C-130J_MATS_Draft_RFP_Q-As_-_Partial.docx
DOCX document 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- C-130J MATS O&S Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8621-13-R-6305
About this file
Draft RFP Q As
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 35
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
C-130J MATS O&S Draft RFP Industry Questions/Comments
FA8621-13-R-6305
| RFP Reference |
| Question/Comment |
| Government Response |
| 1. |
| All CLINs |
H001
| CLIN structure includes pricing for Yakota AB for years 2015 – 2019; however PWS Paragraph 1.0 shows Yakota AB Aircrew training not occurring until FY 18. Would the Government please clarify which contract years should include pricing for Yakota AB? |
| Offerors are required to follow Section L for completing the pricing matrix. We do not have an exact date when Yokota will be up and running so we are requiring pricing for Yokota for the entire period of performance. |
| 2. |
| CLIN Structure |
| CLIN structure does not show a base year; only option years. Should the structure show a base year for 1 Jan – 31 Dec 2015 followed by 4 option years for years 2016-2019? |
| At contract award, the Government will only be funding the transition period; therefore, the 1st year of performance is considered an option year, which will be exercised appropriately before 1 January 2015. |
| 3. |
| Course Trade-off Matrix |
| The Course Trade-off Matrix in the draft solicitation prints as 6 pages on 11x17 paper. Will each page (11x17) count as 1 page? May need to look at re-formatting. |
| The Course Trade-off Matrix will no longer be a requirement for offerors to complete. The Government will provide a completed matrix that offerors will be required to comply with. |
| 4. |
| General |
| Are you requiring VA certification of SDVOSB status or is self-certification acceptable? |
| SDVOSB prime offerors must show evidence of their SDVOSB certification status. |
| 5. |
| General |
| Is the Government trying to split the TSSC from this effort to avoid possible OCI (i.e., create a system of checks and balances)? |
| No, there are no OCI issues; however there are data rights issues under the current contract. The O&S portion is being split out to allow for effective competition and to promote small business. |
| 6. |
| General |
| What is the Government’s overall objective in splitting this out as a separate contract? |
| To allow for effective competition and to promote small business. |
| 7. |
| Past Performance |
| How will ID/IQ contracts be treated for past performance? |
Will each delivery order/task order count as a single past performance?
On a multiple award ID/IQ contract where task orders/delivery orders are for separate and distinct projects/programs, each task order/delivery order will count as a separate contract.
For single award ID/IQ contracts for the same program, then the entire ID/IQ will be considered as a single contract.
| 8. |
| Pricing Matrix |
| The Pricing Matrix does not include the Program Management CLINs. Will the final Pricing Matrix include tabs for pricing the Program Management CLINs so that they are reflected in the total evaluated price? |
| No, there is no requirement to price Program Management. Offerors should include program management in their student throughput and CLS pricing. |
The Program Management CLIN has been removed from Section B.
| 9. |
| Section B |
| CLIN 0008 and 0009 are identical |
CLIN 1008 and 1009 are identical CLIN 2008 and 2009 are identical CLIN 3008 and 3009 are identical CLIN 4008 and 4009 are identical Is this intentional or duplicate These CLINs are not identical. The X008 CLINs are for site activation not to exceed 50 miles and CLINs X009 are for site activation in excess of 50 miles.
| 10. |
| Section B |
| CLIN 010 Site Activation-OCONUS (OY1) |
It should be CONUS Concur, change has been made to the CLIN title.
| 11. |
| Section B |
| Section B CLIN 0001 Transition Period lists the Start Date as: 01 Sept 2014 and the Completion Date as: 31 Dec 2014. This is a period of 122 calendar days. The descriptive paragraph states: The successor contractor shall work with the incumbent contractors to assume responsibility for the CLS and Training/Instruction tasks for the C-130J MATS during the transition period. The successor contractor shall be postured to assume responsibility for these requirements at the end of the 105-day transition period. The transition period has been identified as four months as stated in SOW para 8.1. In this paragraph the time frame is stated as 105 days yet the CLIN dates specified calculate to 122 days. |
Please clarify what the Transition Period will be in calendar days.
