Gov_Responses_to_Industry_RFP_Questions_9_Jun_16.pdf

RFP FA8617-16-R-6207

Government Responses to Industry RFP Questions

Batch 1 posted 9 June 2016 (more to follow)

1. Should the RFP Standard Form 33 block 12 number of calendar days for pricing validity be

369 calendar days to account for the proposal being submitted 27 June 2016 and the contract not being awarded until 1 July 2017?

Response: According to Standard Form 33 Block 12, offerors may propose an alternative period by inserting it in the space provided.

2. Reference Section F, page 16 of 36, is the Government’s required delivery in accordance with the referenced attached Execution Schedule (Attachment 12 Amendment 1 Notional Execution Schedule) or the 01 JAN 2020 date as specified in Section L 4.2.2 Technical and Technical Risk?

Response: Offerors may rely on the Notional Execution Schedule or propose an alternative execution schedule that will ensure all ATDs and all T-6As are modified IAW Section M.

3. Reference Section F, page 16 of 36, under the required delivery schedule 01 JAN 2020, what are the columns labeled ITEM NO., QUANTITY, and WITHIN DAYS AFTER DATE OF

CONTRACT?

Response: These columns are left blank because the offerors may propose their own execution schedule or the attached Notional Execution Schedule so long as the requirements of this RFP are met by 1 January 2020.

4. Reference Section F, page 16 of 36, under the required delivery schedule 01 JAN 2020, will the Government provide data under the columns labeled ITEM NO., QUANTITY, and

WITHIN DAYS AFTER DATE OF CONTRACT?

Response: No. See response to question 3.

5. Reference Section F, page 16 of 36, in the paragraph between the REQUIRED DELIVERY SCHEDULE and OFFEROR”S PROPOSED DELIVERY SCHEDULE, is the “required delivery period specified above” and “required delivery schedule above” the 01 JAN 2020 date or the Attached Execution Schedule?

Response: It is both. The Notional Execution Schedule ensures all T-6As and ATDs are modified by 1 January 2020.

6. Reference Section F, page 16 of 36, will the OFFEROR’S PROPOSED DELIVERY SCHEDULE be used as long as our proposed delivery schedule completes all installations before 1 JAN 2020?

Response: The Government will consider any proposed delivery schedule that meets the requirement by 1 January 2020.

7. Will electronic copies of the T-6A aircraft and Aircrew Training Devices (ATDs) technical data including all existing documents, publications, specifications, drawings, and technical manuals used to operate, maintain, and sustain the T-6A aircraft and ATDs be provided to potential offerors to support the preparation of fixed-price proposals? If so, will the Government provide an estimated date of release?

Response: The RFP package contains all information necessary to develop an adequate proposal. Currently, there is no electronic bidder’s library; however, the Government established a physical Bidder’s Library at 1970 Monahan Way, Building 11A Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7211 on 18 November 2015. All documents included in the physical bidder’s library are listed in the FBO posting regarding the establishment of the bidder’s library. If an electronic bidder’s library is established or if additional documents are added to the physical bidder’s library, industry will be notified via FBO.

8. Will electronic copies of the T-6A aircraft flight manuals, operator manuals, maintenance manuals, and checklists be provided to potential offerors to support the preparation of fixed-price proposals? If so, will the Government provide an estimated date of release?

Response: See response to question 7.

9. Will electronic copies of the bidder’s library be provided to potential offerors to support the preparation of fixed-price proposals? If so, will the Government provide an estimated date of release?

Response: See response to question 7.

10. Will electronic copies of the T-6A ATD specification, operator manual, and maintenance manual referenced in paragraph 2.1.2 of the SOW be provided to potential offerors to support the preparation of fixed-price proposals? If so, will the Government provide an estimated date of release?

Response: See response to question 7.

11. If the Government is not able to provide potential offerors electronic copies of the T-6A ATD specification, operator manual, and maintenance manual referenced in paragraph 2.1.2 of the SOW, will these documents be added to the bidders library and available for review before proposal submittal? If so, will the Government provide an estimated date of availability?

Response: See response to question 7.

