Draft RFP Q A Final.pdf

1) Q: In Reference to Q&A for question #61 from the Randolph site visit, the question #61 as posted asks: “During a Major Time Change Item (TCI), additional maintenance occurs. Is it part of the TCI overhaul or is it additional Over and Above (O&A)?”

A: This should be calculated as part of the CPFH as it is Normal wear and Tear. Refer to PWS section 1.1.D.

What is the effort referred to as “additional maintenance”? Why would this be included in the CPFH rather than the over and above TCI CLIN set up for the related overhaul (for instance engine repair)? Could government provide an example of this scenario where additional maintenance against a TCI occurs?

A: Example of additional maintenance: While doing an engine overhaul, if the fuel nozzles cannot be cleaned adequately to get an acceptable spray pattern, then replacement of the nozzle is to be considered part of cost per flight hour. If during the overhaul, it is determined the engine was overtemped due to operator error (not engine LRU failure) then the additional time and material not normally part of the overhaul is billed as additional maintenance (over-and-above, not necessarily part of the TCI).

2) Q: The answer to Question #23 from Industry day states that OC-ALC (Tinker) will take responsibility for management of the contract “following the award of the COMBs contract.” However, it goes on to state, that in FY15 Tinker will become the program office for T-6. These statements seem to contradict each other. Where does the customer envision their Program Management office to reside, WPAFB or Tinker and for what time-frames?

A: The transition of the JPATS Program Management responsibilities from ASC to OC-ALC will be completed in a phased approach. The first phase of the transition will begin when ASC transfers the management responsibilities of the new COMBS contract to OC-ALC, following IOC at NAS Corpus Christi in the spring of 2012. The overall JPATS Program Management office will remain at ASC until the end of the production phase, currently scheduled to complete in FY15-16.

3) Q: Which sites are considered “satellite” sites? Will all MOBs (except satellite sites) require a Site manager?

A: NAS Pax River and NAS Pensacola are satellite sites, i.e. there are no COMBS facilities at these locations. As indicated in the PWS Para 1.1.A.2.a.1, the contractor shall provide on-site management at each T-6A/B aircraft MOB which includes a COMBS manager who shall act as the contractor’s local central point of contact to the Government.

4) Section J, Attachment 21, Paragraph 4.2.3 (B) states that there is no “COMBS” at either satellite location (NAS Patuxent River or NAS Pensacola). Does this mean there is no counter for issue and receipt of material, or only that there is no warehouse facility?

A: There is no warehouse facility. Counter space, truck loading, and limited material storage space is also provided.

5) Q: PWS Paragraph 1.1.A.2.f “Satellite Site Support” implies that contractor will need to provide/maintain vehicles for transportation of materials and support equipment between sites.

How shall this cost be accounted for in the proposal cost volume?

A: Vehicle costs should be included in COMBS Services CLIN (1xxx series).

6) Q: Two CLINs are listed as Option CLINs for COMBS Transition/Phase Out, 8300 and 8400. What is the CLIN for Transition Phase-In?

A: The USG does not have a separately priced CLIN for Phase-in on this effort.

7) Q: Will all bidders be required to price both “Transition/Phase-IN” and “Transition/Phase- Out” CLINs? If not, how will the government make price evaluations between the incumbent and new contractors bidding on the opportunity?

A: The USG does not have a separately priced CLIN for Phase-in on this effort.

8) Q: Does the Contractor-provided Parachute Supply Support include the re-packing of the parachutes?

A: COMBS provides replacement parachutes under FFP CLINS and support equipment necessary for repacking under the SE CLINS. The USG will perform all necessary maintenance.

9) Q: Section L, L304a “Make-or-Buy Program”, states that the offeror shall submit with the proposal a proposed Make-or-Buy Program to include detailed information. Is this Make-or-Buy Program intended to describe a plan or methodology or is it intended to document our decisions on source selection? Can this be included as an attachment or appendix to the Technical Volume? Or is it to be included in another proposal section? Is the Plan/Program included in the page count for the Technical Volume?

A: Upon further review of the RFP, the Government has determined that this level of detail is not necessary. As such, this clause will be deleted.

10) Q: Will the Government consider experience on Commercial Contracts relevant in the evaluation of Past Performance?

A: Yes, as long as the contract meets the requirements as outlined in Section M 2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment.

11) Q: Is Engine Hot Section Inspection (HS I) part of the CPFH or included in the TCI overhaul for the engine?

A: Both. Field-identified over-temperature conditions to the Hot Section that require a Hot Section Kit are considered part of Cost Per Flight Hour. HSI issues found during a per occurrence overhaul (Major TCI) or once returned for a separate repair are engine over & above. Please also refer to Section H, Clause H320 for additional information on engine over and aboves.

12) Q: PWS Paragraph 1.1.A.2i “Modification Support” states the COMBS is to provide materials in support of aircraft temporarily located at a modification facility. Could the customer define “modification facility”? Is the intent of this requirement to allow the COMBs contract to purchase materials, equipment, and LRUs as needed for separately contracted modifications and upgrades?

How will the customer track which materials are contracted for on the modification contract and which are contracted for on the COMBs contract? Which contractor has responsibility for lost or damaged modification related parts?

