified SORs for Government approval during contract performance. It is also understood that qualified sources identified on the Master Item Repair List may be used after contract award. (#21)

Please explain how offerors should reconcile these requirements during proposal preparation.

Specifically, describe how the restriction to the listed SORs for proposal evaluation is intended to interact with the Contractor’s responsibility under PWS 4.18 to identify and recommend additional qualified repair sources during contract execution.

For proposal purposes only, the Offeror will utilize the CLIN X002_Sample Repair Year tab. The listed SORs has been revised. The Government is not asking Offerors to reconcile requirements across the sample SORs for purposes of proposal preparation or evaluation. The SOR list provided in the solicitation is the most current, approved set of active SORs, and Offerors should base all proposal responses solely on that list.

The requirement in PWS 4.18—for the Contractor to identify and recommend additional qualified repair sources—applies after contract award during contract execution, not during proposal development. This post award responsibility is part of ongoing supply chain management and does not affect proposal evaluation.

Accordingly, Offerors are not expected to reconcile or cross walk the sample SORs with any other SORs or historical lists. They should propose to the requirements as listed, with the understanding that any future identification of additional repair sources will occur as part of normal contract performance under PWS 4.18.

2 RFP Attachment 4 Cost Price Model, Cost Format D_CLIN X002_SUB 1,2,3,4,5, CLIN X002_Sample Repair Year:

Treatment of Obsolete or Non-Operational SORs Several SORs identified in the CLIN X002_Sample Repair Year tab appear to be obsolete, divested, or no longer operational.

Please describe the Government’s expected proposal approach when a listed SOR is no longer capable of performing repair services. In particular, explain how offerors should develop pricing for these items and how the Government intends to evaluate proposals when the listed SOR is no longer available to perform the repair.

For proposal purposes only, the Offeror will utilize the CLIN X002_Sample Repair Year tab. The listed SORs has been revised. The Government is not asking Offerors to reconcile requirements across the sample SORs for purposes of proposal preparation or evaluation. The SOR list provided in the solicitation is the most current, approved set of active SORs, and Offerors should base all proposal responses solely on that list.

The requirement in PWS 4.18—for the Contractor to identify and recommend additional qualified repair sources—applies after contract award during contract execution, not during proposal development. This post award responsibility is part of ongoing supply chain management and does not affect proposal evaluation.

Accordingly, Offerors are not expected to reconcile or cross walk the sample SORs with any other SORs or historical lists. They should propose to the requirements as listed, with the understanding that any future identification of additional repair sources will occur as part of normal contract performance under PWS 4.18.

3 RFP Attachment 4 Cost Price Model, Cost Format D_CLIN X002_SUB 1,2,3,4,5, CLIN X002_Sample Repair Year:

Role of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Repair Providers in the Proposal Cost Structure For many SORs identified in the Sample Repair Year model, the Prime Offeror will not have a teaming agreement or subcontract arrangement in place at the time of proposal submission, as these repair providers are typically engaged only after contract award and issue of task order. Many listed SORs are OEMs or proprietary repair facilities that operate as independent commercial repair providers rather than subcontractors or teaming partners to the Prime in a third-party logistics construct. In some cases, these entities may also compete for logistics or sustainment work.

Please explain how the Government expects offerors to treat these repair providers within the proposal cost structure. In particular:

• How these entities should be categorized within the Cost/Price Model and supporting documentation, and

• Whether offerors are expected to obtain formal subcontractor cost submissions from these SORs during proposal preparation, or whether commercial repair quotations or estimated repair pricing may be used for proposal purposes with detailed cost data obtained after contract award.

Section L, II. Volume Organization, E. Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal, 2. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements is being revised to identify what is required of subcontract proposal submissions within the Cost/Price Model and within the Total Resources BOE Material Summary.

4 Section L – Instructions to Offerors, Section 3. Total Resources Volume, Total Resources Basis of Estimate Material Summary:

Availability and Submission of Proprietary Cost Data The solicitation requires offerors to provide subcontractor labor, indirect rate, and material cost detail within the Cost/Price Model and supporting Credible Bill of Materials (CBOM) documentation. However, OEM repair providers commonly provide firm repair quotations or catalog pricing rather than detailed elemental cost breakdowns, particularly when no subcontract relationship exists prior to award.

The solicitation also indicates that proprietary subcontractor data may be submitted directly to the Government, and that alternative supporting data (such as vendor quotations or historical prices paid) may be used for the top 80 percent of extended values for the Basic Period CBOM.

