FY17-18_Q A_(Redacted)_Spreadsheet.xls
XLS spreadsheet 85 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HTC711-16-R-C001
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 66 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFP Q and A
| Quick Reference | Document | Section | Paragraph | Date | Question | Answer |
| Circumnavigation Miles | Solicitation | Part I-B | B-3h(1) page 6 | 6-Mar-16 | Are circumnavigation miles still needed to/from MUGM? | Per our conversations at the Presolicitation Day, the carriers stated the Special Miles cited in Section B are still needed; therefore, the Special Miles langauge at B-3(h)(1) will remain in the contract. |
| Typo | Solicitation | Part IV - L | 9, (c) (2) Page 161 | 6-Mar-16 | Third sentence word "apply" should be "applied". | Solicitation, section L-9 (c)(2) corrected to read "applied". |
| Typo | Solicitation | Part IV - M | 1 (k) page 121 | 6-Mar-16 | Third sentence "evaluation the relevancy" should read "evaluating the relevancy". | Solicitation , M-1 (k) corrected to read "evaluating". |
| Contractor Representative | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.3.11 | 6-Mar-16 | Regarding the added language "The contractor representative will operate all electrically powered mechanized systems and controls", this needs to be clarified as to whether this is in regards to aircraft systems (i.e. loading systems, doors, etc.) vs. ground equipment. | PWS, para 1.3.11 revised to add the words "on the aircraft" to the last sentence. |
| Reliability | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1.5.1. | 6-Mar-16 | The range of schedule reliability percentages for PAX are listed as 94% to 91% instead of 90%. | PWS, para 2.6.1.5.1 revised. The first sentence has been changed to 90%. |
| Carrier Performance | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1.5.3 & 2.6.1.6.3 | 6-Mar-16 | In line with the prior sections 2.6.1.5.1 - 2.6.1.5.2 - 2.6.1.6.2 - 2.6.1.6.3 this should read "The one month period shall commence during the month immediately following the release of the reliability rating for that period". | PWS, para 2.6.1.5.3 and 2.6.1.6.3 revised to reflect how penalties are actually applied. |
| Typo | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1.6.2 & 2.6.1.6.3 | 6-Mar-16 | Needs a space between paragraphs | Line space was added between paragraphs 2.1.6.2. and 2.1.6.3. |
| Commercial Pallets | Atch 1 - PWS | Appendix 5 | A5.2.11 | 6-Mar-16 | Should read - "contractors shall be required to furnish commercial pallets and nets" | Sentence revised to add, "contractors shall be required to furnish commercial pallets and nets" |
| Acronyms | Atch 1 - PWS | ACRONYMS: | APCC | 6-Mar-16 | Delete APCC since is not used in the document. It has been deleted in two locations. | PWS Acronyms--reference to APCC was deleted |
| Acronyms | Atch 1 - PWS | ACRONYMS: | DESC | 6-Mar-16 | Do not delete DESC since it is referenced in several locations, to include a website. | DESC changed its name to DLA Energy; all references to DESC have been removed from the PWS with the exception of DESC Policy # I-3, which is still a current. |
| Forms | Atch 1 - PWS | Attachment 1 - Forms: | AMC 305 | 6-Mar-16 | This form is not on the AF publication website (http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/) | PWS Appendix 2 , reference to AMC Form 305 corrected to read AF 1305 |
| Multi-year contract | Solicitation | Part I- F Part II-I | F-1 a., Page 42; I-7, Page 70 | 6-Mar-16 | The Draft Solicitation proposes a Multiyear Contract. The Second Year is an option year at the election of the Government to be exercised on 60 days’ notice to the Contractors. XXXXX is not in favor of a multi-year contract period at this time. Significant changes were made to the FY16 contract as a result of the CRAF Phase II Study. FY16 has just begun and there has not been time to fully identify or experience any unintended consequences that may result from those changes such as the issue with the change in the One-way Ratemaking Methodology. As such, we believe it would be imprudent to commit all parties to a multi-year obligation until the effects of the previous changes become known. | The solicitation effort will continue with a base plus one option year; however, we will continue to review the fixed and expansion passenger and cargo requirements prior to exercising the option year. Continued industry input during the contract performance is welcomed. |
| COMBI | Solicitation | Part I- F Part II-I | F-1 a., Page 42; I-7, Page 70 | 6-Mar-16 | Also, in our opinion, the Combi segment should not even be part of the Long Range International Contract. The segment has a single operator and is procured through a rule set in the Solicitation that blocks economic competitive entry. No commercial or USTC expansion business exists for Combi aircraft, yet the contract requires any competing carrier to have the aircraft on their Ops Spec at the time of response to the Solicitation, 5 months ahead of any Fixed channel business opportunity. If another carrier entered the Combi Segment, the Uniform Rate Making Process would then distribute the Start Up Costs for the new entrant, that the Government should not be incurring in the first place, between the existing carrier and the new entrant. As such, the program, in its present form, is a cost-plus contract and fails the premises of the Uniform Rate Making Process and Entitlement System on which the Long Range International Contract is founded. The Multi-year contract further raises the barriers to entry to perform Combi Business. | Following review by USTRANSCOM and AMC stakeholders, the Government has determined the COMBI requirements will remain in the Charter Airlift Services in support of the CRAF contract for the FY17 Base Year only. For FY18, the Government intends to solicit the COMBI as a separate contract. The intent is to seek additional competition using separate terms and conditions for the COMBI category of service. |