The Transition period can be for up to 4 months, (i.e., 1 Sep 2014 through 31 Dec 2014).
PWS para 8.1 does not state calendar days for the transition only “for a period of up to four months”.
CLIN 0001 has been modified to remove the reference to calendar days.
The transition period will not be defined in terms of calendar days because we do not have a definite time period for the transition period.
Offerors are required to price the transition period monthly as depicted in the Pricing Matrix. This allows for flexibility in the start of the transition period.
| 12. |
| Section B |
| CLIN 0008 and 0009. Section 4.7.2 does not exist in the PWS. |
| These CLINs have been modified to indicate PWS para 9.2. |
| 13. |
| Section B |
| CLIN XX02. Program Management CLIN for all Option Years. During the Industry Day meeting at WPAFB, bidders were told not to bid any of the CLINs not currently found in Attachment 22. The Program Management CLIN which states “The contractor shall develop and maintain a program management process to plan, direct, integrate, and control the O&S and aircrew instruction of the C-130J MATS, as required in PWS paragraph 3.1” would not be priced. Currently Program management is not part of the TEP (IAW Section L). Will the Government be issuing an ECP after contract award for all Program Management pricing? |
| No, there is no requirement to price Program Management. Offerors should include program management in their student throughput and CLS pricing. |
The Program Management CLIN has been removed from Section B.
| 14. |
| Section B |
| CLIN 0001. CLIN requests a 105-day transition to occur between 1 Sep and 31 Dec 2014; however Section L Paragraph 4.3.1a requests a 90-day transition period. Would the Government please clarify the timing/duration of the transition period? |
| The Transition Period cane be up to 120 days; hence the ordering period on the CLIN. However, depending on contract award date, the transition may actually be 30, 60, 90, or 120 days. |
| 15. |
| Section B |
| B028. Contract clause is shown as applying to CLIN 0001 only; however Pricing Matrix shows FFP pricing for numerous CLINs. Would the Government please clarify the applicability for Clause B028? |
| The total price entered in B028 will be for the transition CLIN only at contract award. The remaining CLINs are included in option periods and will not be included as part of the total contract price at contract award. |
| 16. |
| Section H |
| H – Special Contract Requirements, Subparagraph 39 et al, Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Do tax treaties/SOFA agreements exist in Germany & Japan that determine how payroll taxes & other associated costs will be handled? |
Is there a SOFA agreement related to this contract currently in place?
There is not a current SOFA agreement in place as Germany and Japan are new sites.
| 17. |
| Section H |
| H – Special Contract Requirements, Subparagraph B. Other Contract Clauses in Full Text; C130J MATS-H003 USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS (JUN 2013). States: “The non-Government advisor support will be provided by: National Technologies Associates, Inc. 22738 Maple Rd Lexington Park, Maryland 20653 Phil's company.” |
Delete "Phil's company."
Change made.
| 18. |
| Section H |
| H013/014. We noted the Government included a “disagreement resolution” process in clause H014, but no similar process is included in clause H013; however, in some cases a failure could be subjectively applied to the contractor; i.e., a student fails not due to a training issue, but to a personal issue arising during the evaluation. Would the Government consider adding a “disagreement resolution” process to clause H013 that is equal to the process described in clause H014? |
| The availability clause has been modified to be for maintenance training devices only at Little Rock AFB, so there would not be any disagreement process needed for this specific clause. |
| 19. |
| Section I |
| Section I – DFAR 252.232-7999 Notification of payment in local currency (Afghanistan). There are several DFARs that relate to Iraq, Afghanistan, “a Central Asian State” which is defined as Kyrgyz Republic, Republic of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan, but not Japan or Germany. |
Is this intentional?