If a listed/qualified SOR declines to provide proprietary cost element data despite documented good-faith requests by the Prime Offeror, please describe the Government’s expectations regarding acceptable pricing support when elemental cost breakdowns are unavailable. In particular, explain:

• How proprietary direct submissions should be structured when repair sources elect to provide data directly to the Government,

• The level of detail required for those submissions, and

• How alternative pricing information such as vendor repair quotations, historical repair pricing, or other commercially available information will be considered during proposal evaluation.

If a subcontractor declines to provide detailed information to the prime contractor, the subcontractor shall submit the required information directly to the Government under separate cover, and the Government will protect such information in accordance with applicable regulations. The subcontractor's documentation, if required, must be provided to the Government by the proposal due date/time. The level of detail required is as outlined in Sections L and M of the RFP. Section L is being revised to include additional language regarding subcontractor proposals. Alternative pricing information such as vendor repair quotations, historical repair pricing, or other commercially available information may also be submitted as supporting documentation for the top 80% of extended values in the CBOM for the Basic Period, as identified in Section L.

5 Section L -Instructions to Offerors, Section 2. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements:

Evaluation of Cost Realism When OEM Data Is Unavailable As the Prime Offeror, we can formally request required cost information from repair sources or major subcontractors; however, prior to award we do not have privity of contract and therefore cannot compel OEM repair providers to provide proprietary cost element breakdowns to either the Prime Offeror or the Government.

In many cases, commercially available repair quotations from the OEM or other qualified repair providers may represent the most reliable and executable pricing information available prior to contract award.

Please explain the Government’s intended evaluation methodology in circumstances where an Offeror demonstrates documented good-faith efforts to obtain the requested cost data but an OEM repair source declines to provide proprietary elemental cost breakdowns. Specifically, describe how the Government intends to assess cost realism, price reasonableness, and proposal compliance when proposals are supported by alternative information such as:

• Vendor repair quotations,

• Historical repair pricing data,

• Government-provided estimates within the Cost Model, or

• Other commercially available pricing information.

The data required by Section L for subcontracted efforts is required in order for the Government to conduct the required cost realism evaluation identified in Sections L&M. Section L is being revised to include additional language regarding submission of major subcontractor proposals.

6 General:

Consistency With Related RRS Contract FA8575-22-C-0002 The Government previously awarded contract FA8575-22-C-0002 for substantially similar Repair and Return Services supporting F-15 components, with the primary distinction being that the prior effort involved classified repair components, whereas the current solicitation addresses unclassified repair components.

Based on industry experience supporting the prior effort, the pricing structure and subcontractor cost documentation requirements—particularly the requirement for elemental cost breakdowns from repair sources—appear to differ from the approach used under

FA8575-22-C-0002.

Please explain the factors that led to the current cost proposal documentation requirements and describe how the Government determined that this approach appropriately reflects the commercial structure of the repair supply chain for OEM-controlled repair capabilities?

This effort is non-commercial with cost type CLINs, which require a cost realism analysis. Further, this effort is structured differently from the contract referenced and regulatory requirements surrounding source selection evaluations has changed since the FY22 contract, thus a true comparison between the two is not fully appropriate.

The USG is utilizing a cost-type structure since the requirement cannot be accurately forecasted due to uncertainty of assets, quantities, etc. to be repaired. Section L is being revised to include additional language regarding subcontractor proposals for those entering into a cost-type arrangement with the prime and those that are not. The revised language identifies what information is required for any subcontractor proposals submitted as commercial products or services.

7 Section L-Instructions to Offerors, Section 2. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements:

Proposal Compliance When OEM/SOR Elemental Cost Data Is Unavailable The solicitation requires offerors to provide subcontractor labor, indirect rates, and material cost detail within the Cost/Price Model and supporting Cost Format D worksheets for cost-type CLINs. However, many of the SORs identified in the CLIN X002_Sample Repair Year tab are OEM-controlled repair providers that operate as independent commercial repair vendors rather than subcontractors or teaming partners to the Prime Offeror at the time of proposal submission.

In the F-15 repair supply chain, these OEM repair providers typically provide firm repair quotations or catalog pricing, but generally do not provide proprietary labor, indirect rate, or material cost element breakdowns to third parties during the solicitation phase, particularly when no contractual relationship exists with the Prime Offeror.

As a result, despite documented good-faith efforts by an Offeror to obtain the required cost element information, an OEM or SOR may decline to provide proprietary cost breakdown data to either the Prime Offeror or the Government.