| Option Extension | Solicitation | Part I- F Part II-I | F-1 a., Page 42; I-7, Page 70 | 6-Mar-16 | Further, the Option Notice period is impractical to apply in any other way than for the Government to exercise the Option. Based on everything that would need to happen well before the 60 day exercise period, the Government will have no Option but to exercise the extension. | FAR 52.217-9 (a), preliminary written notice of its intent to extend (fill-in) updated to state at least 120 days prior to contract expiration. |
| Demurrage | Solicitation | Part I-F | F-4, Page 43 | 6-Mar-16 | The Solicitation states "Demurrage charges are limited to delays in loading or unloading but exclude delays due to damage resulting from the negligence of Government personnel." This is an unfair provision for the carriers. Request language include demurrage payments for events caused by the negligence of Government Employees. Demurrage should also cover delays resulting from other causes besides loading and unloading such as negligence in the handling of cargo and hazmat. Contractors have recourse against commercial companies that cause aircraft out of service time because of their negligence. | In consultation with our legal staff, we've determined solicitation, para F-4 should not be revised. A contractor's remedy is to file a claim based on government negligence with the responsible local installation. Negligence claims are paid under a separate stautory authority and inserting TCAQ into a liability assessment process handled by Claims personnel at the local level would conflict with that process. |
| Entitlement | Solicitation | Part I-H | H-17(a), Page 56 | 30-Mar-16 | Added 30 Mar 16: Carrier phone calls and emails with TCAQ-CE, the carrier requested H-17(a) review to clarify the Expansion buying process when Entitlement is not the sole deciding factor | Para H-17(a) revised to read: The Government will award expansion requirements based on entitlement to the extent practicable and based on the interests of the Government using the following criteria. Monthly entitlement is the most important factor, but the Government may also consider timeliness of submission, type and weight capacity of aircraft offered, date of availability, location of offered aircraft in relation to the requirement’s origin and destination location, total cost of offer, contractor reliability and violation status. Expansion entitlement will be calculated in the same manner as entitlement for the fixed (Section M, paragraph M-4), peacetime airlift award and as described in paragraph H-17b. When two or more members of a Teaming Arrangement (TA) make acceptable offers for the same expansion requirement, the TA agent will determine which Contractor will perform the mission. |
| Entitlement | Solicitation | Part I-H | H-17(b), Page 56 | 6-Mar-16 | The solicitation removes the ability to make up an entitlement shortfall in a prior month in the subsequent month. We agree with the position that carriers that game the system in one month should not be able to "catch up" in the following month. However, sometimes USTC makes mistakes and sometimes there is not enough business at the right time to meet all carrier's entitlements. We suggest the following month or 60 day "make-up" rule be included, but modified to limit any such "make-up" to a reasonable percentage of the previous month's Expansion Business, such as 10%, or such greater amount of any errors in award out of entitlement made by USTC. We propose the following revision to the language. "The CO will attempt to make awards commensurate to every Contractor's entitlement each month. A limited amount of Expansion Entitlement not received in one month may be carried over to a future month in order to meet carrier or team entitlement percentage. This amount shall be limited to a maximum of 10% of the Expansion awards in each Category of business, or, in the event USTC makes an error in an award out of entitlement the reasonable amount of any such error. The Government is not obligated to ensure individual Contractors meet or exceed their entitlement." | Para H-17(b), last sentence starting with the word Expansion has been revised to read: At the complete discretion of the Contracting Officer, the Government may carry entitlement (in whole or part) forward one additional month where entitlement was lost due to unforeseen Government-caused circumstances. |
| Preference for US Flag Carriers, Fly America Act | Solicitation | Part II-I | I - I, FAR Clauses Incorporated by Reference 52.247-63, Page 67 | 6-Mar-16 | It has just become known that the Fly America Act applies to the CRAF Contract. It is not known how much of a financial impact compliance with this Act will have on the LR Int'l Contract and how compliance will complicate the performance of the mission. Compliance with FAR 117 has already made crew scheduling and crew movements much more complicated than in the past. The conditions under which Foreign Carriers can be utilized for crew movements are also complex. Since we are already two thirds of the way through the FY18 Base Period for Ratemaking and DCAA has said proof of compliance must be documented before a crewmember travels, we suggest USTC take the initiative to distribute to all carriers the applicable rules under which crew movements must occur to comply with the Act and satisfy DCAA of compliance. | CRAF carriers must comply with FAR 52.247-63 and the requirement to include the Statement of Unavailability of US-Flag Carriers when applicable. The Administrative Contracting Officers, in conjunction with Pricing Team will assess any DCAA Report Findings and discuss with Industry prior to making any final determinations on cost allowability and allocability. |