A: Para 1.1.A.2.i references Annual Inventory not Modification Support. 1.1.B.5 Modification Line Support describes the COMBS contractor’s responsibility to provide replacement material support to aircraft temporarily located at a modification facility. The modification facility, currently located in Wichita, KS, performs depot-level aircraft retrofit/configuration changes that cannot be accomplished in the field. If a part failure is found on the aircraft at the “mod line” that would have otherwise been found in the field, the modification facility manager will notify the COMBS contractor to ship the part and list a “due in from maintenance.” It is not the Government’s intent to require the COMBS contractor to purchase any new parts or support equipment except as those Government-furnished items wear out and become BER (the replacement of which should be covered under CPFH). The COMBS will however be required to support that new configuration after the change is fielded. This may be accomplished by the USG buying and providing to the COMBS an initial quantity of the new part, contracting with the COMBS contractor to modify the old part to the new configuration or a combination of both.

13) Q: PWS Paragraph 1.1.A.3d “Bench Stock Locations” states the contractor shall (a.) “identify and provide bench stock aircraft material in a location directed by the FC/FD/COR at each MOB including selected off-equipment back shops.” Does this require transportation to the backshop? Who is responsible for the physical replenishment of bench stock?

A: Yes, the COMBS contractor is responsible for replenishing bench stock at the bench stock locations (including those located outside of a COMBS facility).

14) Q: Clause E002 – Periodic DD250: Please clarify which CLINs in addition to CLIN 6X00 will require the annual DD250.

A: No other CLINs require the annual DD250.

15) Q: Clause E002 – Periodic DD250: Is this annual DD250 requirement in addition to the monthly Receipt and Acceptance reports for each CLIN which will be submitted through Wide Area Work Flow?

A: Yes

16) Q: Clause H090 - Advance Change Adjustment Agreements: Establishing a threshold of $75,000 per occurrence for an unknown number of occurrences adds undue risk to the Offeror under a fixed price contract.

a.) Will the Government provide historical/workload data associated with this clause?

A: No.

b.) Does this clause apply to both debit and credit proposals? If so, is this $75,000 a net or absolute value? If the adjustment is $76,000, will the actual adjustment be for $76,000 or $1,000?

A: The $75,000 is absolute value. Those changes that exceed $75,000 will be fully priced (in this example, $76,000 would be the proposed change, as opposed to $1000).

c.) Request the Government provide a narrative example of how this clause will be applied.

A: Government decides to change LRU “X” with LRU “Y”. The Government will contract for that configuration change with its production / systems engineering contractor. In order to fully field this change, the Government will provide a quantity of spares and support equipment to the COMBS contractor to manage. In accordance with the configuration change fielding schedule, the COMBS contractor will need to propose how much more (or less) it costs them to repair LRU “Y” instead of LRU “X”. As such, the COMBS contractor will propose the expected number of repairs of LRU “X” it no longer has to perform (a credit to CPFH) as well as the expected number of repairs of LRU “Y” it will now have to perform (a debit to CPFH).

d.) Does H090 apply to Over and Above efforts?

A: No

17) Q: Clause H090 – Advance Change Adjustment Agreements. Will there be an annual cap to the dollars subject to this changes clause?

A: Yes. The annual cap is $1 Million. The clause will be updated to reflect this.

18) Q: Clause H090 Advance Change Adjustment Agreements - A limitation to the number of changes or a total cum amount is normally established with respect to this clause. Recommendation: Limit the number of changes per year or cap the cum dollar amount of changes per year. Rational: This clause currently is open ended to the risk the USG is putting on the Contractor.

A: See #17 above.

19) Q: Clause H318 – FAA Certification: Are the over and above costs resulting from FAA Airworthiness Directives subject to Clause H090 – Advance Change Adjustment Agreements?

A: No.

20) Q: How will the NMCS and PMCS rates be calculated? Please provide an example.

A: NMCS and PMCS are as reported by the operating commands. AFI 21-103 will be added to the Bidder’s library.

21) Q: Attachment 20, Table 1 Services Summary – The table identifies Liquidated Damages as a remedy for items other than NMCS, PMCS, NMCM (Other Material Discrepancies). For example, SS-06 Time Compliance Technical Order/Technical Directives (TCTO/TD) Kit Proofing Parts, SS-07 NMC Aircraft Off-Station Support, and SS-08 Customer Satisfaction. How will these liquidated damages be calculated?

A: Noted. A revision to the performance plan will be included in the formal RFP. The USG’s intention is only those items included in the liquated damages clause (H317) will be subject to liquidated damages(NMCS, PMCS, NMCM(SE), and OMD’s).

22) Q: Other Material Discrepancies (OMD). The performance plan surveillance procedures in paragraph 1.4.1 states “These performance objectives will directly relate to mission essential items” OMD part requests are not by definition mission essential so should they be subject to liquidated damages? If so, suggest that liquidated damages only apply if contractor has not maintained proper levels of GFP inventory and duration that damages apply is for any part over two weeks that does not have a purchase order in place. Recommendation: a) Remove OMD requirement and liquidated damages, or b) Modify so liquidated damage apply only if part is on GFP inventory list and not put on order with-in two weeks of the demand being placed. Rational: Most of the instances appear to be more for cosmetic reasons vs part no longer able to perform. In today’s world of just in time inventory planning and reduced inventory levels if a part is not available there is no way for the contractor to recover in 30 days.

A: Noted. If a change is made, it will be reflected in the final RFP.

23) Q: Clause 52.222-42 Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires. When will this information be provided?

A: The Wage Determination Rates 2010 have been loaded into the Bidders Library. Also, Salary and Locality rates for Federal Employees can be accessed by the general public at www.opm.gov under Salary and Wages.

24) Q: Attachment 20 – Performance Plan. Section J – Attachments. Why will the performance plan be removed from the contract prior to award?

A: The Performance Plan is a USG requirement to notify the contractor of how performance will be evaluated. The performance plan will not be removed from the contract.

25) Q: Model Contract – Will the model contract be provided in Microsoft Word format to allow input of CLIN prices and other required data?

A: No. Input your prices into the attached CLIN pricing matrix.

http://www.opm.gov/

26) Q: Technical Subfactor #2 Acquisition Management: How will the COMBS contractor receive information about configuration changes; i.e. Service Literature, GIDEP Alerts, FAA Airworthiness Directives?

A: USG will provide information to the COMBS contractor concerning configuration changes it is working with its production / systems engineering contractor.

27) Q: PWS Para. 1.1.A.2.q. – Business Relationships: How will the Government ensure that the aircraft OEM (also a potential bidder of this solicitation) will not withhold or charge excessive fees to access the required information in para. 1.1.A.2.q.1. by interested parties?

A: The USG cannot direct OEM operations.

28) Q: In cases where there is a conflict, which Government requirement takes precedence -- the requirement for IUID markings or FAA certification? Example: commercial common components worth greater than $5K that require etching to be IUID compliant -- etching, unless performed by the manufacturer and properly certified are an unauthorized modification, rendering the item no longer FAA certified. Will the Government require the COMBS contractor to make markings to parts that are not approved by the manufacturer?

A: As stipulated in the PWS and Draft RFP, IUID is not a defined requirement for the COMBS contractor and no work should be performed on IUID implementation until the Government directs the contractor to do so with a Contract Change Request. Once the Government has an approved plan for implementation, it will review issues such as this and address at that time.

29) Q: Para. 1.1.A.3.a Issue and Exchange states, in part:

2. Issue consumable material with at least 15% of shelf life remaining

3. Issue material with at least 300 hr service life remaining

And Para. 1.1.A.3.c Serviceable Material states, “7. Ensure aircraft material with service life limitations shall have at least 300 operating hours remaining at the end of the contract period of performance”.

Is the requirement for 300 hours of service life only applicable for life-limited components only?

A: No. 15% and 300 hrs apply to all parts issued out of the COMBS. “Consumable” will be removed from this section of the PWS.

Question: If 15% shelf life and a minimum of 300 hours are control points for issuance, are all COMBS parts marked identifying this information? Is this information available electronically?

A: Shelf life is supposed to be included on packaging. Remaining service life will be listed in the component logbook or other FAA approved documentation (including marking on the part itself). 15% applies to shelf life limited items (as identified by vendor) and calendar time limited items (per -6 TO). 300 hours applies to aircraft time-limited items (again, per -6). Information is generally not available electronically.

30) Q: PWS 1.1.A.3.c At transition, will a list of serviceable material out for repair be made available?

A: Yes, this data will be made available to the contractor selected from this competition.

31) Q: PWS 1. 1.A.3.a.2 &.3 and 1.1.A.3.c.6 and .7: The way the current requirement reads is a part must have at 15% of life remaining to be issued. This will cause additional costs due to high time change items such as engines could be required to be overhauled over one year before the 4500 hour requirement. For Example. 15% of 4500 hours requires that the engine has at least 675 hours remaining. At an average utilization rate of 45 hours per month the engine will be overhauled 15 months early. Recommendation: Combine items 2 & 3 to read GFP with shelf/service life limitations of at least 15% or 300 hours whichever is less.

A: 15% does not apply to service life requirements. See PWS section 1.1.A.3.a.2

32) Q: What contingencies does the Government have for instances where the CLS provider abuses the supply system -- excessive numbers of No Fault Found, excessive issues of pilferable products (such as batteries), etc.

A: COMBS can advise USG of unexpected NFF returns so the problem can be verified and resolved.

WRT potential abuses of pilferable items, the COMBS is within their right to ask for the old part to be turned in. If theft of government (and/or contractor) property is suspected, then base investigative services should be contacted.

33) Q: Para. 3.1.B.2 Requisition/Ordering Procedures for NSN Material and Para. 3.1.B.3 Administrative Supplies & Materials - Will the contractor's system be required to perform an electronic MILSTRIP connection to Government systems for the ordering of NSN and administrative materials?

A: No.

34) Q: Could Government explain why the Navy proposed spares (approx. 1739 items) and the USAF proposed spares (approx. 82 items) are so disparate?

A: USAF has completed production; fewer spare parts left to buy. USN just hitting core of production; more parts to buy, and stock for stand-up of NAS Corpus Christi.

35) Q: T6A Calibrated Support Equipment (approx. 97 items). Will the T6B have the same level of support equipment?

A: Yes, approximately the same.

36) Q: Is there a T6A component list? T6B components list contains 285 items.

A: The Technical Manuals identifies the differences; the T-6B components list is just pointing out/highlighting B model differences. Potential offerors will have access to paper copies of the T-6 Technical Manuals once the Formal RFP is released. Instructions for access are included with the Bidder’s Library release announcement.

37) Can the Collective Bargaining Agreement be provided prior to the release of the Final RFP?

A: The CBA will be provided with the Formal RFP.

38) Q: PWS para # 1.1.D Major Time Change Items/Components sub para 3. references TO # 1T-6A-6 but it is missing from the bidder’s library. Could the government please provide a copy?

A: Due to Department of Defense regulations, electronic distribution of the T-6 Technical Manuals is limited. The 1T-6A-6 manual will be available in the paper library at WPAFB, OH upon release of the Formal RFP.