Please explain how the Government intends to treat proposals in this circumstance. Specifically, describe whether a proposal supported by commercial repair quotations, historical repair pricing, or other commercially available pricing information—in lieu of proprietary OEM cost element breakdowns—will be considered compliant with the solicitation’s Cost/Price proposal requirements and eligible for evaluation?

Additionally, please describe how the Government intends to ensure that proposals remain comparable and executable when proprietary elemental cost data from OEM repair providers is not reasonably available within the commercial repair market?

Section L, II. Volume Organization, E. Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal, 2. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements is being revised to identify what is required for major subcontractor proposal submissions.

8 RFP Attachment 4 Cost Price Model, Cost Format D_CLIN X002_SUB 1,2,3,4,5, CLIN X002_Sample Repair Year and Attachment 1 PWS:

Price Model Attachment 4 and PWS Attachment 1 Alignment The PWS requires Teardown, Test, and Evaluation (TT&E) and handling of Beyond Economical Repair (BER) / Beyond Physical Repair (BPR), No Fault Fee (NFF) handling, and Reports of Discrepancy (ROD) resolution, but the pricing model omits those cost elements.

Please describe how the prime contractor captures TT&E, BER/BPR, NFF, and ROD discrepancy price elements in the current pricing model?

The costs will be captured of CLIN X002 in the Cost Model.

The USG has revised the PWS as follows: IAW 4.31.1 maximum repair Cost: The Contractor shall not repair any item if the cost exceeds 75% of the latest acquisition cost (LAC) of the item, unless directed to do so by the USG PM/PCO. For the purposes of this evaluation, the repair cost will include tear down and evaluation costs. To evaluate LAC the Contractor shall conduct market research for the current pricing from three sources. That information and a recommendation will be submitted to the USG PM/PCO for review and approval of the LAC, update of LAC record if approved, and a repair decision or submission of BER. If three prices cannot be sourced, the Contractor shall include this information for review. All applicable and approved costs associated with the repair, required reporting, and repair actions shall be charged to the total cost of the repair CLIN X002. This includes Report of Discrepancy (ROD), Beyond Economical Repair (BER), Beyond Physical Repair (BPR), Cost of Missing Subassemblies, and Supply Discrepancy Report/Product Quality Deficiency Report (SDR/PQDR) as applicable.

9 RFP Attachment 4 Cost Price Model, Cost Format D_CLIN X002_SUB 1,2,3,4,5, CLIN X002_Sample Repair Year and Attachment 1 PWS:

Price Model Attachment 4 and PWS Attachment 1 Alignment The Government’s pricing model (Attachment 4) requires per-National Stock Number (NSN) Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) unit prices, but the PWS repair requirements mean the prime contractor will not know the defective condition, failure mode, or actual material replace/repair requirements for any given unserviceable asset until after teardown/TT&E.

Yet, Attachment 4 does not allow a TT&E-only CLIN and does not allow after the evaluation material pricing.

How should a prime contractor develop and justify NSN-level CPFF unit prices and provide a CBOM when the condition, failure mode, and material repair/replace requirements of unserviceable assets cannot be determined until after TT&E?

The CLIN X002_Sample Year tab provides scenarios to use as the baseline. TT&E can be rolled into SOR pricing and identified on the sub pricing tabs. RFP Attachment 4 - Cost-Price Model/CLIN_X002_Sample repair Year tab has been updated.

10 Attachment 4 Cost Format C_CLIN Summary:

CLIN 5001 6 months vs 3

CLIN 5001 cell I67 is taking half of the unit price (monthly value) of cell I54, then multiplying by 6 to get the total in cell J67. This produces the value equivalent to 3 months when the QTY of CLIN 5001 should be 6. Can you confirm that this is an error?

This will be revised to apply the unit price in I54 (CLIN 4001) as the unit price for cell I67 (CLIN 5001).

11 Section L (Pg 14) E-2 Elemental cost breakouts The TINA threshold set to increase 30 June 2026 to $10M. With this effort's current anticipated award in August 2026, may we assume that the threshold requirement to submit elemental cost breakdowns will increase from $2.5M to $10M?

The requirement in the RFP is $2.5M as that is the requirement in place at the time of RFP release.

It will be revisited should the 30 Jun 26 date pass without an award. Offerors are to submit information in accordance with the RFP as issued.