12. If electronic copies of the T-6A aircraft and ATDs technical data including all existing documents, publications, specifications, drawings, and technical manuals used to operate, maintain, and sustain the T-6A aircraft and ATDs can’t be provided to potential offerors, will the bidder’s library be expanded to include all these documents so that potential offers can review them prior to submittal of proposals? If so, will the Government provide an estimated date of availability?

Response: See response to question 7.

13. Is the services summary monetary deduction in the SOW and Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) only applicable to Contractor delays and not Government delays (FAR 52.242-

17) or is it also applicable to delays beyond the control and without the negligence of the contractor (FAR 52.249-8(c))?

Response: Monetary deductions will not be assessed for Government-caused delays. FAR clause 52.249-08(c) is included in the solicitation.

14. Will the Government please clarify if the services summary monetary deduction in the SOW and QASP a one-time deduction or applicable each quarterly schedule performance review?

Response: The monetary deduction is applicable each quarterly schedule performance review, as stated in SOW Section 5.

15. Will the Government please clarify if there a maximum monetary deduction for each CLIN?

Response: No, the services summary section of the SOW speaks for itself. See SOW Section 5 for details.

16. Will the Government please clarify if there are any equivalent quarterly schedule performance review monetary incentives for the contractor delivering early?

Response: There are no early delivery incentives.

17. In order to complete all aircraft installations before 1 JAN 2020, will the Government make available additional hangar space and/or ramp space for aircraft retrofits above that identified in section 4.2 of the Base Support Agreement? If additional hangar space and/or ramp space for aircraft retrofits isn’t available, will the Government waive the monetary deduction since the contractor will have no way to accomplish more installations to overcome any deliveries that are behind schedule?

Response: No, the Government will not make additional hangar space or ramp space available. No, the Government will not waive the monetary deduction.

18. Are any of the T-6A aircraft at NAS Whiting Field? If any T-6A aircraft are at NAS Whiting Field, then how many?

Response: No, only T-6Bs are at NAS Whiting Field.

19. For schedule risk mitigation, will the Government provide contract award sooner than Jul-17 as shown in the Notional Execution Schedule? Allowing 12 months for source selection and not awarding this contract until Jul-17 provides significant schedule risk in completing development through FAA and Military Airworthiness certification in 14 months (Sep-18).

Response: The Government will award as soon as practicable after completing the Source Selection process. Per the Government’s notional execution schedule, the Government intends to award the contract by July 2017.

20. For schedule risk mitigation, will the Government allow additional time between TRR/FRR and Milestone C to support making changes and regression testing to achieve FAA and Military Airworthiness certification? The existing Notional Execution Schedule with only one T-6A retrofit done for VAL/VER and only 2 months from TRR/FRR to FAA certification is high risk.

Response: The Government will consider alternative delivery schedules that meet the requirements referenced in Section M.

21. To allow time for procurement, assembly, kitting, and delivery of the aircraft and ATD mod kits in Sep-18 as shown in the Notional Execution Schedule, will the Government authorize procurement of parts in advance of the Milestone C and Customer Retrofit Decisions also shown in the Notional Execution Schedule in Sep-18?

Response: No, the Government will not authorize parts procurement in advance of exercising the relevant options.

22. Will the Government view the contractor’s proposed delivery schedule as high risk if the contractor does not allow time between the Milestone C and Customer Retrofit Decisions and delivery of the aircraft and ATD mod kits?

Response: See M002 in Section M for information on how risk will be evaluated.

23. Will the Government accept the contractor’s proposed delivery schedule if the contractor includes additional time (1) between TRR/FRR and Milestone C to support making changes and regression testing to achieve FAA and Military Airworthiness certification; (2) between Milestone C and delivery of mod kits to allow time for procurement, assembly, kitting and delivery of the mod kits; and (3) between delivery of mod kits and completion of installations as long as the installations are completed by 1 JAN 2020?

Response: The Government will consider alternative delivery schedules that meet the requirements referenced in Section M.

24. Section L, 4.3.2 Recent and Relevant Contracts, appears to provide two different numbers regarding the number of past performance contracts Offerors are allowed to submit: “Submit information IAW Attachment L-1, Past Performance Information for Offerors, on up to five

(5) recent contracts..”, “Please note five (5) (maximum) recent contracts for the prime contractor and up to three (3) recent contracts total for all teaming partners/subcontractors shall be submitted.” Will the Government please clarify the number of past performance citations offerors are allowed to submit?

Response: Section L will be amended to clarify that prime contractors may submit up to five

(5) recent contracts. Offerors may submit up to three recent contracts total for all teaming partners/subcontractors. Thus, offerors may submit up to eight (8) recent contracts as stated in Section L.

25. Section L, 4.3.2 Recent and Relevant Contracts, states “Offerors shall also submit the corresponding official statement of work (SOW) for each contract submitted.” Will the government please clarify how these SOWs are to be submitted with the proposal (perhaps as appendices to the Past Performance volume) and confirm that page count limitations do not apply to the SOWs?

Response: The corresponding SOWs shall be submitted IAW Section L, 3.1 Table 1.

26. Does the government anticipate provisioning the new COTS LRU’s in FLIS? (SOW 3.12.2)?

Response: The Government does not anticipate provisioning for organic sustainment.

27. Does the government require that the RBS calculations be done in software or, are manual calculations allowed? (SOW 3.12.2)

Response: IAW SOW 3.12.2., the Contractor must make RBS calculations using an RBS model. VMetric® is just one example of such a model.

28. The Airworthiness Certification Basis was provided with the RFP in PDF format. Can the

USAF provide the Airworthiness Certification Basis in the original Excel format?

Response: The Excel version of the Airworthiness Certification Basis will be provided to the awardee.

29. In regards to SOW 3.7 & 3.8.2 will the USAF provide a qualified aircrew operator for post-installation test support?

Response: Yes.

30. On page 25 of the RFP, should the reference to CDRL A051 (Transportation Data) be CDRL A042 (Qualification Test Report)?

Response: Yes—an RFP amendment is forthcoming.

31. Section L. 4.5.1.4 Section I - Contract Clauses states, “The offeror shall provide necessary information to complete clauses as required”. Please clarify what specific Section I clauses require additional information.

Response: This is an “as required” requirement that is not applicable at this time. The additional information will be added, if necessary, at contract award.

32. Section L. 4.5.1.5 Section J – Attachments lists all of the RFP attachments. We assume that it is not necessary to include all attachments in Volume IV since many of them require no input from the Offeror and 4.5.4.4 list specific attachments to be included. Is this assumption correct?

Response: Yes.

33. Section L.4.5.4.6 Associate Contractor Agreements request ACAs or Letters of Intent with 4 companies. Can you provide appropriate points of contact at these companies?

Response: No.

34. Section L. 4.5.5 Required Attachments lists only 4.5.5.1 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). Please confirm that only the IMS goes in this section and the other Section L attachments beginning on page 23 are to be included in other volumes as instructed elsewhere in Section L.

Response: See Table 1 in paragraph 3.1 of Section L for proposal organization.

35. The following Section I clauses do not appear to be applicable to this contract.

52.204-14 - Service Contract Reporting Requirements 252.246-7004 - Safety of Facilities, Infrastructure, and Equipment for Military Operations 252.239-7018 - Supply Chain Risk

Response: FAR 52.204-14 and DFARS 252.246-7004 will be removed, but DFARS 252.239-7018 will remain IAW DFARS 239.7306(b). An RFP amendment is forthcoming.

36. The QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN SERVICE SUMMARY (SOW Section 5 - page 54) and QASP (Part 2, page 2) provide for a “Monetary deduction” for deliveries that are “behind schedule”. Does behind schedule mean after a planned Milestone/Event or Activity/Task in the approved IMS or after the scheduled CLIN delivery date? There is no mention of the monetary deduction in the RFP Model Contract. Will there be an amplifying language in a Section H clause or elsewhere in the contract? Also, other contract provisions allow the Government to require consideration or equitable adjustments for contract changes including delivery schedule extensions. For example, 52.209-03 FIRST ARTICLE APPROVAL -- CONTRACTOR TESTING (subparagraph c) states, “The Government reserves the right to require an equitable adjustments of the contract price for any extension of the delivery schedule…”. Are such equitable adjustments included in the monetary deduction provision in the SOW and QASP or are such adjustments in addition to the monetary deduction?

Response: A monetary penalty, if any, will be assessed according to the CLIN delivery schedule. There will not be an H clause with “amplifying language” to describe the monetary penalty. The monetary penalty is addressed in Section 5 of the SOW. The equitable adjustments referenced in the question are not part of the monetary deduction provision in the SOW and QASP.

37. Will offerors have full access to the engineering drawings for the platform including all modifications and all structural updates? When will we (can we) receive this information?

Response: See response to question 7.

38. Will offerors have full access to structural analysis reports for the platform including all modification and al structural updates? When will we (can we) receive this information?

Response: See response to question 7.

39. Will offerors have access to 3D CAD models of the platform including all modification and al structural updates? When will we (can we) receive this information?

Response: See response to question 7.

40. Will offerors have access to reports for all internal loads on the airframe and secondary structure mounted to the airframe? When will we (can we) receive this information?

Response: See response to question 7.

41. Can the Government provide contractor access to a T-6A aircraft and Aircrew Training Devices (ATD) at NAS Pensacola for assessing the level of effort required to install our ADS-B Out solution before finalizing and submitting our fixed price proposal?

Response: No.

42. Reference CDRL A013, System Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) in RFP file A._T- 6A_ADS-B_Out_CDRL_Package_Final. The Data Item Description (DID) for this CDRL is DI-MGMT-81024/T which has been cancelled and superseded by DI-SESS-81785 (See attached file). Request clarification on which DID should be used for the SEMP that will be submitted as an Appendix to proposal Volume II, Technical. If DID DI-SESS-81785 should be used, please advise on any tailoring instructions.

Response: CDRL A013 is being updated with DID DI-SESS-81785. An RFP amendment is forthcoming.

43. Reference Section L, Appendices—Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents; Page 4, Table 1 – Proposal Organization, under Volume II, Technical, includes ‘Appendix’ with unlimited page count. The Appendix includes the IMP, SEMP, FAA certification plan, and an airworthiness plan. According to the CDRLS these documents are due post contract award. For example, CDRL A013 states that the Draft SEMP is due 60 days after contract award, and ITO 4.2.5, Systems Engineering says that the SEMP will include a flow down of the PIPFS. However, in answers to previous questions the Government has said that the PIPFS will only be made available post award. For the Airworthiness Plan, CDRL A034 indicates the draft is due post award and 30 days prior to the Systems Requirements Review (SRR), with the final due 30 days after Government approval. Question: What are the Government’s expectations and evaluation criteria for the Volume II Technical, Appendixes?

Response: Offerors are required to submit an IMS, SEMP, FAA certification plan, and airworthiness plan with their proposal as stated in Section L. Each document is necessary for the evaluation of the measures of merit for the five technical subfactors, as stated in Section M. The awardee will then submit these same documents IAW CDRL requirements.

44. Reference SOW 3.8.1, CDRLs A006 and A008—SOW 3.8.1 second sentence, identifies the need to submit CDRL A006 (Test Plan); however, the Test Plan is CDRL A008. Question: Will the Government verify the correct Test Plan CDRL number?

Response: The correct Test Plan CDRL for SOW 3.8.1 is CDRL 008. The RFP package will be amended accordingly.

45. Reference CDRL A014—CDRL A014 (Agenda/Minutes) DD-FORM-1423 indicated delivery timeframe for the Minutes portion of the CDRL, but no delivery timelines for the Agenda. Question:

Will the Government provide the delivery criteria for A014 Agenda?

Response: The Agenda referenced in CDRL A014 shall be due one week prior to any meeting or conference. An RFP amendment is forthcoming.

46. Reference CDRL A041—CDRL A041 DD-FORM-1423 block-16 indicates Government will have 20 business days to review/approve document, but also indicates Government will provide approval or review comments within 15 calendar days. Question: Will the Government verify how many business days the Government has to review/approve the DD-FORM-1423?

Response: The CDRL will be revised to consistently read 15 business days. An RFP amendment is forthcoming.

47. Reference WBS—Given the nature of the WBS provided by the Government for the JPATS T-6A program it has become necessary to expand the WBS to ensure all SOW elements are accounted for.

Question: Will the Government accept an expanded WBS as an attachment to the Model Contract or must offerors stay within the WBS as provided?

Response: Offerors must use the WBS provided without modification.