39) Q: Why are there separate block of CLINs for Sheppard, and exclusion of them by option for the TCI items? Does funding need to stay separated?

A: Sheppard costs must be segregated from other USAF-funded efforts.

40) Q: PWS paragraph 1.1.A.2.t – “Engine Tracking” fails to mention updating the logbooks for the USAF engines but indicates that USAF engines can go to USN planes? Is there a requirement to update both log books for USAF and USN?

A: USAF does not use “Logbooks,” data is tracked in IMDS. Logbooks for USN must be up to date upon receipt or transfer.

41) Q: Draft PWS 1.1.A.2.t Engine Tracking states: The contractor shall:

a. “Upload into NALCOMIS the appropriate history for all time- and cycle-tracked items; this is significant when engines or other components are received in COMBS from a USAF location (i.e., the USAF does not enter data into NALCOMIS)”.

b. “Update the USN engine log books with engine and engine component flight hours, overhaul history, Technical Direction history, and other significant history”.

Discussion: It is our understanding that engine LRU’s, to include the Hot Section Kits, are not currently tracked by the Government and this information is not available. Furthermore, the Government only tracks the engine Time Since New. We believe that in order to properly track the LF items for the T-6 program, Full Stops/Starts also need to be tracked.

Questions:

a) Will the Government please confirm that all required information is currently being tracked?

b) Will the Government provide a list of all time-and cycle-tracked items, components and historical events that require tracking and entry into NALCOMIS and engine log books?

a.) All required USG information is not currently being tracked. We are in the process of establishing -6 manual requirements for time change items. Additionally, in the near future we will be releasing a TCTO to record the serial numbers and time accumulated for all time change items. All NALCOMIS upload and logbook information expected to be tracked by the new COMBS contract is currently being tracked by the current COMBS contract.

b.) The government will provide access to the T-6A/B technical manuals, including the -4 and -6 which detail time-change items in the paper bidder’s library. The Government does not believe it can provide complete historical information regarding the occurrences of time-change activities.

42) This Contractor requests an additional T-6 COMBS site visit. As we reflect on the Randolph site visit experience, we realize that Randolph AFB is not representative of other MOBs in the solicitation which provide supply support for a larger number of aircraft. The Randolph ops tempo therefore may not be representative of other base operations. With this observation in mind, we would recommend a one day visit to an high ops tempo site (an MOB supporting over 100 T-6 aircraft), to allow all bidders the opportunity to observe actual COMBS counter operations, receiving and inspection operations, engine build up areas, visual inspection of support equipment (for insight on age and readiness for service), and observation of counter support required to ensure support equipment is provided. A tour of facility space available for use for coordination meetings for COMBs and maintenance contractor meetings would also be beneficial.

A: We will take it under consideration.

43) Q: Draft RFP Section B – Supplies or Services & Prices: Current CLIN structure reflects zero aircraft support required at NAS Pensacola. The briefing presented by the Government at industry day indicated a requirement to support 38 aircraft at NAS Pensacola and 17 aircraft at CSO NAS Pensacola. Will the Government clarify aircraft support requirements at NAS Pensacola and if required, adjust the CLIN structure?

A: NFO at NAS Pensacola is supported by NAS Whiting Field and the total number of aircraft is 220, with up to 170 at Whiting Field and up to 50 at NFO. CSO Pensacola is supported by a USAF operated COMBS facility.

44) Reference: Draft RFP Section E301 Major Time Change Items/Components – CLIN 4XXX Series. The Government has expressed previously that an additional requirement for engine overhauls is to maintain a closed loop of engine parts/components in support of the USAF/Navy T-6A/T-6B fleet.

That requirement is not annotated in the draft RFP.

Q: Is it a requirement of the Government to support engine overhaul, repair, hot section kits and LRUs utilizing a closed loop system whereby only new or previously used parts/components from USAF/Navy T-6A/B engines are utilized?

A: Yes, the USG requires a "closed loop". We will only use new parts/components or reconditioned/refurbished parts/components that have resided in the USG inventory. This includes an exclusion of using any FMS customers parts inventory; meaning we will not allow use of FMS parts. PWS has been updated. See section 1.1.A.3.c.9 of the PWS.

45) Q: Draft RFP Section H300 Vendor Warranties a.) Paragraph (a) states “The contactor shall ensure the Government realizes the full benefit of any warranties applicable to material COMBS manages.”

b.) PWS paragraph 1.1.B.1.c Warranties, item 2 states “Warranty benefits shall be incorporated into the CPFH rates.”

Discussion: This clause is typically associated with cost reimbursable contracts. Further, Reference b. states that warranty benefits are to be incorporated into the fixed price CPFH.

Based upon our interpretation this appears to be a double credit.

Questions:

a.) Is the Government aware that as written in the draft RFP and PWS, the Government stands to receive double credit for warranties?

A: It is the contractor’s responsibility to include any warranty savings into their CPFH proposal. The clause is meant to amplify, not duplicate, the PWS requirement.

b.) When the Government obtains warranties via other contracts, will the Government provide actual warranty documentation stating that the vendor offering the warranty will honor that warranty to the COMBS services provider?

A: Will provide as available.

46) Q: Draft RFP Section H300 Vendor Warranties. In order to include warranty benefit into the CPFH, can the USG provide warranty start and end dates, or start dates and coverage term (hours, cycles, time) for each aircraft, engine, prop, landing gear, and other parts installed & in-service considered under warranty? The same for parts in inventory?

A: The USG will provide as much warranty information as possible.

47) Q: PWS1.1.B.1.c.

Is there a defined process flow/procedure and/or submittal forms to be used in the administration of warranty with the OEM and suppliers? Will the USG provide the contractual warranty terms and conditions for parts on new aircraft, initial spares, and replacement parts in order for the Contractor to identify who to submit the warranty claim?

A: There is no defined process flow/procedure for warranties. The contractor may establish warranty procedures with whomever they establish contracts / agreements with to do repair of failed inventory or replacement /replenishment of inventory. The USG will provide as much warranty information as possible on new aircraft, initial spares, and replacement parts.

48) Q: Draft RFP Section H300 Vendor Warranties. What does “warranty benefits shall be incorporated into the CPFH rates” mean? Is it the Government’s intent for the Contractor to estimate and incorporate warranty benefits into the proposed CPFH rates or will the CPFH rate be adjusted based off of actual warranty benefit recovery? Recommendation: Require proposed CPFH rate to be estimated with no warranty recover up front. Rational: Since the incumbent Contractor will have existing warranty data for new as well as repaired items, the warranty data is not available to all competitors for incorporation into the CPFH prior to contract award.

QUESTION OR COMMENT: Warranty benefits shall be incorporated into the CPFH rates is unclear

RECOMMENDED ACTION OR CHANGE: specify that any actual warranty benefits received will be deducted from the CPFH billings on a monthly basis

RATIONALE FOR ACTION OR CHANGE: USG is requiring warranty tracking per the CDRL and only the incumbent will have any knowledge of existing warranties for repaired parts.

A: It is the COMBS contractors’ responsibility to incorporate warranty benefits that they establish with repair and/or replace vendors into the CPFH rate. If the USG obtains a warranty that is transferrable to the COMBs contractor for administration and incorporation, the USG will provide that information via a contract change request for proposal.

49) Section D, D300; Section H, H321

Q: Is the existing COMBS inventory marked in accordance with D300 as it pertains to warranted items?

A: No

50) Q: Draft RFP Section H306 Enhanced Small Business Participation. Within Section H of the solicitation, (Special Contract Requirements-H306) the Government establishes the Small Business Goal at 12% of total contracted dollars. Being that this contract’s costs are 75% material of which 95% of these materials provided by Large Businesses, it is extremely difficult to achieve the 12% Small Business Goal without driving total cost of the contract higher. Given the current requirement, an offeror must integrate a Small Business into the materiel acquisition process or subcontract a significant portion of the logistics labor within the COMBS operation. Both of these courses of action will increase cost and potential performance risk into the contract.

Question: Will the Government entertain a lower Small Business Goal of 5% which is in line with current FAR Small Disadvantage Business Goals (5%)?

A: The USG is reviewing the Small Business goal. Any changes will be reflected in the formal RFP.

51) Draft RFP Section H306 Enhanced Small Business Participation states “The contractor shall manage their subcontracting plan in accordance with FAR 52.244-5, 52.219-8, 52.219-9, 52.219-24, and 52.219-25 to ensure no less than a target of 12% of the total contract dollars are subcontracted to small business concerns. “Small business concern” as used in this clause, means small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and woman-owned small business.”

Question: Is it the intent of this 12% to total contract dollar target to be the same for all small business size categories?

Question: That is a large number. Please confirm the RFP target percentage of SB participation is 12% of total contract value.

Business Size Class % Goal to Contract Value

% Actual to Contract Value

Small Business 12%

Small Disadvantaged Business 12%

Woman-Owned Small Business 12%

HUBZone Small Business 12%

Veteran-Owned Small Business 12%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business 12%

A: The Government’s approach was not intended to be directive in nature. As such, we have revised the clause language and believe this change will address this question.

52) Q: Clause H306: Normally the contractor, based upon the subcontract opportunities from the Bill on Material, develops the goals for the plan, which are then approved by the USG. The USG is dictating a 12% target with 52-219-16 – Liquidated Damages on top of this goal for which the contractor has no input. What is the 12% based upon?

A: The USG has reviewed its Small Business goals and revised this clause to allow increased flexibility for offerors.

53) Q: Draft RFP Section H306 Enhanced Small Business Participation states “The contractor shall report actual achievement subcontracting results on a semi-annual basis using CDRL A012.” Discussion:

Section J, Exhibit A dated 19 Oct 10, CDRL A012 is titled “Failure Analysis Tracking Report Trend Analysis of Remove/Replace Items.”

A: This will be corrected in the formal RFP.

Q: Will this be changed for small business subcontracting reporting purposes or will reporting method Option Form 312, via eSRS, at the end of contract performance be accepted, in accordance with FAR 52.219-25?

A: The USG has determined eSRS to be the best reporting option for this particular effort. This clause has been revised to allow for the required reporting to be done through that system.

54) Q: Draft RFP Section H306 Enhanced Small Business Participation: Would a Company Commercial

Subcontracting Plan, which is inclusive of all USG contracts, be acceptable in lieu of a separate plan specific to this contract?

A: Yes.

55) Q: Draft RFP Section H314 Engine Upgrade Effort. Discussion: The referenced H clause makes reference to Phase I and Phase II engines, meaning there are at least two configurations of engines in the fleet at present. Question: Will the Government provide a breakdown of the number of Phase 0, Phase I, and Phase II engines in the fleet at present and at the start of the new contract?

A: Yes, the USG will share engine configuration data. We will be able to provide current configuration, by engine serial number, of all engines at time of contract award.

56) Q: Draft RFP Section H314 Engine Upgrade Effort, paragraph (c) states “All efforts and associated costs to logistically support the upgrade to the Phase II engine configuration are the responsibility of the COMBS contractor. This includes, but is not limited to: shipping, storage, tracking, inspection, certification, and acceptance.” Question: Is the upgrade to Phase II expense accounted for via an OEM campaign or is this a COMBS contractor expense?

A: The cost for the engine upgrade is the T-6A/B OEM responsibility.

57) Q: Draft RFP Section H314 Engine Upgrade Effort. Does this include any material/labor requirements other than that required to get the engine back to the repair station and receive back into the COMBS? For example Quick Engine Change Kits (QEC’s) and SE mechanic labor to do the engine build-ups? RECOMMENDED ACTION OR CHANGE: If so please provide the estimated number of engine upgrades that will not be done during the engine overhaul or clarify that this effort will be considered Over and Above. RATIONALE FOR ACTION OR CHANGE: Understand Scope of work.

A: COMBs is responsible for logistically supporting the engine upgrade effort. As detailed in the clause, “This includes, but is not limited to: shipping, storage, tracking, inspection, certification, and acceptance.” This would also include processes to prepare an engine for shipment and build up of an engine upon return.

58) Reference: Draft RFP Section H320 Engine Over and Aboves, paragraph (b) states “For purposes of the Firm Fixed Price Engine Overhaul and Engine Repair Program, such excludable conditions are as follows: Item (3): Foreign object damage (FOD): For this clause FOD is defined as “Damage resulting from foreign objects external to the aircraft”;”

Discussion: The COMBS contractor does not install the engine or maintain the aircraft and, therefore, cannot control the security of items outside the engine.

Question: Will the Government consider modifying this language to state “damage resulting from foreign objects external to the engine”?

A: Yes, language will be modified to state “damage resulting from foreign objects external to the engine”.

59) Reference: Draft RFP Section H336 Government Furnished Property / Contractor Requisitioning states “Pursuant to the Government Property clause herein, the Government shall furnish the item(s) of material or property listed below as Government-Furnished Property (GFP) to the Contractor for use in performance of this contract. Requisitioning documentation for the GFP will be prepared by the Contractor. The Contractor shall submit written requisitions, in accordance with DoD 4000.25-1-M, Military Standard Requisitioning and Issue Procedures (MILSTRIP).”

Question: Will the Government please provide clarification of the applicability of this clause under the T-6 COMBS contract?

QUESTION OR COMMENT: IAW C11.2.1 of DOD 4000.25-1-M, MILSTRIP requisitioning applies to all contractors and all S/A activities requisitioning GFM or CFM from DoD supply sources(s). Items listed in Section J, Attachment 3 are currently located at the COMBs facilities; therefore will not be obtained from a DOD supply source. Why is Attachment 3 listed at H336?

A: The Government has revised the wording of this clause. The clause language has been revised and the Government believes the comments above have been addressed.

60)

QUESTION OR COMMENT: The CDRL contract references in the CDRL table of contents, CRDLs and PWS paragraphs need to be corrected as noted below:

PWS ¶/CDRL Current CDRL/PWS ¶ Reference Corrected CDRL/ PWS ¶Reference

A003 1.1.H.1c (This ¶ does not exist) 1.1.A.9 possibly? & 1.1.F.2.m

A004 1.1.F.2 1.1.A.7.a14 & 1.1.F.2

A005 1.1.F 1.1.A.2.j 12b

A006 1.1.A.2i & 1.1.F 1.1.A.2h & 1.1.F

A012 1.1.F.2c 1.1.A.2.n7 possibly? & 1.1.F.2c

A013 1.1.A.2p & 1.1.F.2b 1.1.A.2p (No req’mnt in this ¶) 1.1.F.2b

A016 1.1.A.2k 1.1.A.2i

A017 1.1.A.2c 1.1.A.2c & 1.1.A.8.b1

A019 1.1.A.2c, 1.1.F.2l & 1.1.G 1.1.A.2c, 1.1.A.8.b1, 1.1.F.2l & 1.1.G

A022 1.1.H.2a 1.1.H.1b

1.1.A.2.n 7 A013 (this is for a tear down report) A012 possibly? This is for trend analysis.

A: This has been corrected.

61) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Exhibit A CDRL A001

QUESTION OR COMMENT:

Block 8: An approval code must be identified as either Y or N.

Block 9: Distribution Statement A allows release outside of the USG Block 16 A. (2) provided instructions to delete 10.4a, 10.4c, 10.4d, 10.4e, 10.4f, 10.4g, 10.4h and 10.4i, which do not exist within the DID called out by block 4.

Block 16.C, D and E This CDRL is required only for PWS paragraph 1..16, Corpus Christi. These comments imply multiple submittals for multiple bases.

RECOMMENDED ACTION OR CHANGE:

Block 9: Change to Distribution Statement D Block 16A. (2) requires revised tailoring for correct referencing.

Block 16.B, revise to reflect “A” with initial submittal only.

Block 16.C, D and E C – Delete D - Revise to read: “120 days prior to base activation.”

E - Delete

RATIONALE FOR ACTION OR CHANGE:

Block 9: Contractor Proprietary Information is included in the requirements for this submittal.

(e.g. Contractor Personnel Loading) Block 16.C, D and E C Only need to call out one time.

D Only need for one base activation.

E No subsequent submissions since this is for one base activation only.

A: Your comments have been noted. Any changes to this CDRL that are made will be reflected in the Formal RFP.

62) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Exhibit A CDRL A002

Discussion: Exhibit A shows the authority in block 4 as DI-MISC-80508B/T. PWS reference is paragraph 1.1.A.4., which references DI-MISC-80508A.

Question: Will the Government specify which reference is correct?

A: The PWS will be updated with the corrected reference.

Discussion: In the body of A002 items f thru k are difficult to execute on a monthly basis given the extremely high volume of transactions.

Question: Will the Government consider eliminating items f through k from the monthly reporting requirement?

Block 8: An approval code must be identified as either Y or N in block 16.

Block 9: Distribution Statement A allows release outside of the USG

Block 16 A 2)m) There are no spare parts required to be delivered under the resultant contract.

Please provide clarification for what this means.

RECOMMENDED ACTION OR CHANGE: Block 9: Change to Distribution Statement D . Block 16.B, revise to reflect “A” with initial submittal only.

RATIONALE FOR ACTION OR CHANGE: Block 9: Contractor Proprietary Information is included in the requirements for this submittal. (e.g. repair cycle time)

A: Your comments have been noted. Any changes to this CDRL that are made will be reflected in the Formal RFP.

63) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Exhibit A CDRL A003

Discussion: Exhibit A shows DI-MISC/80508B/T and references PWS paragraph 1.1.H.1c. The PWS does not contain a paragraph 1.1.H.1c.

Question: Please provide correct reference.

A: This will be corrected in the Formal RFP

QUESTION OR COMMENT: Block 8: An approval code must be identified as either Y or N. Block 9:

Distribution Statement A allows release outside of the USG

RECOMMENDED ACTION OR CHANGE: Block 9: Change to Distribution Statement D . Block 16.B:

Revised to reflect

RATIONALE FOR ACTION OR CHANGE: Block 9: Contractor Proprietary Information is included in the requirements for this submittal. (e.g. all information listed)

A: Your comments have been noted. Any changes to this CDRL that are made will be reflected in the Formal RFP.

64) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Exhibit A CDRL A004

QUESTION OR COMMENT: Block 9: Distribution Statement A allows release outside of the USG

RECOMMENDED ACTION OR CHANGE: Block 9: Change to Distribution Statement D

RATIONALE FOR ACTION OR CHANGE: Block 9: Contractor considers this document to be proprietary Information since this is how we do business and would provide our procedures to competing contractors in the future.

A: Your comments have been noted. Any changes to this CDRL that are made will be reflected in the Formal RFP.

65) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Exhibit A CDRL A005

Discussion: Previously the reporting threshold was $10,000. This CDRL has the reporting threshold at $1,000. This will dramatically increase program workload.

A: The amount will be changed to $10,000 for the final RFP.

QUESTION OR COMMENT: Block 8: Approval coded of Y or N is required.

66) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Exhibit A CDRL A006

Block 9: Distribution Statement A allows release outside of the USG

RECOMMENDED ACTION OR CHANGE: Block 9: Change to Distribution Statement D

RATIONALE FOR ACTION OR CHANGE: Contractor considers this information required by this submittal to be proprietary business data.

A: Your comments have been noted. Any changes to this CDRL that are made will be reflected in the Formal RFP.

67) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Exhibit A CDRL A013 – Block 16 item 2)a) Serviceable/Maintenance release tag

Question: a.) Does the Government wish for a copy of all 8130-3 for all repaired parts on a quarterly basis to be distributed per the CDRL?

Recommendation: Maintain this information at the COMBS locations with the actual material.

A: Yes, a copy of the FAA certification of the repair should be included with the CDRL.

Q: The requirement to affix airworthiness documents (8130) with all parts issued…is there also a traceability/recordkeeping requirement to keep a copy? If there is one 8130 for a batch of items (e.g. consumable item min buy of 100), is there an administrative procedure/requirement that addresses this (e.g. issuance of 1 only or the full min quantity batch)? If acceptable to issue less than the min buy batch, can copies of the 8130 be utilized?

A: For consumable parts that come in multiple quantities, the serviceability tag can stay with the box/bin of material in the COMBS facility.

Q: Does the Government intend to require teardown reports for all repairs or just for those that are BER or exceed a certain dollar threshold, such as $10,000?

A: The PWS has been updated to be more specific about when a teardown report is required.

Q: Block 16 item A.2)c) requires listing of parts consumed or used to complete the repair and the repair cost. Requiring vendors to report parts used to complete repairs will drive cost upward. Will the Government consider removing this requirement?

A: No.

Q: Block 16 item A.2)c) appears to be duplicated in CDRL A014. Will the Government consider deleting the requirement to report standard repair cost and rely on CDRL A014 for this data?

A: No.

QUESTION OR COMMENT: This requirement will require significant manpower, which will drive the costs of data. Block 9: Distribution Statement A allows release outside of the USG

RECOMMENDED ACTION OR CHANGE: Block 9: Change to Distribution Statement D

RATIONALE FOR ACTION OR CHANGE: Contractor considers this information required by this submittal to be proprietary business data.

A: Your comments have been noted. Any changes to this CDRL that are made will be reflected in the Formal RFP.

68) Reference: Section J Exhibit A CDRL A014, A015, A017, A020, A021, A022

QUESTION OR COMMENT: Block 9: Distribution Statement A allows release outside of the USG

RECOMMENDED ACTION OR CHANGE: Block 9: Change to Distribution Statement D

A: Your comments have been noted. Any changes to this CDRL that are made will be reflected in the Formal RFP.

69) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Exhibit A CDRL A016

Discussion: PWS reference 1.1.A.2k refers to the quality system

Question: Should the PWS reference be 1.1.A.2i?

A: This has been corrected.

70) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Exhibit A CDRL A018

QUESTION OR COMMENT: Based upon the DID, all material and labor costs are excluded from the 50/50 rule. (3.4.2 and 3.4.6) RECOMMENDED ACTION OR CHANGE: Block 9: Remove CRDL.

A: The CDRL will not be removed.

71) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Exhibit A CDRL A019

QUESTION OR COMMENT: Are project schedules required only for ECP/CCP’s or is one requested for site activation.

RECOMMENDED ACTION OR CHANGE: Change CDRL A019 to reflect ECP/CCPs and site activation.

RATIONALE FOR ACTION OR CHANGE: 1.1.G.b requires a schedule.

A: CDRL A001, DID DI-MGMT-80033A details project schedule requirement.

72) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Exhibit A CDRL A021

Discussion: PWS reference 1.1.A.2p refers to technical documentation

Question: a.) Should the PWS reference be 1.1.A.2n? b.) What is the meaning of the term “indentured bill of materials”?

A: The references have been corrected. Indentured Bill of Materials is a bill of materials broken down to the highest level of data.

73) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Attachment 5-10 Area Wage Determinations

Discussion: The draft RFP did not include an AWD for Pensacola CSO.

Question: Will an AWD for NAS Pensacola be provided?

A: CBA for CSO at NAS Pensacola will be provided with the formal RFP.

74) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Attachment 21 – Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents; L-III – Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation; Table 2.2 – Proposal Organization and Paragraph 5.1 Contents (for Past and Present Performance Information)

Discussion: In Table 2.2, the Draft RFP lists the Past Performance Information Sheet, Consent Letter, and Client Authorization Letter as Attachments to the proposal. However, in Paragraph 5.1, these items are listed as the contents for Volume III – Past and Present Performance Information.

Question: Will the Government please clarify the organization of Volume III – Past and Present Performance Information and whether the information in the Attachments is also required in the Volume?

A: Section L has been revised for the formal RFP. All Past Performance attachments will be included in Volume 3.

75) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Attachment 21 – Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents; L-III – Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation; Paragraph 4.2.3(1)(C)(v.) states:

“(v.) When a – d above are combined, the offeror should have provided a sufficiently detailed set of examples such that the Government can “walk-through” every step a failed (or consumable) piece of aircraft material or support equipment (including information “steps”) goes through until the moment it is ready to ship for repair/replacement (the point at which COMBS Services – Support Equipment OR Cost Per Flight Hour – Aircraft OR Major Time Change Items activities would take over).”

Discussion: The subsections/subparagraphs of Section 4.2.3(1)(C) are numbered as (i.) through (v.).

Question: Is it the Government’s intent that section 4.2.3(1)(C)(v.) state ““(v.) When i – iv above are combined…..”?

A: This has been updated/corrected in Section L.

76) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Attachment 21 – Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents; L-III – Information to Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation; Paragraph 5.0 Volume III, Past and Present Performance Information; Paragraph 5.4 Relevant Contracts; and Paragraph 5.5 Specific Content

Question:

a.) Please clarify: Does the offeror address Section L paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 in separate narratives within Volume III, or is this information to be addressed within Attachment 1, Past and Present Performance Information Sheets, for each contract?

b.) If paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 are intended to be separate narratives in Volume III (i.e., apart from the contract information sheets), what are the page limitations for these sections?

c.) If so, will this be corrected in the final RFP?

A: Section L para 5.4 and 5.5 are now para 5.3 and 5.4. Information for 5.3 Relevancy should be submitted via the Past Performance Information Tool. Narrative for 5.4 Specific Content should be limited to 1 Page per specific contract. Page limit will be annotated in RFP.

77) Reference: Draft RFP Section J, Attachment 28 – Section M

Discussion: The Government states its evaluation criteria as a Tailored PPT with Cost being the first competitive ranging Factor (three lowest Cost Offerors moving on to the next round –Technical evaluation). We believe this process establishes the conditions for a very low cost (high performance risk) offeror to make the initial down select of 3, while an initially higher priced offeror with a fully compliant technical (low risk of performance) may be eliminated from the competition.

Question: How will the Government prevent offerors with unrealistic low cost bids (high performance risk), from going forward to the next round – while potentially eliminating higher cost bids (low performance risk) who’s proposal would meet all technical requirements? Is it the Government’s intent to initially establish a competitive range of 3 offerors (Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable), and then achieve substantial confidence through Government questions during the technical evaluation?

A: Language in Section M has been updated to clarify evaluation process

78) Reference: Draft RFP Section L300 Information To Offerors (ITO) and Instructions for Proposal Preparation and Section L – Attachment 1 through Section L – Attachment 6 states:

“(a) See Section J, Attachments 19 - Section L, L-III, Information to Offerors and Instructions for Proposal Preparation* (*this attachment is included as part of the request for proposal. This attachment will be removed from Section J prior to contract award.)

(b) See Section J, Attachments 20 - Section L - Attachment 1, Past Performance Information Sheet* (*this attachment is included as part of the request for proposal. This attachment will be removed from Section J prior to contract award.)

(c) See Section J, Attachments 21 - Section L -Attachment 2, Past Performance Questionnaire* (*this attachment is included as part of the request for proposal. This attachment will be removed from Section J prior to contract award.)

(d) See Section J, Attachments 22, Section L - Attachment 3, Consent Letter* (*this attachment is included as part of the request for proposal. This attachment will be removed from Section J prior to contract award.