12 Section M B-2 Relative Importance Paragraph states that 'Factor IV, Cost/Price, is an important consideration in the best value award decision' and the other factors combined are equal to factor IV. It goes on to say that the other factors are graded on an adequate/inadequate basis, thus are not part of the trade off decision. In a situation where factors I and III are deemed acceptable, would past performance and price thus be reviewed on equal standing in a trade off decision?

Section M. I. B. 2. revised for clarity. All non-cost/price factors when combined are considered approximately equal to price. Factors I and III will not be a part of the tradeoff decision but instead are evaluated acceptable/unacceptable. For the tradeoff decision, past performance and cost/price will be considered for those offerors that are determined acceptable for both Factors I and III.

13 Section M B-2 Relative Importance Paragraph states that factors I and II (technical and past performance) are more relatively important that factor IV (cost), but goes on to say that factors I,II, and III combined are equal to IV. These statements seem to be contradicting, can you please explain the math?

Section M. I. B. 2. revised.

14 Section M B-2 Relative Importance Paragraph states that factor I (technical) is the most important relative factor, however it is not a part of the best value determination. How can this be the most important factor, but only be deemed acceptable or unacceptable?

Section M. I. B. 2. revised for clarity. Original paragraph tied the importance of the technical factor to the gating methodology laid out by the Government (i.e., technical evaluation being the first gate).

15 Section L (Pg 13) E-2 Elemental cost breakouts In lieu of a full elemental cost breakdown, where should historical data be provided in the cost volume spreadsheet, and in what format should it be provided in? The sheet provided assumes that rate information will be provided, however the gov has made clear other forms of cost and pricing data will be accepted

Section L is being revised to identify information required for subcontractors. See Section L, II.

Volume Organization, E. Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal, 2. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements.

16 Solicitation:

Anticipated award

If the actual award moves significantly past the anticipated date of 1 August, will the selected offeror be authorized to adjust for any rate differences to account for the date shift?

If discussions are opened, Offerors will have an opportunity to revise any aspect of their proposal including the rates. If award without discussions is made, then award will be based on the initial proposal as submitted as long as it is valid.

17 Section L, Page 7, Para D.1, General Section M, Page 8, Para E.4, Relevancy Definitions (Table) RFP Attachment 7, Relevancy Assessment

"The Offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information (PPI) for itself and any joint venture member, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor in accordance with the format contained in the PPI Tool, RFP Attachment 6, Past Performance Information for Offerors, RFP Attachment 7, Relevancy Assessment, and the following paragraphs.

A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming member), other than the Offeror itself, that will perform more than 30 percent of the overall effort, based on the sum of the price proposed for each contract line item; or possesses the Saudi Business license the prime contractor is relying on to perform the efforts of the PWS."

If a subcontractor is identified as a Critical Subcontractor due to the use of its Saudi Business License, will the past performance example required for that subcontractor be evaluated using the same recency, relevancy, and complexity criteria applied to the Prime Offeror? For example, will a Critical Subcontractor need a past performance effort that involved contracts or task orders >$50M annually to receive a Very Relevant rating?

If so, can the Government clarify how these evaluation standards will be applied given that the Critical Subcontractor is not expected to perform the same scope or level of responsibility as the Prime Offeror under this contract?

Section M.II.2 .E.1. revised.

Submitted efforts for critical subcontractors will be evaluated against the same relevancy definitions as for prime/joint venture members. Each effort will be evaluated for recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. When all three aspects are met for the individual efforts, the efforts are able to be considered within the performance confidence assessment. This is where the performance record as a whole is looked at in the aggregate, taking into account the proposed teaming arrangements and how each proposed teaming partner is to perform, etc.

18 Section L, Page 7, Para D.2, Past Performance Format

"Each Offeror/Joint Venture member and critical subcontractor shall utilize the PPI Tool to complete information for three (3) active or completed efforts in the past three (3) years from the issuance date of the RFP (with at least one year of performance history) that the Offeror/Joint Venture member and critical subcontractor considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. No more than three (3) efforts for Volume III should be submitted."

Can the Government please clarify whether three (3) past performance examples are required for each of the Prime Offeror and all Critical Subcontractors, which would result in a submission of more than three (3) efforts, or if three (3) past performance examples are required in total for the combined Prime Offeror and Critical Subcontractors?

IAW Section L, p 7, D.2. Each prime offeror, each joint venture member, each critical subcontractors shall complete information for three (3) efforts with no more than three (3) efforts total for each required submittal For example if a Prime Offeror has a Joint Venture Member and a Critical Subcontractor, there would be a total of nine (9) efforts submitted. Three (3) for each required submission.

19 RFP Attachment 4 - Cost/Price Matrix, Tab "Cost Format A_CLINs X0003-X005," Note

"3. The proposed factors will be applied to a Government-estimated cost values; the costs will not be disclosed to the offeror."

The Government indicates that a Government-estimated cost value will be used to determine the evaluated price for CLIN X003, Facilities, and that this value will be applied uniformly to all offerors.

However, facility costs may vary significantly among offerors depending on factors such as facility size and geographic location. These variations could result in materially different actual contract costs among offerors.

How does the Government intend to account for these potential cost differences if the same Government-estimated value will be applied to all offerors for evaluation purposes?

After consideratio, the USG has removed CLIN X003. RFP Amd 03 to follow.

20 RFP Attachment 4 - Cost/Price Matrix, Tabs "Cost Format D_CLIN X002_SUB1, 2, 3...," Notes 2-3 & Tabs "Cost Format B_SUB 1 Rate, 2, 3, …," Note 2

"2. The Prime Offer shall have the major subcontractor propose labor hours and material costs in the yellow-highlighted cells below.

3. The Prime Offeror shall ensure the yellow-highlighted rate cells below are linked correctly from the relevant labor rate and add-on factors in the 'Cost Format B_SUB 1 Rates' worksheet."

"2. The Prime Offeror shall have the major subcontractor propose labor rates and add-on factors in the yellow-highlighted cells below. All proposed labor rates shall be rounded to two (2) decimal places."

Subcontractors, particularly Systems OEMs/Tier 1 suppliers, may have internal policies that limit the level of detailed cost information they are able to share externally, including items such as hourly labor rates, estimated labor hours, and individual cost elements (e.g., cost of materials, overhead, G&A, and profit), even when formal partnership agreements are in place.

Could the Government please clarify whether the highlighted information is required for proposal compliance? Additionally, please confirm whether a proposal would be removed from consideration or otherwise deemed non-compliant if a subcontractor is unable or unwilling to provide this level of detail to the Offeror or directly to the Government.

If a subcontractor declines to provide detailed information to the prime contractor, the subcontractor shall submit the required information directly to the Government under separate cover, and the Government will protect such information in accordance with applicable regulations. The subcontractor's documentation, if required, must be provided to the Government by the proposal due date/time. Failure to submit the information required by Section L may result in the Government being able to make a determination that a prime's proposal is realistic for the costs proposed.

21 Section M, Page 6, Section II. E.1

A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming member), other than the offeror itself,... or possesses the Saudi Business license the prime contractor is relying on to perform the efforts of the PWS. Failure of the offeror to submit evidence of past performance for critical subcontractors will result in a determination of non-compliance with the requirements of this solicitation and the offeror’s proposal will be removed from further consideration and determined ineligible for award.

It is our assumption that If an Offeror is teaming with a company that is providing the Saudi license but is not performing 30% of the overall effort, that critical subcontractor does NOT have to provide evidence of past performance.

Is this an accurate assumption?

Section M.II.2 .E.1. revised.

22 Section M, Page 6, Section II. E.1

A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming member), other than the offeror itself,... or possesses the Saudi Business license the prime contractor is relying on to perform the efforts of the PWS. Failure of the offeror to submit evidence of past performance for critical subcontractors will result in a determination of non-compliance with the requirements of this solicitation and the offeror’s proposal will be removed from further consideration and determined ineligible for award.

If that is not an accurate assumption, our understanding is that the assessment form (Attachment 7) is designed to evaluate the ability of a Prime Contractor to successfully fulfill the requirements of the contract. Offeror does not require Major Subcontractors / Teammates to perform the labor and management aspects of this program, other than to provide the business license to legally employ the staff performing induction and final delivery duties at Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF) facilities (King Abdulaziz Air Base).

This effort from Offeror's teaming partner in Saudi Arabia will constitute far less than 30% of the total value of the contract.

We request the USG eliminate the requirement for Major Subcontractors whose only role is to provide the Saudi Arabian business license and appropriate Saudi Arabian government registrations to provide past performance citations to the USG.

Section M.II.2 .E.1. revised.

23 Section M and Attachment 7, Page 6, Section. E.1

Section M: A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming member), other than the offeror itself, that will perform more than 30 percent of the overall effort, based on the sum of the price.

