COMBS_III_Industry_Questions_and_Responses_Set_2.docx

COMBS III FA8617-18-R-6213 Final RFP Industry Questions and Responses

Response

Comment: Please clarify.

Attachment added to Bidders Library, COMBS (AETC) PMEL Automated Management Systems OWC Master ID Report containing all T-6 COMBS items being calibrated at each of the USAF FCAs; excludes CSO at Pensacola where no data is available.

Is it the Government’s intent for the contractor to price this large inventory investment cost within CLIN X003-CPFH or does the Government also recognize the inventory shortfalls and will purchase additional spares throughout the contract removing the inventory investment burden from the contractor? How does a new offeror compete against an incumbent that already owns a portion of the required inventory?

Comment: Please clarify.

1) Attachment 2 GFP List has been updated. Please see Attachment 2 GFP List, Attachment File 1 through 4, PWS para 3.1.1.d and FAR 52.245-02.

2) Contractor may inlay additional material and equipment costs into their CLIN prices where they deem appropriate; however, reasonableness and balance will be evaluated and significant differences in year-to-year pricing will need to be explained.

Based on these requirements, is it the Government’s intent that this inventory baseline assigned to each COMBS location become dedicated solely to each site, and not be transferred between COMBS locations or end users (Air Force / Navy / Army)? Will the Government invest in additional GFE to support these requirements, or does the Government expect all bidders to address this “iron mountain” of required parts/spares in their CPFH bid in CLIN X003? What is the GFE plan for COMBS III over the PoP?

Comment: Please clarify.

1) It is not the Governments intent that the inventory baseline becomes solely dedicated to each site.

2) Range and Depth are established (and approved) by the Contractor, and are developed through Contractor modeling, historical consumption data, and Technical Manual requirements as deemed appropriate by the contractor.

3) Attachment 2 GFP List has been updated. Please see Attachment 2 GFP List, Attachment File 1 through 4, PWS para 3.1.1.d and FAR 52.245-02.

4) Contractor may inlay additional material and equipment costs into their CLIN prices where they deem appropriate; however, reasonableness and balance will be evaluated and significant differences in year-to-year pricing will need to be explained.

Comment: Please clarify.

1) In accordance with the CLIN 300x data description and PWS para 1.3.14.1 the Government expects engine repair costs be included in the FFP PPFH CLINs.

2) A document containing historical data on the number of Engine O/H and Engine Repairs by FY have been included in the Bidder’s Library.

Comment: Please clarify.

1) The Government does not plan for any Contractor or Government Civilian to abuse the Aircraft Reporting Status. Any discrepancies can be and should first be addressed at the reporting location during the daily status meeting.

2) All costs within the PWS requirements, but outside of the BFWT, Depot Mx Material Support and unanticipated Travel definitions should be accounted for and priced into each offerors’ proposed prices.

Comment: Please clarify.

Individual circumstances will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for BFWT invoices. Only incidents that occur within the definition of BFWT will be allocable to BFWT CLINs. Please see the definition of BFWT in PWS 4.2.

The scenario provided does not contain sufficient information to determine if the accident was a result of a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which was likely to cause foreseeable grave harm to property or if the damage exceeded $5,000.

Will the Government provide waiver relief to the 8% TNMCS rate under any circumstances? And if so, under what conditions for each case -- GFE non-availability and long-lead items on replacement parts? What other conditions will be considered?

Comment: Please clarify.

1) Yes, under BFWT conditions.

2) The Government may consider additional circumstances on a case-by-case basis, but makes no promise to do so and incurs no obligation to do so.

Question: As most materials are to be furnished/repaired under the Firm Fixed Price Per Flying Hour CLIN series, will the Government please confirm the applicability of 252.246-7006 to the Contract as being the 4000 Series CLINs only?

DFARS 252.246-7006 has been deleted

Question: Will the Government please verify the applicability of this Clause to the T-6 5000 Series Cost Reimbursable CLINs only?

Comment: Please verify.

DFARS 252.247-7003 has been deleted.

Question: Will the Government please verify which CLINs are subject to paragraph (d) of 5352.217-9000?

Comment: Please verify.

AFFARS 5352.217-9000 has been deleted.

Since the T-6 COMBS contractor will not have direct control over the maintenance activity, will the Government consider removing NMCB from the performance calculation to ensure the COMBS Contractor is incentivized for their performance and not penalized for areas beyond the COMBS contractor control?

Comment: Please clarify.

No the Government will not consider removing TNMCB. NMCB Aircraft are Aircraft that are down for both Supply and Maintenance. So even if the Aircraft was not down for Maintenance the Aircraft status would still be NMCS.

Where is TCTO support addressed and priced? Is that also included in CLIN 500X?

Comment: Please clarify.

Please see PWS 1.3.15 for the level of support required related to TCTO/TD Support.

If TCTO/TD kitted material is required beyond that covered by PWS Para 1.3.15, then it will be acquired through an independent Government acquisition or via Reserved 800X CLINs.

Background: New corrosion issues with the T-6 Texan II aircraft are discovered everyday making it impractical to forecast the on-going effort to maintain and supply the T-6 Training System with any level of accuracy. There is no prior standard or predictive analysis methods that could accurately forecast future efforts to manage corrosion on the aircraft at this time. Any Basis of Estimate attempt to forecast detection and repair of corrosion is filled with question and uncertainty.

Question: Besides the costs for parts and equipment required to directly support routine aircraft corrosion control by maintenance, where in Volume III- Price are the costs captured for repair and/or replacement of corroded parts? Is it the Government’s intent that any potential aircraft corrosion-related costs be included in CLIN 500X BFWT, in the Government-provided plug number? If not, where/how should the offeror address these unknown costs?

Corrosion does not meet the definition of BFWT in the PWS 4.2, and as such will not be included in CLIN 500X. Corrosion is to be expected, as on any aircraft, and should be included in Offerors’ proposed prices.

The Government has included in the Bidders Library a Government Corrosion Risk Assessment. This is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as identifying any and/or all current or future corrosion issues/risks.

RFP, CLIN 500X BFWT & Depot Support;

PWS 1.3.14.1f) Repair Aircraft Material Background: It is our understanding that all engine fuel nozzle tips are to be replaced through the normal 400-hour fuel nozzle refurbishment interval.

Question: Is it the Government’s intention to provide TCTO/TD direction for nozzle replacement as an over and above action? Is the TCTO included in CLIN 500X?

Fuel Nozzles will continue to be replaced through normal 400-hour fuel nozzle refurbishment interval.

If TCTO/TD is required it will not be included in CLIN 500X.

If TCTO/TD kitted material is required beyond that covered by PWS Para 1.3.15, then it will be acquired through an independent Government acquisition or via Reserved 800X CLINs.

RFP Section B Ordering Period, Fair Labor Standards Act, Service Contract Labor Standards & EO 13658 Air Force Price Adjustment Guide (March 2015) And industry questions 40 and 44 Discussion: In response to industry questions regarding the inclusion of CBA increases that become effective or are scheduled to become effective at any time during the base period of the contract, the Government responses indicated the Offeror is not permitted to include any future schedule CBA increases in the offeror’s price for the base period or the option period.

The T-6 COMBS Solicitation Section B defines the ordering period for the Base Period as 01 January 2018 to 31 December 2022. There are Collective Bargaining Agreements that contain economic provisions that change during CY 2018, the first year of performance per Section B.

Example: The Sheppard AFB Collective Bargaining Agreement includes scheduled wage increases effective 1 November 2017 and 1 November 2018. During the anticipated initial CY Period of Performance, the Contractor will be required to increase Sheppard AFB employees’ wages on 1 November 2018 in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The referenced Air Force Price Adjustment Guide states under 4.0 Adjustments – General, 4.2 Assumption with Respect to Contract Pricing:

Both FLSA/SCA price adjustment clauses state, at paragraph ‘(b)’, “The Contractor warrants that the prices in this contract do not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under this clause.” Thus, contract price should not have included amounts for known or projected increases in wage rates, fringe benefits, or allowable accompanying costs that may become effective after the base period of the contract. This also requires exclusion of any collective bargaining agreement (CBA) increases scheduled to become effective after the end of the base period. However, any CBA increases effective or scheduled to become effective at any time during the base contract period should have been included in the contract price for both the base period and options.

Question: Will the Government provide clarification in regards to the Sheppard Air Force Base example? Is the offeror to include the 1 November 2018 wage increases in their CY 18 forward pricing as stated in the referenced Air Force FLSA/SCA Price Adjustment Guide, as this increase occurs prior to the first anticipated anniversary date of the Contract? If the offeror is not allowed to include this known increase (and any other such known CBA increases at the time of proposal submission relative to the solicitation), will the Government confirm the Contractor will be allowed a price adjustment applicable to the first calendar year of performance?

1) Yes, the Government will provide clarification in regards to the Sheppard AFB example.

The Government intends to issue a one year Task Order at the start of the period of performance, which will serve as the base period. Any CBA increases effective or scheduled to become effective at any time during the base contract period should have been included in the contract price for both the base period and options.

There will not be a CY 2018 CBA rate adjustment, as it is expected that the offeror will include the rate adjustment in their proposed price.

2) For all future CBA increases the offeror will submit a request for a rate adjustment for the applicable calendar year.

Question: Will the Government please confirm the Amendment numbering currently listed on FBO.gov and provide clarification as to the definition of an amendment as it relates to the Section L 2.2.7 requirement that offerors acknowledge receipt of all amendments (e.g. only Amendments that include a form SF30 should be listed in Block 14 of the signed SF33)?

An error was made in the numbering of the amendments on FBO.gov. See Contracting Officer Letter titled “COMBS III Solicitation Amendment 2 Letter” for clarification of the correct numbering of amendments and updates.

The Government has reconciled the updates and amendments IAW FAR 52.215-1 and 15.206.

Question: Does the Government anticipate adding any additional Government Furnished Property to the T-6 COMBS inventory prior to Contract start, and if so, will the Government consider updating the solicitation to include those items once they are known?

Offerors’ should not anticipate any additional GFP being added prior to the Contract Start beyond that already included in the GFP List Attachment 2 and the Spares Buy List provided in the Bidder’s Library. Any discrepancies or adjustments to the GFP List beyond those discussed above will be addressed during the transition period, as part of the joint inventory.

Discussion: The schedule B in the new PWS has different flight hour bands for CLIN 3103 for CY23 & CY24/CY25… the pricing Matrix shows the same bands for all of these periods.

Question: Will the Government reconcile the differences in Flight Hour Bands?

The Government has corrected the errors found in SF33 Solicitation, Section B of CLIN 3103 CY24/25 flight hour bands.

Question: Given Beechcraft’s unwillingness to provide material and repair pricing, will the Government consider establishing a Cost Reimbursable CLIN for Beechcraft Defense consumables and repairs required to support the JPATS COMBS contract?

The Government has considered many approaches and the Government has determined FFP to be the appropriate Contract type. The Government will not establish a Cost Reimbursable CLIN for the Beechcraft Defense consumables and repairs.

PWS Section 1.1.1 Business Relationships states "The Contractor shall: a) Obtain and maintain license agreements and/or subscriptions for the access and use of Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) proprietary data necessary to execute this PWS" This requirement for a license agreement is not the same as the requirement for entering into an Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA).

Question #1 - As BDC has stated they will not license the data necessary to comply with PWS Section 1.1.1 a), will the Government remove this requirement from the PWS?

Question #2 - In accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 21.50, the Government, as the owner of the T-6 aircraft must receive one set of all instructions necessary for the Continued Airworthiness for each type of aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller. As the selected Prime Contractor will be responsible for maintaining the aircraft on behalf of the Government as the owner, will the Government provide the Prime Contractor to all the data necessary for the Continued Airworthiness of the T-6 aircraft?

1) The Government has removed the PWS requirement 1.1.1(a).

2) Federal Aviation Regulations Part 21.50 does not apply to the T-6 aircraft as it is not a commercial aircraft (i.e. there is no commercial customer for T-6). Therefore, the USG will not supply Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.

· Since the final solicitation release on 09 Dec, there have been 5 changes posted to the FedBizOpps JPATS COMBS III solicitation notice:

· Changed Dec 20, 2016 3:32 pm

· Changed Dec 23, 2016 11:23 am

· Changed Dec 23, 2016 12:17 pm

· Changed Jan 13, 2017 2:56 pm

· Changed Jan 24, 2017 8:07 am

Question: Since the Change Notice posted on 13 Jan is labeled Amendment 1, but referred to in the Contracting Officer Letter dated 23 Jan (Paragraph 5) as Amendment 4, and the Change Notice posted on 24 Jan is referred to as Amendment 5, please clarify which of the Change Notices correspond to Amendments 1-5 or post any missing amendments.

An error was made in the numbering of the amendments on FBO.gov. See Contracting Officer Letter titled “COMBS III Solicitation Amendment 2 Letter” for clarification of the correct numbering of amendments and updates.

The Government has reconciled the updates and amendments IAW FAR 52.215-1 and 15.206

Discussion: Section L5.1.1.8 Cost and Software Data reporting (CSDR) System states that the contractor shall use Section J Attachment 6 to provide a plan that meets requirements of DFARS 252.234-7003. As prescribed in DFARS 234.7101(a)(1), DFARS 252.234-7003 is to be included in solicitations that include the clause DFAR 252.234-7004, Cost and Software Data Reporting (Basic).

DFARS 234.7101(b) states that the basic or alternate of the clause 252.234-7004 is to be included in solicitations that include major defense acquisition programs or major automated information system programs.

10 U.S.C 2430 defines “major defense acquisition program as follows:

(a) In this chapter, the term "major defense acquisition program" means a Department of Defense acquisition program that is not a highly sensitive classified program (as determined by the Secretary of Defense) and-

(1) that is designated by the Secretary of Defense as a major defense acquisition program; or

(2) that is estimated by the Secretary of Defense to require an eventual total expenditure for research, development, test, and evaluation of more than $300,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1990 constant dollars) or an eventual total expenditure for procurement, including all planned increments or spirals, of more than $1,800,000,000 (based on fiscal year 1990 constant dollars).

The publically available DoD Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) list does not contain this program.

Question:

Since it appears that this program has not been defined as a major defense acquisition program, will the government delete this requirement as it appears it is not a regulatory requirement?

No, even though JPATS T-6 is not currently designated as an MDAP program, the JPATS T-6 Program is a major weapon system, in the sustainment phase. Therefore, as verified by DCAPE, Contractor Sustainment Reporting is required for COMBS III IAW Section 832 (b)(5) of P.L.112-81 (NDAA 2012), DoD 5000.04 – MI and DoDI 5000.02, Enclosure 1, Table 7.