Questions to USG T-6 COMBS through 1-19-2011

1. Reference: RFP Section J, Attachment 21 – Section L “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or

Respondents”, paragraph 2.3 Electronic Offers, (8) Past Performance Information (PPI) and PPI Tool

Discussion: As part of our hard copy submission, the offerors are required to print the sheets generated in the PPI tool. When printing hard copies generated from the PPI tool, some of the “header text” does not print. For example:

A. Under the “Program Details” tab 1, “*Brief Description of Effort as:” does not print the “s:” The printed section reads “Brief Description of Effort a”.

B. “*Explain how your experience on this program is relevant for each factor/subfactor under the Technical factor in Section M, including any unique aspects that demonstrate relevancy in this effort:” does not print “effort:”.

C. Additionally, only some of the data/information input by the offeror in the Contract Number and

Contractor Agency/Customer information sections prints.

Question: Does the Government intend to change the tool or should we submit the print-outs as generated with the print function?

Answer: Offerors should submit the information as it prints out of the tool. An update to the tool is in work to address these issues, however, the update will not be completed prior to the due date for complete proposal submittal. Because these issues do not affect the content of the offeror’s submittal, the print-outs, “as-is”, are acceptable.

2. Reference: RFP Section J, Attachment 21 – Section L paragraph 7.3.4.4.1 Applicable Documents

Discussion: Section L paragraph 7.3.4.4.1 states “The offeror shall provide a list of any offeror, industry, commercial, and tailored Government standards, specifications, processes, and/or practices selected as compliance documents.” This is a broad requirement and could include FAR, DFARS, OSHA requirements, contractor Standard Operating Procedures, etc.

Question: What is the Governments intent? Please specify what the Government wants the offeror to provide in response to this paragraph/requirement.

Answer: If an offeror has already made reference to compliance documents within the volumes of its proposal, it should only add in this section those documents it is complying with that it did not make reference to within the proposal volumes. If the offeror has not previously made reference to any compliance documents within its proposal volume(s), the offeror should include all such documents it is stating compliance with (including FAR and supplements, Combined Federal Regulations, etc), in this section.

3. Reference: RFP Section J, Attachment 27 – Section M paragraphs 1.6 and 2.2

Discussion: Section M paragraph 1.6 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property

(GFP) states in the last sentence “However, should an Offeror require or wish to use additional GFP in order to meet the requirements of this solicitation, the Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror's proposed use of additional GFP in accordance with FAR 45.202(a).” Section M paragraph 2.2 states “The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of GFP.” There appears to be a disconnect between these two paragraphs as one talks to additional GFP and the other does not.

Question: Is it the Government’s intent to have different meanings to the last sentence in Section M paragraphs 1.6 and 2.2 and if so, what is the Government’s intended difference in those sentences?

Answer: No. There should be no competitive advantage gained from the use of the Government-furnished inventory, property, or services explicitly detailed in the RFP. However, if an offeror requests additional

GFP or proposes to use GFP it holds in its possession from a separate activity/contract, the Government would eliminate any competitive advantage that may be gained from the use of that additional GFP. The

Government will update Section M to reflect this clarification.

4. Reference: RFP PWS paragraph 1.1.B Cost Per Flight Hour – Aircraft, Item #7: “Provide required GPS databases updates necessary to maintain continued airworthiness in U.S. airspace.”

Discussion: GPS database updates were previously included in the Draft RFP as Item #6 of COMBS

Services of PWS 1.1.A. However, in the Formal RFP the GPS requirement was removed from COMBS

Services (PWS 1.1.A) and added to CPFH (PWS 1.1.B). GPS database updates are fixed costs and not impacted by flight hours. To put this fixed cost in the flight hour rate increases risk for both the

Government and the Contractor. For example, the Government risks paying too much should actual flight hours be greater than those projected (the base for the offeror’s cost) vs. the Contractor’s risk of not recovering all costs if the projected flight hours are not flown.

Question: Is it the Government’s intent for the GPS database updates to remain in CPFH?

Answer: Yes.

5. Reference: RFP PWS paragraph 1.1.A.1.a Key Performance Parameters

Discussion: The PWS paragraph 1.1.A.1.a. states that “NMCS and PMCS rates are measured without exception to Operating Command (OC) work-arounds to meet flight schedule (e.g. part cannibalization).

(A007, DI-MGMT-80227/T)” The provided GFP inventory in the Bidder’s Library, which is based on historical usage reports that met NMCS and PMCS rates included Operating Command work-arounds to meet flight schedule (e.g. cannibalization). This inventory will not support contractual RFP/PWS NMCS

(<4.0%) and PMCS (<2.5%) performance requirements now that Operating Command work-arounds to meet flight schedule (e.g. cannibalization) are excluded unless substantially more inventory is added to each

COMBS site.

Note: The CDRL A007 as stated above is the Contract Funds Status Report. CDRLs A008 and A010 are for reporting status and seem to be more applicable to this requirement than CDRL A007.

Question:

A. Is it the Government’s intent to increase the GFP Inventory at all COMBS sites to meet stated performance requirements?

Answer: No, the Government does not plan to plus-up inventory except when the aircraft fleet increases and as NAS Corpus Christi is activated. Note, as reflected in the bidder’s library, the Air Force is also working to procure additional initial spares as a function of completing its aircraft production procurement (See “USAF Proposed Spares” file on electronic bidder’s library). It is the contractor’s responsibility to ensure material is available when demanded.

B. Will the Government provide the applicable CDRL reference(s) for this requirement?

Answer: CDRL A008 is the correct CDRL. The PWS will be updated to reflect this change and the

Government will release an Amendment reflecting this.

6. Past Performance Volume:

Reference: Section J, Attachment 21, Table 2.2 , Paragraph 2.3, and 5.1 PP “Contents” in the ITO instructions specific to the submittal of Volume III - Past and Present Performance Information are in conflict. What are the content and organization requirements for the Volume III submittal?

A. Table 2.2 shows a requirement for 3 copies of the Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment 1 (with page limits as generated by the PPI database). Paragraph 5.1 “Contents” does not show a Past

Performance Questionnaire submittal at all. Which does the government prefer?

Answer: The Past Performance questionnaire should be submitted directly to the Government by the office completing the questionnaire. The Government will add the completed questionnaires to the volume for evaluation.

B. Paragraph 5.1 requests item 5.5 “Organization Structure Change History” (limited to 5 pages total) be submitted as item (5) in the volume III, but does not list where paragraph 5.4 “Specific Content”

(limited to one page per contract) be submitted within the volume. Where does the government wish item 5.4 “Specific Content” be placed?

Answer: The Government’s preference is to place “Specific Content” prior to “Organization Structure

Change History”. However, the Government will still evaluate this information if it is located elsewhere within Volume III.

C. Paragraph 2.3 (A) Contract Information Tab (second indenture, first bullet) states “If ID/IQ or BPA, provide a separate list (outside of the tool” showing each of the task/delivery order(s) performed under the ID/IQ contract or BPA.” Where would the government like the separate ID/IQ or BPA listing to be placed within volume III? As an addendum/attachment following the printout of each Program, or at the end of Volume III after item 5.5? Please specify location for the ID/IQ listing.

Answer: Please place the separate ID/IQ or BPA listing as an attachment following the print out of each

Program.

D. Paragraph 2.3 (A) Contract Information Tab (second indenture, second bullet) states that a “brief description (not to exceed 500 characters) for each underlying task/call/delivery/purchase order” be included. To which description does this 500 character limitation apply: the description in the Past

Performance Information Tool or the description in the list of task/delivery order(s) performed under the

ID/IQ contract or BPA that is to be provided outside the PPI Tool?

Answer: The 500 character limit applies to the description in the Past Performance Tool. See “PPI

Character Limit” file attached to this announcement for additional PPI tool character limitations.

E. Paragraph 2.3 (B) Program Details Tab (second indenture, bullets two and three) references the terms

“CAAS IV” and “A&AS” which are not familiar to this solicitation. Are these terms in error? CAAS

IV “Contracted Advisory and Assistance Services IV” is another solicitation/contract entirely. A&AS

“Advisory and Assistance Services” also appears to refer to a different technical support contract.

Please either validate these requirements or otherwise correct/delete these references.

Answer: This paragraph will be changed to remove references to CAAS IV and A&AS and an amendment will be released reflecting this.

F. Paragraph 2.3 (C) POC & Key Individuals Tab, the first two bullets ask for the bidder to populate information related to key individuals on the programs being submitted or individuals who are proposed to support the instant acquisition. The program role and acquisition role appear to have character limits.

If this is so, please identify what those limits are.

Answer: Please see “PPI Character Limit” file attached to this announcement detailing character limits on fields within the Past Performance Information Tool.

G. Section L, para. 2.3 Electronic Offers, Past Performance Information Tool, Item (B) Program Details

Tab, page 8, the last bullet before3 (C) POC & Key Individuals Tab, says: “If a subcontracting plan was required attached a copy of your most recently submitted ISR (formerly SF294).” Where should the ISR be placed in the Past Performance volume?

Answer: Place the ISR as an attachment following the print out of each Program.

7. 1.1.A.1 Performance Metrics - CDRL reference should be A008 and not A007.

Answer: A correction is in work and the Government will release an Amendment reflecting this update.

8. CDRL A003 - Phase In Plan refers to PWS PARA 1.1.A.9 - This paragraph does not exist in the PWS.

(Research current PWS location of phase-in plan)

Answer: The correct reference is 1.1.F.2.m. A correction is in work and the Government will release an

Amendment reflecting this update.

9. Section L - Attachment 6 Cross-Reference Matrix - Should the column entitled Contractor's CWBS No. be deleted. A CWBS is no longer a requirement of the RFP.

Answer: Yes. A correction is in work and the Government will release an Amendment reflecting this update.

10. Section J, Attachment 1, PWS 1.1.A.3.a

Reference 1: Section J, Attachment 1, PWS 1.1.A.1.b. Requirement: Availability of serviceable parts – Issue

< 4 hours to NFO at NAS Pensacola

Reference 2: Section J, Attachment 13, Quality of Product or Services (QPS) PP-04 (2) Issue < 4 hours to

NFO at NAS Pensacola for at least 98% of Requisitions

Reference 3: Section J, Attachment 1, PWS 1.1.A.3.a Issue and Exchange: 8. During on-call performance, provide aircraft material after receipt of a valid demand within 30 minutes (2 hours for NFO at NAS

Pensacola) after COMBS Services personnel arrive at the MOB

Question: Should PWS 1.1.A.3.a read (4 hours for NFO at NAS Pensacola)?

Answer: No, on-call support is different than day-to-day operations. During a normal work shift, COMBS must provide parts to NFO @ NAS Pensacola within four hours. The four hour requirement is based on the contractor’s responsibility to deliver parts and support equipment from NAS Whiting Field to NFO @ NAS

Pensacola during and throughout a normal workday. As such, the distance between the two sites necessitates such a timeline (four hours to drive down, unload and issue parts/support equipment, load truck, and drive back). When on-call, COMBS must deliver parts within two hours of receipt of demand (which starts at the time COMBS personnel arrive at NAS Whiting Field). The reason for this distinction is during on-call performance, a “return trip” from NFO @ NAS Pensacola would generally not be a “limiter” on when parts can be shipped from NAS Whiting Field to NFO @ NAS Pensacola (i.e., COMBS wouldn’t be waiting for the delivery truck to return to ship the “on-call” batch of parts).

12. Reference: Formal RFP Section B

Discussion: Section B is part of the formal RFP which is in a secured/protected .pdf format.

Question: Will the Government supply a Section B in Excel format or a .pdf format that is not secured/protected to allow for the conversion into Excel format?

Answer: Section B does not need to be populated by the offeror.

13. Can the customer provide the following information for MTCI:

A. Last compliance date for the TCI’s (Engine, Prop, Landing Gear, Parachute, Harness and Aux chute) by

Tail Number for USAF and USN.

Answer: The Government has provided a current Major Time Change Item activity projection as well as a Most-Likely Projection that all offerors can use in building their proposals. As such, the Government does not plan to provide the last compliance date for the Major Time Change Items.

14. Does the usage data provided in the bidders library comprise ALL parts transactions (i.e., issue, receipt, move, ship, transfer, re-stock, etc.) or does this data represent only transactions describing an issue from

COMBS inventory to the user?”

Answer: This data only includes parts and support equipment issued by COMBS, including parts and support equipment issued to back shops, egress shops, etc. The vast majority of data is material issued to/for a specific aircraft. It does not reflect the more “supply chain”-type of transactions referred to in the question.

15. Section B Pricing - Should the offeror fill in Section B of the Model Contract with the prices or complete the CLIN Price Matrix only?

Answer: Section B does not need to be populated by the offeror.

16. RFP References: RFP Reference Section J, Attachment 21, 17 Dec 10, Page 12 of 18; Section L, Paragraph

5.3 Relevant Contracts

“For a description of the characteristics or aspects the Government will consider in determining relevance, see Section M, paragraph 2.3.2.2. To clearly link the past performance information to the Technical

Acceptability subfactors, the offeror should identify which contracts are relevant indicators of performance against a Technical Acceptability subfactor. Categorize the relevance of information into the specific evaluation subfactor(s) and price used to evaluate the proposal: Factor 1: Technical, Subfactor 1 – Process

Flows, Subfactor 2 – Acquisition Management; Subfactor 3 – Ramp-up”

RFP Reference Section J, Attachment 27, 27 Dec 10, Page 4 of 9 and Page 5 of 9 Section M, Paragraph 2.3

Past Performance Evaluation Factor, paragraph 2.3.1

“...In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s performance meets mission requirements, the assessment will consider things such as the offeror’s history of forecasting and controlling costs, adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction and the contractor's business-like concern for the interest of the customer.”

RFP Reference Section J, Attachment 27, 27 Dec 10, Page 5 of 9, Section M, Paragraph 2.3.2.2 Relevancy

“The Government will consider the following items in its determination of past performance relevancy:

a) Performed a contract similar in order of magnitude to this acquisition

b) Staffed, managed, and operated an aircraft supply/service facility

c) Managed inventory of aircraft parts, support equipment, and consumable items

d) Maintained, repaired, replaced, replenished and overhauled aircraft material and support equipment

e) Provided overhaul and off-equipment repair of major aircraft time-change components similar in order-of-magnitude to this acquisition

f) Provided a comprehensive supply chain management system”

Question:

The Past Performance Information Tool contains a field titled Program Details, second field, instructions to explain how the contractor past performance program is relevant.

To standardize formats for information presentation using the PPIT, could the government reconcile how they would like the diverse elements of information required in the above references be presented in the field contractors are to input program information?

How would the government prefer to see the integration of relevant program categories of Process Flows, Acquisition Management, and Ramp-up information, with history of forecasting and controlling costs, adherence to schedules, commitment to customer satisfaction and concern for the interest of the customer, with the seven items that the government will use to determine relevancy (like order of magnitude, operation of a service facility, management of inventory, handling aircraft material and support equipment, overhaul of time change items order of magnitude, and evidence of a supply chain management system)?

Answer: In the field located in the PPIT, offeror should describe how the referenced contract is relevant to

COMBS by first identifying the relevant subfactor(s), e.g. “Performance on this contract is relevant to the

Process Flows subfactor on the COMBS RFP.” Then describe the relevant actions supporting process flows. The six relevancy items listed by the Government are not all inclusive but are meant to give the offeror an idea of what the Government will consider for the purposes of relevancy. They can be used in supporting subfactor relevancy.

The offeror does not need to tell the Government how they think they did in their submission. The

Government will draw its own conclusions based upon the input received. “…history of forecasting and controlling costs, adherence to schedules, commitment to customer satisfaction…” are some of the performance confidence measurements that may be applied to the relevant contracts.