Attachment 7: Somewhat Relevant past performance effort involved at least one (1) of the following services / technical aspects: Management of Repair Sources, Management of DMSMS, Management of (TAT) at various SORs, Prime or Subcontractor on DOD Effort, Manage a web-based Management Information System (MIS), Management of more than one Subcontractors at the same time or Supply Chain Management, and Repair Service...Present/past performance efforts involved contracts or task orders between $14M and $33.9M annually, with a period of performance between one (1) and two

The requirement for Major Subcontractors that are providing only physical repair services to provide three Past Performance citations as prescribed in the solicitation is unachievable, particularly for Major Subcontractors that are named distributors for Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) defined as Qualified Sources of Repair in PWS Section 4.18.

We request the USG eliminate the requirement for this type of Major Subcontractor to provide 3 past performance citations to the USG.

The USG maintains the requirement for Critical Subcontractors who only role is providing physical repair services of more than 30 percent of the overall effort, based on the sum of the price, must submit evidence of past performance.

24 Ref Section E, Page 40, Inspection and Acceptance

This section states that “AFMC Form 807 Quality Assurance Provisions and Special Inspection Requirements with its Atch 1 807 NSN List are attached at Section J.”

RFP Sec E, Inspection and Acceptance, p40 of 76, FAR 52.246-11 Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement. (Dec 2014). This clause is included in full text and has a fill in that is to be completed by the Contracting Officer, identifying those CLINs that this clause is applicable to.

Please complete the fill in as applicable, or confirm that this clause is not applicable to this solicitation and resulting contract.

No action required. The following instructions are included in the RFP - "AFMC Form 807 Quality Assurance Provisions and Special Inspection Requirements with its Atch 1 807 NSN List are attached at Section J"

25 RFP, Section L, Page 73

RFP Sec L, Instructions to Offerors, p73 of 76, FAR 52.233-2 Service of Protest. (Sep 2006) SERVICE OF PROTEST (SEPT 2006) (a) Protests, as defined in section 33.101 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, that are filed directly with an agency, and copies of any protests that are filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), shall be served on the Contracting Officer (addressed as follows) by obtaining written and dated acknowledgment of receipt from . [Contracting Officer designate the official or location where a protest may be served on the Contracting Officer.]

Please complete the fill in as applicable, or confirm that this clause is not applicable to this solicitation and resulting contract.

Clause has been updated.

26 Attachment 3, Clauses & Provisions Checklist Some of the listed clauses are to be filled in by the CO, and do not require completion by the offeror. (FAR 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires), while other clauses included in the list appear to be completed by the offeror (DFARS 252.204-7007 Alternate A, Annual Representations and Certifications (e)).

Please clarify the intent of Attachment 03, and clarify if this list is to be included in proposal Vol I along with the completed solicitation, including fill-in clauses.

RFP Attachment 3 - Clauses and Provisions Checklist is intended to show those clauses and/or provisions included in the solicitation that require fill-in/completion by the offeror. This attachment is for reference only and is not required to be included in the Volume I submission.

27 Quality Assurance.pdf This file seems to be locked (requires permissions) and is unopenable.

Please provide openable file.

In order to edit the document, you will first need to download it from SAM.gov and save it to your local computer.

28 Amendment 2 Solicitation Amendment FA857526RB0020002 SF 30.pdf Solicitation Amendment - FA857526RB0020002.pdf

Both of these files are protected (requires permissions) and are uneditable/unfillable.

Kindly provide editable files so Offerors can complete.

In order to edit the document, you will first need to download it from SAM.gov and save it to your local computer.

29 Section L, Pg. 1, I. Proposal Format, A. General Considering that the Past Performance volume is due in 2 days and that some questions remain unanswered, we kindly request that the due date for the Past Performance volume be extended.

Additionally, the PPI Tool requires allocation of SubK workshare. Workshare percentages are finalized after costing negotiations. Since the Cost Volume is due on April 24th, submitting the Past Performance Volume 30 days in advance will likely cause a discrepancy with Offerors' final Cost Volumes.

An extension is not required as this is currently listed in Section L / Pg. 1 / I. Proposal Format / A.

General – “However, offerors are requested to submit Volume III, Past Performance Information, so that it is received 30 calendar days prior to submittal of Volume II, Volume IV, and Volume V.”

Volume III is not required to be submitted 30 days early. This is a request of the USG, not a requirement.

F-15 FMS Repair and Return Support Services RSAF (Follow-On) Solicitation: USG Response to Industry Feedback 2

Summary_Rnd 2