Yes, these clause are generated by our contract writing system based on the FAR and DFAR.
| 20. |
| Section I |
| State of New Mexico Gross Receipts & Compensating Tax, FAR 52.229-10 and the applicable state law regarding Gross Receipts tax. It may be necessary to charge the government this tax & pay it in to the State of New Mexico. While the Gross Receipts tax mostly functions as a sales tax, it applies to non-sales revenue, ie: it is charged on rent. |
Is the Government aware of this issue?
Yes.
| 21. |
| Section I |
| 52.219-14. This clause is not included on the listing of applicable clauses, nor is it reflected anywhere else in the RFP. Given that this effort is now a SDVOSB set aside, would the \Government please clarify any limits on subcontracting applicable to this solicitation? |
| The clause has been added. |
| 22. |
| Section J |
| Attachment 1 has date of 23 July 2013, while the PWS cover page is dated 24 July 2013 |
| The Government will ensure Attachment 1 dates reflect the actual date of the attachment. |
| 23. |
| Section L |
| 4.3.3 Subfactor 3: Aircrew Instruction subparagraph a. – typo in second sentence. Recommended wording: “Submit a Course Trade-off Matrix that allows for alternative course offerings in the event the Government cannot provide qualified student candidates to fill the scheduled courses.“ |
| Typo fixed. |
| 24. |
| Section L |
| 6.1 Price/General Instructions, paragraph 2b & 2c references SCA Wage Determinations are found in section J attachments 10 & 11 and CBA-based wage determinations are found in section J, attachments 12 & 15. These attachments were not included in the Draft RFP package but are listed in 7.1.9 “Section J – Attachments.” |
Will the Government provide this prior to final RFP release?
No, the WDs and CBAs will be posted with the formal RFP release.
| 25. |
| Section L |
| 6.2.3 Section 3: GFP states a list of GFP is provided in Section J attachment 9. This attachment was not included in the Draft RFP package. |
When will the government provide this information?
The LSP will be posted with the formal RFP release.
| 26. |
| Section L |
| Attachment 19 Sect L pg.4 the chart says that for each Volume “Original must be 2-Hole punched. Also on pg. 4 2.2.1 Page limitation (line 5): “The pages within each original volume shall be 2-hole punched centered at the top of each page.” |
Would it be possible to request deleting the 2-hole punch on top, like for TSAIII?
The requirement for the Original proposal to be submitted with 2-hole punched at the top of the page remains. The Government is required to keep the Original submission and this request helps with efficiency in creating the abundant contract files for each offeror.
Due to the large number of expected offerors on TSA III, we have received a waiver for hard copies and the Original proposals will be maintained on CD.
| 27. |
| Section L, 2.6, Proposal Submission |
| On line 2 it says “Price (Volume III), Past Performances (Volume IV)”; it should be changed since Price is Vol IV and PP is Vol III. |
| Concur, change made to Section L. |
| 28. |
| Section L, Volume I, Executive Summary |
| Do we need to have an Attachment 1 as a proof of FCL Secret or higher, like in TSAIII instructions? Or where we need to put the FCL proof? |
| Section L has been modified to include the requirement to provide (within Volume I) evidence of a Secret FCL or approach for obtaining an FCL prior to contract award. |
| 29. |
| Section L, Volume III, Past Performance |
| Does the JMATS PPI tool generate the “Business Relationship” page similar to TSAIII? If so, it will be the first page (of 5 pages max) of the PP Introduction (like per TSAIII instructions); |
Also the PPI tool, as per TSAIII, does not allow any graphic, except for the PP Introduction. Correct?
The PPI tool is a standard tool developed by the Acquisition Center of Excellence (ACE) and works the same for all acquisitions.
| 30. |
| Section M, 2.3.1 |
| 2.3.1 Completeness line 2 “Volume III”: |
It should read Volume IV Concur, change has been made to Section M.
| 31. |
| Time Schedule |
| Is still Final RFP projected date for mid-October 2013? |
What about award date?
The current acquisition scheduled was briefed during the pre-solicitation conference.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .