Questions to USG T-6 COMBS through 2-4-2011

1. PWS paragraph 1.1.B.5 (Modification Line Support)—how many flight hours will each Aircraft have after Modification is complete till they reach their MOB (less ferry flight time from OEM Modification facility to MOB)?

Answer:

It varies based on what modification the aircraft received and what checks and test flights must be performed. Average flight hours, not including ferry flights, is approximately 1.5 hours per aircraft.

2. Clause H-317 Liquidated Damages: Referring to the amount stated in paragraph "(6) Maximum annual liquidated damages assessment will not to exceed 25% of the current AFI 65-503 published T-6A or T-6B value (base-dependant)", is this amount for the entire fiscal year of the contract or for each base covered in a fiscal year of the contract?

Each base. The Government has revised the clause to better clarify.

3. Clause H-317 Liquidated Damages: Is this the final calculation that will be used by all CORs at all bases or a sample of a calculation that will vary dependent on which aircraft model is at each base (T-6A or T-6B) and vary due to remaining useful life (some aircraft will be considerably newer than others)?

This is the formula by which liquidated damages will be assessed against each base’s monthly performance.

There will be no variance in the formula based on what aircraft configuration a particular base is supporting.

The Government has revised the clause to better clarify.

4. Section L - Attachment 6 Cross-Reference Matrix - Sect M references are changed from 2.2.1, 2.2.2,

2.2.3 to 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 ; Subfactor #2 has two Measures of Merit but only #1 is listed. Is CRM limited to this level of detail or is the Contract expected to expand to the next level of detail?

Section M was incorrect. Only one Measure of Merit is necessary for Acquisition Management. A correction to Section M and the Cross-Reference Matrix has been made and the Government will release an

Amendment reflecting this update.

5. H-Clause 330 and PWS 1.1.A.2.q, Associate Contractor Agreement

Reference:

H-Clause 330 and PWS 1.1.A.2.q both state the Contractor Shall establish and maintain Associate

Contractor Agreement with the T-6A/B OEM and any other major subsystem (e.g. engine, avionics) contractor(s) to obtain /review /transfer data necessary to complete the requirements of the PWS.

This includes but is not limited to:

a. Technical drawing packages

b. Flight data necessary for aircraft sustaining engineering analysis (e.g. IDAR data)

c. Provisioning data for configuration changes

d. Service instructions

e. Time-Compliant Technical Orders / Technical Directives

f. Technical Orders / Manuals

g. DMSMS / Obsolescence

h. Type-I and Type-II configuration changes

i. Modification line support

j. Warranty administration

k. COMBS activation

Discussion:

The USG has a T-6 Aircraft Engineering and Modification support contract with the Aircraft OEM, in addition to T-6 production contracts. T-6 Flightline Maintenance (O-Level) contracts are also in place with the USG at each T-6 operating location.

Question:

What is the specific scope of an ACA with the Aircraft OEM that directly pertains to or affects the COMBS operation?

There is no predetermined scope required. The Government requires offerors to establish Business

Relationships that allow COMBS efforts to operate in-sync with T-6A/B Production and Systems

Engineering / Program Management efforts as well as O-level maintenance operations to the best extent possible. It is incumbent on each offeror to determine how specific/detailed any Business Relationship

(ACA or otherwise) needs to be that will allow the offeror to meet the program requirements.

6. H-Clause 330 and PWS 1.1.A.2.q, Associate Contractor Agreement

PWS 1.1.A.2.c Repair / Replace / Overhaul Configuration Control, states: Except when authorized by the

Government, the contractor shall maintain Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 23 type certification and configuration control of the T-6A/B aircraft parts (14 CFR Part 33 for Engines)

1. This shall be accomplished through use of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and 14 CFR

Part 145 Repair Stations

2. Changes in configuration shall be incorporated IAW the Government issued TCTO/TD,OEM instructions and Federal Aviation Regulations. (A016, DI-ADMN-81401B)

3. Change proposals submitted in response to these changes shall be done so IAW CDRL A018

What are the specific requirements of H-Clause 330 and PWS 1.1.A.2.q regarding Associate Contractor

Agreements with OEMs that are not addressed through compliance with PWS 1.1.A.2.c?

The only firm requirement is compliance with those stipulated in the PWS and contract clauses / attachments. In general, ACAs are established for information and technical expertise sharing as well as data protection. There is no predetermined scope for any potential ACAs associated with this effort. It is incumbent upon the offeror to determine the breadth and depth of any ACAs it needs to establish in order to meet the program’s requirements.

7. H-Clause 330 and PWS 1.1.A.2.q, Associate Contractor Agreement

The Aircraft OEM requires a list of specific requirements to be priced in order to establish an ACA with the

COMBS contractor. Per the Aircraft OEM, the areas listed in PWS 1.1.A.2.q, (paragraphs a. through k.) are considered far too general to properly address.

What list of ACA requirements specific to T-6 COMBS will the USG publish to ensure a level playing field exists in regards to establishing, pricing, and maintaining an ACA with the Aircraft OEM?

The only firm requirement is compliance with those stipulated in the PWS and contract clauses / attachments. In general, ACAs are established for information and technical expertise sharing as well as data protection. There is no predetermined scope for any potential ACAs associated with this effort. It is incumbent upon the offeror to determine what specific program requirements dictate the offeror seek and establish an ACA.

8. 1.1.B. Cost per Flight Hour – Aircraft

T-6 Parts Consumption Usage Data from the current contract is required to accurately propose a Cost Per

Flying Hour bid. The OEMs offered they are able to provide that usage and consumption data on their commercial–derivative aircraft/systems, such as the T-1 and C-12, but are unable to provide like usage data for the T-6, a non-commercial aircraft. The OEMs point to USAF as the source for usage data since it is reported on the current COMBS contract (CDRLs A002, A009, and A010).

What usage data will the USG provide from the current contract in order to ensure fair and open competition in bidding the T-6 COMBS Cost Per Flying Hour? How many days will the USG extend the proposal due date once the usage data is provided to all offerors?

The Government has provided ten years worth of aircraft material usage data reflecting normal part issuance from COMBS. The data includes those issuance transactions covered by CPFH and major time change items activities, but does not include over-and-above activities or retrofit/TCTO activities. Specific to aircraft material that was scrapped due to it being Beyond Economic Repair, the Government has also provided a list of those activities during the past four plus years. Additionally, with respect to CDRLs A009 and A010 on the current contract, those reports do not reflect usage data and have no bearing on this question.

Based on the above information, the Government does not foresee offering an extension for this reason at this time.

9. 1.1.B. Cost per Flight Hour – Aircraft; 1.1.D Major Time Change Items / Components

T-6 Aircraft Proprietary Parts Purchase and Repair. The Aircraft OEM is the only source for providing pricing of T-6 unique parts (133- part numbers) and their respective rotable parts MRO. Pricing has not been made available to all offerors to date (currently inside 30 days of the proposal due date).

How many days will the USG extend the proposal due date once the pricing of 133-parts and respective

MRO services are provided in response to Industry RFPs, and received by all requesting offerors?

The Government has extended the proposal receipt date from 14 February to 4 March to allow offerors greater time to react to the approach offered by the T-6 OEM. If offerors require additional time, a request for such time must be submitted. This request must include the reason additional time is needed and the number of days an offeror requests the proposal receipt time / date to be extended by. The decision to extend, and how long to extend, will be at the sole discretion of the Government.

10. 1.1.D Major Time Change Items / Components

Landing Gear MRO price. The Aircraft OEM is withholding proprietary repair manuals from use by any

MRO firms unless they perform T-6 repair and overhaul work solely for the Aircraft OEM. Thus far we have received No-Bid responses from two companies – L-3 Vertex (which currently performs T-6 Landing

Gear MRO per a license agreement for the respective manuals on the current contract), and Professional

Aircraft Accessories, an HBC authorized repair facility.

Question:

What actions will the USG address with the Aircraft OEM to ensure open competition on Landing Gear

MRO?

The choice of private firms to No-Bid work is outside the control of the Government. Additionally, the

Government cannot force a firm to release proprietary data (in this example, landing gear repair manuals) to ensure a more robust competition for any particular subsection of the overall COMBS effort. It is at each potential offeror’s discretion how to address this issue in order to meet the requirements of the COMBS solicitation.

Please note, with respect to Landing Gear overhaul manuals only, the Government has determined it is able to provide access to the following manuals in the paper copy Bidder’s Library:

Nose Landing Gear (P/N 133-820001-15, -17, -23, -27, -31) Overhaul Manual

Main Landing Gear (P/N 133-810001-1, -2, -3, -4) Overhaul Manual

Copies of these manuals have been placed in the paper copy Bidder’s Library and offerors are invited to view these additional documents upon request. Requests for access must be made in accordance with previously stipulated requirements.

11. Reference: Section J – List of Documents, Exhibits and Attachments and Attachment 11 and

Attachment 12.

Discussion: The RFP annotates in Section J that Attachment 11 is the Area Wage Determination for NAS

Whiting Field and NAS Pensacola, FL. Section J further annotates that Attachment 12 is the Area Wage

Determination based on a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for CSO at NAS Pensacola, FL. In actuality the CBA only applies to the Navy sites consisting of NAS Whiting Field, FL and NFO NAS

Pensacola, FL. The CSO at NAS Pensacola, FL is a site that was activated after NAS Whiting Field and

NFO at NAS Pensacola, FL. Unlike the these two sites, the employees at CSO Pensacola have not signed cards nor voted upon a collective bargaining representative so therefore the CBA does not apply to CSO at

NAS Pensacola, FL.

Question: Will the USG change the RFP to reflect the application of the NAS Whiting Field, FL / NAS

Pensacola, FL AWD (Attachment 11) to be applicable to the CSO at NAS Pensacola, FL and make the CBA

AWD (Attachment 12) applicable to NAS Whiting Field, FL and NFO at NAS Pensacola, FL?

Answer: Yes.