| Non-Premium War Risk Insurance Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Uninsured events | Solicitation | Part I - H Part II - I | H-5, Page 50; I-12; Page 77-79 | 6-Mar-16 | Carriers are uninsured for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) events outside of Centcom and Africom on USTC/AMC Flights. When offered, FAA premium war risk insurance provided for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) coverage. The commercial war risk coverage that carriers are now able to purchase specifically excludes WMD coverage. FAA Non-Premium War Risk Insurance covers WMD, but is currently only effective for Centcom and Africom. We believe US Military operations carry a higher risk than Commercial Operations. In our view, carriers should not be required to bear the risks of loss from a WMD event arising from flights operated for USTRANSCOM. The example event we have used is a "dirty bomb" event at Ramstein Air Base involving a commercial carrier aircraft. If the USTRANSCOM Commander, or his advisors, did not foresee such an event, a carrier could suffer significant losses due to such an uninsured event. The carriers, through A4A, Air Cargo Association and NACA, proposed for the WMD provision of the Non-Premium FAA war risk insurance to be extended to global coverage, but that proposal was rejected by USTC and the FAA. We believe our last proposal was quite reasonable and still believe it is not reasonable that carriers assume this uninsured risk. Further, if USTC believe any such risk to be non-existent or diminimous, any cost to be assigned to insure such risk would likewise be non-existent or diminimous. | This request was considered during the policy re-write that concluded Dec 2015. It is our understanding, FAA and DoD sent notices explaining why the request was not accepted; therefore, the current FAA non-premium insurance will be in effect during the contract period. |
| Insurance DBA coverage for vendors | Solicitation | Part II - I | I-2; Page 68 | 6-Mar-16 | The current Contract and Draft Solicitation require Contractors to provide DBA legally mandated coverage. US Law requires the Prime Contractor to provide for DBA Insurance coverage for all subcontractors. We consider ground handlers, caterers, fuel, etc. that service the aircraft to be vendors and as such do not provide for DBA coverage for those vendors. The Department of Labor has stated they consider the vendors that touch the aircraft to be subcontractors. Do the Contractors need to get a clarification from the DOL to determine if USTC funded coverage is required for their vendors? [Review FAR clause 52.228-4, Worker Comp and War Hazard Insurance overseas in conjunction with Exempted countries in the Section.] | Yes, contractors should get clarification from DOL on whether ground handlers, caterers, fuel providers, etc are categorized as Subcontractors or Vendors and require DBA coverage. |
| CAC Cards | Solicitation | Part II - I | I-9, page 82 | 6-Mar-16 | The process for obtaining and renewing CAC cards has become very lengthy. What can be done to improve the turnaround time once the necessary application has been submitted? | TCAQ briefed TCJ3-FP on industry's concerns on the CAC process. TCJ3-FP provided suggestions to help with the process such as make sure the CAC paperwork and fingerprint cards are completely and properly filled out, turn in expired CAC’s, and by regulation, ensure only one CAC can be issued to each person. Please continue to work with our ACOs to identify challenges to the CAC process. |
| Aircraft Commitment | Solicitation | Part IV - L | 7 b.; Page 113 | 6-Mar-16 | This clause states Contractors with both passenger and cargo operations must commit to both elements of CRAF. This is prejudicial. A carrier with both cargo and passenger operations should be able to commit to one or the other, but should not be required to commit to both to operate in one or the other. | To meet CRAF program requirements, we require contractors with passenger and cargo aircraft to commit aircraft to both the passenger and cargo elements of CRAF. |
| Small Business Subcontracting Plan | Solicitation | Part IV - L; Part IV - M | L - 8 b (13), Page 116; M - I (e), Page 120 | 6-Mar-16 | USTC is evaluating whether consolidated Subcontracting Plans for Teams meets the intent of the regulation? | A Teaming Arrangement can only have one subcontracting plan; therefore, a team can only submit one plan which is inclusive of the team's approach to compliance with FAR Part 19. Individual team member's plan cannot be referenced as attachments. The USTRANSCOM Small Business Office can assist with questions regarding Individual Team member plans and can provide an template for consideration. |
| Cyber - NIST | Solicitation | Part IV - L | 9, (b) (17) Page 116; PWS A3.16.1 & Attachment 14 | 6-Mar-16 | Please confirm our research is correct. The FY16 PWS Section A3.16.1 refers to NIST 800-53 which is for Federal Agency compliance with NIST requirements. The FY16 Contract incorporates by reference DFAR 252.204-7012. The DFAR makes Solicitations issued before the effectivity date of NIST 800-171 applicable to the new regulation. The FY16 Solicitation was issued in May 2015 and NIST 800-171 became effective in June 2015, therefore, NIST 800-171 does not apply. The FY17 Draft PWS needs to refer to NIST Special Publication 800-171 instead of 800-53. For compliance with NIST 800-171: 1) Please confirm the only information that is transited to carriers is the information contained in the Form 59s that are sent for each mission; 2) We still require confirmation from the DOD regarding their statement that once CUI is disaggregated from the original sensitive mission order, in order to proceed with the normal working processes of our industry, it is no longer considered; CUI 3) Please confirm the FORM 59 information can be provided in WORD or EXCEL format vs PDF format so disaggregation can be done electronically. | In reference to the FY16 contract, the contract incorporated DFARS 252.204-7012 dated Oct 2015; therefore the DFARS, PGI 204.73 applied and cited to NIST 800.53. In reference to the FY17/18 solicitation, DFARS 252.204-7012 dated Dec 2015 and DFARS PGI 204.73 (revised 30 Dec 2015) will apply and it cites to NIST 800.171. All information transmitted to the contractor in performance of the contract is defined as Covered Defense Information and should be safeguarded in accordance with DFARS 252.204-7012. Form 59 information will only be provided in Adobe .pdf format. |
| MVP Bricklaying | Solicitation | Part IV - M | 4 c. (1) (i) (ii) (iii), Page 125 | 6-Mar-16 | This revision to the methodology does not seem to provide USTC with the most capable aircraft to have at its disposal in the respective Stages of CRAF. We believe the previous prorate methodology would assign more capable aircraft to the CRAF, especially in the earlier Stages and should be re-implemented. | Following review by USTRANSCOM and AMC stakeholders, the Government has determined a Proportional methodology does not assign aircraft to the applicable Stages in a manner that spreads activation risk across all carriers. |
| MVP Stage Ratio | Solicitation | Part IV - M | 4 d. (2) & (3), Page 127 | 6-Mar-16 | Even the revised 4:1.5:0 Stage Ratio does not give appropriate credit to carriers for Stage III participation. The argument that large carriers are sufficiently incentivized through other forms of Government business than the Long Range International contract does not apply to all carriers. | Following review by USTRANSCOM and AMC stakeholders, the Government has determined the best option for the CRAF stage weightings are Stage I (4), Stage II (1.5), and Stage III (0) |
| MVP Combi Flyer Bonus | Solicitation | Part IV - M | 4 (d) 5. (ii).; Page 127 | 6-Mar-16 | In our opinion, the Combi segment should not even be part of the Long Range International Contract. The segment has a single operator and is procured through a rule set in the Solicitation that blocks economic competitive entry. As such, the program, in its present form, is a cost-plus contract and fails the premises of the Uniform Rate Making Process and Entitlement System on which the Long Range International Contract is founded. The multi-year Period of Performance exacerbated this issue. | Following review by USTRANSCOM and AMC stakeholders, the Government has determined the COMBI requirements will remain in the Charter Airlift Services in support of the CRAF contract for the FY17 Base Year only. For FY18, the Government intends to solicit the COMBI as a separate contract. The intent is to seek additional competition using separate terms and conditions for the COMBI category of service. |
| Calibrated Scales | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.2.7.2. | 6-Mar-16 | IBA weight not in either referenced guidance. | The Term "Individual Body Amour (IBA): 40 pounds", in PWS 1.1.2.7.2. and 6.6 has been removed. TCJ5/4 and AMC/A4 working with Service POC to determine the authorative source for IBA. Once received the DTR will be changed. |
| Actual Weights | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.2.7.3. | 6-Mar-16 | This section only references DTR Part III. This section of the DTR is only applicable for Mobility operations and section 1.1.2.... seems to be more applicable to routine passenger operations. Please provide guidance from DTR Part I. See suggested language changes in Addendum 1 | PWS, para 1.1.2.7.3 revised to delete specific DTR chapter reference since the DTR is continuously updated. |
| Baggage Bins | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.3.1 | 6-Mar-16 | The Draft Solicitation request carriers operating Channel Flights provide a second set of passenger baggage containers. See suggested language changes in Addendum 1. | Per discussions with AMC/A4TP Passenger Policy, the carrier's suggested PWS language will not be incroporated. |
| Food and Water Sources | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.4.5 | 6-Mar-16 | All On-base Food and Water vendors should be approved to provide Food and Water to US Military personnel. See suggested language changes in Addendum 1. | PWS, para 1.1.4.5 revised to add authorization to use on-base food and water retail sources that receive acceptable inspections in accordance with TB MED 530, Tri-Service Food Code, conducted by the installation medical authority. |
| Pets | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.2.2 | 6-Mar-16 | Commercial practice is to use zip-ties to secure pet containers and pet containers are indeed zip-tied at BWI on Channel Flights. We request the language be amended to require AMC baggage handlers or passengers use zip-ties to close the pet containers to prevent pets from escaping and that carriers be FAA approved. See suggested language changes in Addendum 1. | Per discussions with AMC/A4TP, Passenger Policy, the PWS will not mandate the use of zip-ties; however, the carriers can recommend the use of zip-ties to passengers to prevent a pet from escaping during flight or on the ground. |
| Pets | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.2.2 | 6-Mar-16 | Commercial carriers will generally not transport pet containers exceeding 48LX32WX35H. In event of diversions, some passengers have been significantly inconvenienced because their pet containers could not be transported on commercial flights. We request added language stating that the size of pet containers should also not exceed 48Lx32Wx35H; or, the carriers should be absolved of any responsibility to commercial any carriers greater than that size. See suggested language changes in Addendum 1. | Per discussions with AMC/A4TP, Passenger Policy, the suggested change for pet carrier dimensions will not be incorporated. The current language specifies a pet weight and container limit of 150 lbs, but will not specify a pet container size limit. Per discussions with AMC/A4TP, Passenger Policy, the Government enables the passengers to determine the appropriate kennel size to ensure it is large enough for a pet to stand, turn, sit and lie down in a natural position. We do not believe this to be a systemic problem; however, if the carriers incur situations with pets not being able to be transported due to a pet container size limitation, they should work with their Contracting Officer to report those occurrences. |
| Cargo Missions on-loading | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.3.3 | 6-Mar-16 | For special cargo loads, request that a required timeframe be added for the Military to provide the carrier with its cargo selection after the carrier has provided the AMC traffic representative with the adjusted pallet positions available. The standard practice for wide body cargo has been the Military provides the cargo selection to the carrier ten hours before scheduled departure time and the carrier provides the load sequence back to the Military by eight hours before scheduled departure time. See suggested language changes in Addendum 1. | PWS para 1.3.3, Cargo Missions On-loading revised. |
| Fuel on-load | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.3.8 | 6-Mar-16 | This section states that the carrier shall request “actual” fuel load when the carrier provides cargo sequence back to AMC. For a wide body this is eight hours before STD. Carriers would not have the actual fuel load at that time. See suggested language change in Addendum 1. | PWS, para 1.3.8, (Fuel-on load) revised. |
| Special Cargo (Signature Service) | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.3.13 | 6-Mar-16 | This section does not reference the Parent Guidance for Signature Service. See suggested language change in Addendum 1. | PWS, para 1.3.13, Special Cargo (Signature Service) revised to add reference. |
| Transporting HAZMAT | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.3.14 | 6-Mar-16 | The DOT exemption allowing US Carriers to carry Hazardous material in accordance with Air Force Manual 24-204(I) is not recognized by all foreign entities. In locations where the exemption is not recognized, commercial carrier are required to carry Hazardous material in accordance with IATA, DOT and FAA regulations. See suggested language change in Addendum 1. | The proposed language in Addendum 1 would apply constraints negating DOD's ability to adequately supply/resupply the warfighter. Mandating certification in accordance with IATA, ICAO, DOT, and and FAA would impact the DOD's transport capabilities. If carriers continue to experience foreign countries not recognizing the DOD's AFMAN 24-204 procedures, the carriers should identify those issues to the NDTA-MAAC Safety and Security committe. Secondly, the NDTA-MAAC Safety and Security Team may be able to work with the Foreign Clerance Guide office to reach out to Embassy officials to mitigate challenges. |
| Hazardous Cargo | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | New Section 1.3.15 (renumber balance of Sections) | 6-Mar-16 | The Government is responsible for the proper packaging of all materials being shipped so should be responsible in the event of any leak or spill. We suggest the addition of a new section "CARGO SPILLS AND LEAKS: If there is a leak of the cargo or if the cargo spills, the Government is responsible for the cleanup of the aircraft and equipment. The contractor will provide the CO with invoices of the costs associated with the cleanup. If a spill or leak event delays the aircraft, the Demurrage provisions shall apply. " | Added PWS, para 1.3.15, HAZARDOUS CARGO : If the DoD manifested cargo leaks or spills while on the aircraft, qualified government personnel, if available, will assist the carrier in cleanup of the aircraft and equipment as required. The Demurrage paragraph F-4 will not apply. Contractors have remedies to file TORT claims for negligence of Government personnel. Note: Remaining paragraphs renumbered. |
| Hand Signals | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.3.19 | 6-Mar-16 | The instructions to request a copy of the required Operating Instructions should be updated. XXXXX called the referenced telephone number and received an email back indicating we would need to make a request through the Public Sales Office in order to get a copy of this Technical Order. The Public Sales Office replied back stating we need to complete a form and purchase the manual. |
Text from Public Sales Office email:
"I am with the Public Sales office. If you wish to purchase data, please submit a request, along with your DD Form 2345, to our office email address (provided below). I have also attached our guidelines on submitting a request.
robinspublicsales@us.af.mil
Kimberly Nitz Technical Data Specialist
AFLCMC/LZPEF
| 478-222-3001" Then when XXXX called to purchase the manual, the Public Sales Office told him they could not sell it to him and he had to get a copy from his Contracting Officer. See suggested language in Addendum 1. | PWS, para 1.3.20 (previously 1.3.19) revision to add sentence: In the event that carriers cannot access a copy of the Techncial Order (TO), contact the ACO for assistance. | ||||||
| Cargo Discrepancies | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.4, Major, 3. Performance Threshold - Provide Aircraft lighting | 6-Mar-16 | Under the Performance Threshold, the current language "Sufficient to illuminate potential floor tripping hazards, overhead clearance, and cargo loading doors" is very subjective. Since carriers must adhere to Federal regulations the standard should be that the lighting meets FAA guidance. | See PWS, para 1.3.16 (previously 1.3.15), Aircraft Lighting, revision to add the words "IAW FAA requirements". | |
| Reliability | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1 | 6-Mar-16 | XXXX favors the Three vs. Four month measurement period. The four month measurement period does provide for a greater number of missions which in all likelihood provides for a broader sample in the measurement as was intended with the change. However, in retrospect, on the downside, if a carrier has a bad performance month, it stays in the measurement period for a longer duration and could leave the carrier in the penalty box when the performance has been corrected. If the Performance Measurement system changes to Primary Delay Performance Measurement, the number of segments vs missions as a denominator will increase significantly providing for a much greater measurement sample size. See suggested language change to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 in Addendum 1. | Reliability/Acceptability will be revised to a 3-month rollling average, but will continue with performance measured based on arrival times versus departure times. Secondly, the minimum acceptable standards of performance will remain at 20 or more passenger missions and 15 or more cargo missions. | |
| Reliability | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1 | 6-Mar-16 | XXXXX proposes that the contract metric be changed to a Primary Delay Reliability Standard as explained in our response to the Market Research Questionnaire and its further correspondence with USTC. Text of those messages are included in the Word Document before the suggested revisions to Sections 2.6 and 2.7. See suggested language change to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 in Addendum 1. | Reliability/Acceptability will be revised to a 3-month rollling average, but will continue with performance measured based on arrival times versus departure times. Secondly, the minimum acceptable standards of performance will remain at 20 or more passenger missions and 15 or more cargo missions. | |
| Reliability | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1.3 | 6-Mar-16 | As detailed in our response to the Market Research Questionnaire, there was a provision deleted without notice in FY15 (FY13/14 PWS 2.6.1.4) that provided if a carrier had no additional primary delay on a return mission that followed a primary delay on the outbound mission there would be no additional delay charged on the return mission. The inclusion of this provision followed significant discussions between the carriers and USTC. It's inclusion in the first place was based on the fact that carriers cannot control when a dispatch failure may occur, therefore a carrier should not be penalized at twice the effect if a failure occurs on an outbound flight vs. an inbound flight because when the failure occurs it is not carrier controllable. This provision was included for that reason, but the present measurement system, even with the omitted provision put back in, only goes part way towards addressing proper measurement of what is carrier controllable. Notwithstanding the removal of this provision, delays are currently adjudicated based on the understanding that if no additional delay is incurred on the next AMC mission, no further delay will be assessed. We suggest this provision be modified to reflect the current practice of adjudicating delays. See suggested language change to Sections 2.6 and 2.7 in Addendum 1. | PWS, para 2.6.1.3.1 revised to include round trips and one-way trips that operate similar to a round trip. | |
| General Information | Atch 1 - PWS | 3 | 3 | 6-Mar-16 | See added language in Addendum 1. | PWS, Section 3, para 3, 2nd sentence revised to add the words "are in place" | |
| Domestic Transport | Atch 1 - PWS | 6 | 6.1 | 6-Mar-16 | We request that this paragraph be more specific as there is no way to know which military directives are applicable. Please provide the specific applicable reference so that each carrier doesn't have to do their own extensive research. | No change - the Government will not include a list of all military directives that are applicable. If a contractor has questions during planning or execution, the contractor should seek local installation guidance from the Command Post, Base Operations, Airfield Manager, etc. | |
| Patriot Express | Atch 1 - PWS | 7 | 7 | 6-Mar-16 | It is our understanding that the new baggage facility in Terminal D at BWI will be insufficient to build up the baggage containers. Request language be added that addresses continued construction and alternative operating plans. [This is also an issue presently in FY16. Perhaps this should be addressed at the Host Carrier meeting on 3/15 as well.] | No change - construction language will not be added to the PWS. | |
| Aircraft standards - medium cargo | Solicitation | Section B | Part I | 4-Mar-16 | Cat B Cargo, Medium aircraft defined as 45-61 tons. FY16 Uniform Rates and Rules, section B, Aircraft standards defines Medium cargo aircraft as 45-51 tons. Specific to the 767-300, will this aircraft now be defined as medium cargo vs large cargo? | No change - the solicitation section B-1 is correct; 45-61 tons is considered a medium aircraft. The FY16 Uniform Rates and Rules, Section B, Aircraft Standards, incorrectly defines a B767-300F as a large aircraft--it should be defined as a medium aircraft. This will be corrected in FY17 Uniform Rates and Rules. | |
| MVP Flyer Bonus | Solicitation | M | M-4 d.(5)(ii) | 4-Mar-16 | Request removal of flyer bonus incentive as it has outlived its usefulness and under the new MVP rules/structure serves to award entitlement value(s), which in some cases more than doubles a carriers base value of WBE capability. The basis of business awards dates back to the 1960 Reed Committee Report, which recommended business, is awarded based on a carriers contribution to CRAF, modernization plans and financial status, and was the probable trigger for the MV point system instituted in 1962. Having a bonus environment that controls +27% of the total business is excessive especially given that war plans are based on WBEs. Therefore business entitlement should be in line with a carrier's level of contribution/risk and not reduced by another’s level of performance in a previous contract year. | Following review by USTRANSCOM and AMC stakeholders, the Government has determined the Flyer-Bonus incentive will remain in the FY17/18 contract. | |
| COMBI | Solicitation | M | M-4 d.(5)(ii) | 4-Mar-16 | Request Combi requirements be solicited separately and removed from the FY17 Charter Airlift Services Contract as Combi is a hybrid of sorts and does not meet the entitlement nor uniform rate tests, and therefore results in a cost plus contract. Additionally, the issuance of flyer bonus for uncontested Combi business/missions compounds the imbalance of entitlement awards by skewing the MVP/entitlement pool and unfairly advantaging a carrier. If Teams did not exist, every carrier (except the beneficiary) would be contesting Combi flyer bonus. Soliciting separately would likely result in more flexibility, which would incent/enable others to offer/compete in the business, which would ultimately be in DoD's best interests. | Following review by USTRANSCOM and AMC stakeholders, the Government has determined the COMBI requirements will remain in the Charter Airlift Services in support of the CRAF contract for the FY17 Base Year only. For FY18, the Government intends to solicit the COMBI as a separate contract. The intent is to seek additional competition using separate terms and conditions for the COMBI category of service. | |
| MVP Bricklaying Process | Solicitation | M | M-4 (c.)(1)(i)(ii)(iii) | 4-Mar-16 | Reinstate pro-rata considerations for stage allocations in lieu of bricklaying. With Stage III offering zero value, bricklaying provides an unfair advantage to smaller fleet carriers as most if not all of smaller fleet carrier assets are assigned to a stage that provides value. The bricklaying takes away the ability for all carriers to fairly offset CRAF risks proportionate to contribution. Additionally, bricklaying prevents USTC from realizing maximum benefit when selecting the most capable aircraft for assignment. | Following review by USTRANSCOM and AMC stakeholders, the Government has determined a Proportional methodology does not assign aircraft to the applicable Stages in a manner that spreads activation risk across all carriers. | |
| MVP Stage | Solicitation | M | M-4 d.(2)(3)(4) | 4-Mar-16 | Request USTC offer value to Stage III aircraft. Any aircraft offered and accepted to the CRAF should receive a value for its part in meeting wartime capability planning and the risks associated with CRAF participation. The assets of the three large legacy carriers make up 100% of Stage III passenger with zero value in return. Reinstituting pro-rata into the allocation process will result in all passenger carriers having aircraft assigned to the three stages of CRAF. Recommend 4/2/1 multiplier be implemented. | Following review by USTRANSCOM and AMC stakeholders, the Government has determined the best option for the CRAF stage weightings are Stage I (4), Stage II (1.5), and Stage III (0) | |
| Option Extension | Solicitation | M | I-7 (a) | 4-Mar-16 | Request USTC consider extending the notice period to exercise the contract's option year. Timeline should closely reflect the normal solicitation cycle. Recommend 120 days. | FAR 52.217-9 (a), preliminary written notice of its intent to extend (fill-in) updated to state at least 120 days prior to contract expiration. | |
| COMBI | Solicitation | B-3 | h. (3) | 4-Mar-16 | Does the removal of Combi Services imply that Combi will not be in the contract? | Following review by USTRANSCOM and AMC stakeholders, the Government has determined the COMBI requirements will remain in the Charter Airlift Services in support of the CRAF contract for the FY17 Base Year only. For FY18, the Government intends to solicit the COMBI as a separate contract. The intent is to seek additional competition using separate terms and conditions for the COMBI category of service. | |
| MVP after RFP closing | Solicitation | L-9 | (c)(3) | 4-Mar-16 | Would consideration be given to new entrants receiving MVP for Stage I only if they join post RFP closing? | No change - Solicitation, para L-9(c)(3) will not be revised. New entrants joining the CRAF after the RFP close date will not earn MV points. | |
| Legacy vs Modern | Solicitation | M-4 | d. (5)(ii) | 4-Mar-16 | "Legacy" previously applied to non-modern aircraft. Consider using "Modern" aircraft will receive MV flyer bonus. | M-4(d)(5)(ii) will be revised to denote only modern aircraft will receive a flyer-bonus. | |
| Reduced GACL | PWS | Att 1 | 1.1.3.1 | 4-Mar-16 | Will containers be required if GACL is reduced? Will all stations have working K-loaders? | 1. GACL will be reduced by 600 pound when a full complement of containers on the plane. 2. All stations have onload and offload capability | |
| Round Trip Missions | PWS | Att 1 | 2.6.1.3.1 | 4-Mar-16 | Would like for the language found in 2.6.1.3.1 regarding mission groups to be incorporated into a paragraph describing the same for round-trip missions as well as back-to-back one way missions. | PWS, para 2.6.1.3.1 revised to include round trips and one-way trips that operate similar to a round trip. | |
| Cyber - NIST | Solicitation | Part IV - L | 9, (b) (17) Page 116; PWS A3.16.1 & Attachment 14 | 6-Mar-16 | Unanswered Questions from line #24 |
For compliance with NIST 800-171:
1) Please confirm the only information that is transited to carriers is the information contained in the Form 59s that are sent for each mission;
2) We still require confirmation from the DOD regarding their statement that once CUI is disaggregated from the original sensitive mission order, in order to proceed with the normal working processes of our industry, it is no longer considered; CUI
| 3) Please confirm the FORM 59 information can be provided in WORD or EXCEL format vs PDF format so disaggregation can be done electronically. | In reference to the FY16 contract, the contract incorporated DFARS 252.204-7012 dated Oct 2015; therefore the DFARS, PGI 204.73 applied and cited to NIST 800.53. In reference to the FY17/18 solicitation, DFARS 252.204-7012 dated Dec 2015 and DFARS PGI 204.73 (revised 30 Dec 2015) will apply and it cites to NIST 800.171. All information transmitted to the contractor in performance of the contract is defined as Covered Defense Information and should be safeguarded in accordance with DFARS 252.204-7012. Form 59 information will only be provided in Adobe .pdf format. | ||||||
| In-flight Entertainment | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.3.5 | "A sufficient quantity of movies.." What constitutes "sufficient"? Also define how you are going to determine the release dates. | Sufficient is interpreted to mean a large enough selection so that a passenger riding all segments of a trip will not be shown the same move twice. Selection can repeat at round trip turn-around stations. Release date in this instance refers to original box office release. Upon further consideration of release dates PWS, para 1.1.3.5 revised to read: The contractor shall provide audio and video entertainment system to include complimentary headsets. A sufficient quantity of movies released within the last three years and audio will be made available to passengers throughout each flight segment. | ||
| Buying/Selling Points | Solicitation | Sections K, L, and M | Section K, Notice of Use, Notice of Transfer, Section L-10(e)(4), Section L-11(d) | 23-Mar-16 | A carrier called and asked if it was acceptable to pay a seller more than 5% (not to exceed the amount paid into the pool). | The Government's position is that the 5% cap only applies to the money paid into the pool, not what is paid to a Team Member or Seller from the pool. The following sections will be revised clarify this position: Notice of Use, para 3, Notice of Transfer, para 4 deletion, and L-11(d). | |
| Proposals | Solicitation | L-9 | (a)(1) | 28-Mar-16 | I am assuming only one (1) original copy is required to be sent to TRANSCOM per carrier, correct? | Per L-9(a)(2), proposal responses should include an original hardcopy and one electronic copy. |
&CHTC711-16-R-C001
Solicitation Questions and Answers&R&D / &T &CPage &P of &N&RF
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .