TASC_Q-A_27_Oct_16.pdf

Number Document Reference Question Response

28 RFP

Section: Solicitation, Pages: 3-23, Paragraph: CLIN Structure

All pricing sheets

In the absence of a guaranteed monthly standing fee per aircraft in the pricing CLIN structure there must be a guaranteed minimum number of flight hours, blade hours, miles flown or pound flown specified over the contract pricing period in order to reasonably calculate a price per unit.

Will the government please provide a minimum number of flight hours, blade hours, miles flown and pounds flown for each contract period requested?

Basing is the monthly fee per aircraft.

UPDATED RESPONSE: The Government will guarantee 50 hours per month per airframe supporting other than CASEVAC.

No minimum for CASEVAC.

IDIQ Price

Table Per Flight Hour / Per Blade Hour pricing sheets

1) Are the hours reflected on the Flight/Blade Hour Ops sheets representative of minimum monthly guaranteed billable flight hours?

2) If the IDIQ Flight/Blade Hours cited on the respective sheets are not guaranteed minimum monthly hours, is the USG going to provide any guarantees of minimum Flight/Blade Hours, Miles Flown, or Cargo Weight transported on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis, when IDIQ Task Orders are competed?

The Flight Hours and Blade Hours are the estimated monthly quantity. Task orders will identify the estimated number of hours anticipated for that particular requirement. There are no minimum hours.

UPDATED RESPONSE: The Government will guarantee 50 hours per month per airframe supporting other than CASEVAC.

No minimum for CASEVAC.

56 CA PWS

Section: 1.3.5 Page: 14 Paragraph:

1.3.5.3 Section: 1.3.5 Page: 14 Paragraph:

1.3.5.5 Section: 1.3.5 Page: 14 Paragraph:

1.3.5.6

"1) the Commission of Accreditation for Medical Transport (CAMTS), or 2) the National Accreditation Alliance of Medical Transport Applications (NAAMTA)" "Physician Assistant personnel shall be certified by the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants (NCCPA)" "Nursing Personnel shall be a licensed Registered Nurse"

1) Can a CAA-accredited (non-US) and registered Air Ambulance providers meeting comparable or more stringent 3rd nation air ambulance accreditations be considered as compliant providers of the CASEVAC [MEDEVAC] services?

2) Can the medical staff be comparably credentialed by reputable 3rd nation medical accreditation firms in lieu of the cited US entities?

The requirement for medical personnel to be provided in the Central Africa Task Order has been removed.

61 CA TO Task Order 1 sheet

1) Are the hours reflected on CLINS X002 and X003 representative of guaranteed annual minimum billable flight/blade hours for this task order?

2) If the X002 and X003 hours on the cited sheet are not guaranteed annual minimums, what are the guaranteed annual minimums for this task order by platform type?

1) hours are estimated hours per month

2) there are no guaranteed minimum flight hours.

UPDATED REPSONSE: The Government will guarantee 50 hours per month per airframe supporting other than CASEVAC.

No minimum for CASEVAC.

64 TASC PWS

IDIQ PWS

Section 4.3;

Page 30, Para 4.3.1.2.1

Please specify the defined process for obtaining NACI equivalent background investigations in order to enable NIPR access and CACs for NATO country foreign nationals.

Please clarify if the Nation STATE sponsored criminal background check (such as the NEW Scotland Yard for Brits), fingerprints, and a letter requesting pseudo SSN submitted to USTRANSCOM suffice for the processing the NACI equivalent backgrounds.

The process will depend on the country.

68 CA TO PWS

Section: IDIQ/Task Order;

Page 18; Para. 1.3.7.2.8

Please clarify if the current incumbent is currently using RAMCC for clearances or are performing on a commercial basis.

Not familiar with "RAMCC" therefore cannot respond.

74 TASC PWS

Attachment 5 Task Order PWS Section 1.3.6;

Page 16; Para. 1.3.6.2

1.3.6.2. The Contractor shall have the necessary FAA approved training program and operational standards, FAA Operations Specifications, or equivalent, to perform air drop services.

Please specify how this applies to a DoD Approved Foreign Flag carrier.

Foreign Flag carriers can perform if approved by CARB

90 RFP General

The instructions for completing the pricing tables are not in sufficient detail to make sure Offerors understand what costs should go to what CLIN lines or sections.

QUESTION: Will the USG add an attachment that details what is required to be included in each CLIN line?

Instructions have been revised.

CA TO PWS

(Amend 1) para 1.2.1.3 para 1.2.1.3 requires contractor personnel to attend specific briefings but goes on to say “If required in the Task Order.” Question: as this is the Task Order PWS, please advise whether this is a requirement or not

PWS revised. The contractor shall attend all required meetings as directed by the tasking authority, such as Air tasking order briefs.

CA TO PWS

(Amend 1) para 1.3.5.10 and 1.3.5.11.2 “air transport services shall be capable of operating from remote locations…………………” Question: what is the maximum duration the contractor will be required to operate from other than main base locations?

15 days

CA TO PWS

(Amend 1) para 3.4 “ the government may provide a basic load of controlled narcotics for use during CASEVAC.” Question: Can the USG confirm if these will be supplied for this Task Order and if yes the types and amounts?

Removed

IDIQ PWS

(Amend 1) para 1.4

Task Order PWS para 1.2.1.6 page 4 of 28 states “when required, provide all support personnel necessary to complete assigned missions or support other operations in a stand-alone capacity. Please confirm that the Task Order PWS does not require any IDIQ defined “1.4 Task Area 3 “Ground Support Services,” such as Flight Risk Analysis, Weather Forecasting, Airlift Ground Handling Services, or Air Planning Services and are assumed to be provided by the USG?

Task Area 3 is for dedicated personnel to provide these services but does not replace incidental support for loading or unloading passengers and cargo. There is no requirement for dedicated Ground Support Services under this task order.

105 RFP Past Performance References

The IDIQ encompasses a wide array of services likely to require teammates. If a company plans to potentially utilize teammates for key services, will the government accept additional past performances so as to include teammate past performance information?

The RFP was revised via Amendment 2 to allow for additional past performance references.

106 RFP General

Does the Government intend for this solicitation to be “commercial” in accordance with the Definition in FAR Part 2.1 and FAR Part 12? This draft solicitation does not appear to meet the requirements of 41 USC 2310, Performance Based Contracts, or FAR 12.207(a). Specifically, our understanding is that if the task orders exceed $25M then FAR 12.207 and FAR Part 16.301-3 prohibits the use of a Cost Reimbursement contract for commercial items (services). We recommend a solicitation adjustment IAW a FAR Part 15 solicitation with CAS coverage to resolve this potential conflict.

FAR Part 15 applies

107 IDIQ PWS Paragraph 1.3.7.1. and 1.3.7.5.2.

para 1.3.7.1 requires NVG on all aircraft for approximately 20% of missions. Para

1.3.7.5.2 states in regard to NVG usage: “Upon approval by the FAA and the CO, the Contractor shall obtain the capability to fly at night with the use of NVGs as specified in the Task Order.”

QUESTION: To expand the options for qualified aircraft operators to perform missions, will the government revise 1.3.7.5.2 to state “Upon approval of the FAAor other Civil Aviation Authority and the CO….” ?

Yes. PWS has been revised.

108 IDIQ PWS

para 4.2, page 30, Facilities Clearance

IDIQ PWS, Facilities Clearance, requires all air carriers to have a valid Secret FCL. The CA Task Order PWS para 4.2 page 13 of 28 states “Each task order will specify if any subcontracted air carriers also require a FCL.”

Question: Will the USG remove the requirement that subcontracted air carriers must have a valid FCL at Secret level, from the IDIQ and address clearances at the TO level?

This requirement cannot be removed from the IDIQ as it could result in no carrier being able to perform at the Task Order level. It is expected that aircrew and site leads, whether the prime or sub-contractor, will require a SECRET clearance. This will give them access to the buildings/briefings/systems. However, certain requirements may not require a clearance.

109 RFP

Solicitation Document HTC711-16-R- R023, page 50, item C. (1):

“Each hard copy version of the proposal shall be separately bound in a three-ring loose leaf binder, with tabs or dividers for each volume (listed below). Each binder shall include a cover page including offeror name, volume number and title, solicitation number, and be marked as IDIQ or Task Order and identified as the original or copy.

The same information shall be placed on the spine of each binder to facilitate rapid accountability when placed on a shelf in a vertical position.”

Question: Could you please clarify whether you want all volumes for each proposal (i.e., 5 volumes for the IDIQ, and 2 volumes for the TO) in a single binder, or whether you want an individual binder for each volume of each proposal?

Preferably separate, but either approach is acceptable

110 RFP

Section: 52.212-1, Page: 56, Para:

(h)

The revision to 52.212-1 paragraph (h) on page 56 of 78 states the "government intends to award four (4) IDIQ contracts as a result of this solicitation," and "the government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered." Since this paragraph only specifically addresses the IDIQ contract awards and the solicitation incorporates FAR 52.216-27 by reference on page 45 of 78, will the government clarify whether it will or will not consider making multiple awards on the Central Africa task order?"

There is no intent to make a multiple award on the Central Africa Task Order.

111 RFP

Section: Attachment 3 - IDIQ Price Table, IDIQ Flight Hours

The hours stated in the “Estimated Total Monthly Quantity” Column for the Light, Medium Fixed Wing Aircraft are unusually high for aircraft operating in an austere, expeditionary environment due to the more stringent maintenance requirements necessitated by harsh environmental conditions. Currently, the hours stated per aircraft appear to suggest an offeror consider a two (2) aircraft to make one (1) aircraft pricing scheme based on maintenance availability of increased cycles and Part 135 maintenance requirements. Additionally, most current USTRANSCOM contracts based in austere, expeditionary environments call for FW flight hours around 150 hours or less per tail, per month. (A) Does the government intend for offerors to bid the price of two (2) aircraft for a one (1) aircraft requirement due to the number of hours stated in the pricing matrix? (B) Will the government consider lowering the per aircraft hours to a reasonable amount for a single aircraft based on existing USTC contracts?

1) It is up to the Offeror as to how it chooses to bid the requirement.

2) The hours listed (200) allows for flexibility to surge. Task Orders will specify the actual number of hours expected to be flown.

112 RFP

Section: Attachment 3 - IDIQ Price Table, IDIQ Ground Support

Life support requirements at various locations in Africa and Military Installations that support operations in Africa differ drastically and in austere, expeditionary environments cost savings can only be realized through economies of scale. (A) Does the government intend to provide accommodations (living quarters), meals, transportation (when required) for the Ground Support Team Personnel? (B) If no, will the government please clarify possible locations in order for offerors to price life support into their bid?

The Offeror will be responsible for provided life support. Specific locations cannot be provided at this time, but for pricing purposes, assume the Ground Support Team will be located at a commercial airport in an urban area.

113 RFP

Section: 52.212-1 Addendum, 52.212-2 Evaluation, Page: 55, 62 Para: (b)(3)(E)(2)(b), (c)(2)(A)(ii)

The paragraph referenced states “The Government desires an operational date of on or about 1 January 2017 for the Task Order. Operational date is defined as the date all aircraft, personnel, and other necessary resources are in place and prepared to fly missions in support of this task order. Offerors proposing aircraft operational dates closer to the desired operational date will be more favored.” 48 CFR 15.101-1 states that the relative importance of each evaluation factor and significant subfactors must be clearly stated in the solicitation. What is the relative importance of the government’s desire for “an operational date of on or about 1 January 2017”?

Operational Date is a Technical Capability Subfactor. 52.212-2 (a) (6) states: Relative Order of Importance: Basic Eligibility will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

Past Performance is significantly more important than Technical Capability, and when combined, non-price factors are significantly more important than Price.

This order of importance is applicable to both the IDIQ and the Task Order.

114 RFP

Section: 52.212-1 Addendum, Page:

52, Para: (b)(3)(D)(2)(a)

The paragraph referenced required the offeror's IDIQ Volume II (technical approach) proposal to be limited to ten (10) pages; to include the Attachment (2) - IDIQ Aircraft Identification Table, personnel experience and qualifications descriptions. (A) Will the government allow the offeror to include Attachment (2) - IDIQ Aircraft Identification Table as an attachment that does not count against the 10-page limit in order to afford offerors the maximum opportunity to articulate its understanding of the requirement and how their proposed approach clearly meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the PWS? (B) Will the government allow the offeror to include the personnel experience and qualifications descriptions as an attachment for the same reasons stated?

These documents are to be included in the page limits specified. Page limits were increased per Amendment 2.

115 RFP

Section: 52.212-1 Addendum, Page:

54, 55, Para: (b)(3)(E)(2), sub para (a), (b)

The paragraphs referenced require the offeror's CA TO Volume II (technical capability) proposal to be limited to ten (10) pages; to include the Attachment (6) - CA Aircraft Identification Table, personnel matrix, contingency evacuation plan, and a pre-deployment plan which details all actions and milestones in paragraph format in chronological order. (A) Will the government allow the offeror to include Attachment

(6) - CA Aircraft Identification Table as attachment that does not count against the 10-page limit in order to afford offerors the maximum opportunity to articulate its understanding of the requirement and how their proposed approach clearly meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the PWS? (B) Will the government allow the offeror to include the personnel matrix, contingency evacuation plan, and narrative pre-deployment plan as attachments for the same reasons stated?

These documents are to be included in the page limits specified. Page limits were increased per Amendment 2.

116 CA TO PWS

Section: CA TO PWS, Page: 13, 14, Para: 1.3.5.1, 1.3.5.4, 1.3.5.5, 1.3.5.6

The task order PWS states "CASEVAC services are defined as movement of a patient, who may not be stabilized, from point of injury (POI) to a location where appropriate care can be rendered, or to a point of extraction (POE) suitable for fixed-wing/rotor-wing airlift support". PWS paragraph 1.3.5.4 states that the medicals attendants shall consist of one physician assistant (PA) and one registered nurse (RN) "unless otherwise agreed to by the Government". 1.3.5.5 enumerates the experience and credential requirements for the PA that are largely oriented towards a hospital setting (critical care air transport education and experience are preferable but not required). 1.3.5.6 enumerates the experience and credential requirements for the RN that include ICU experience and certifications in BLS and ACLS. There is no requirement for trauma care experience or certification, such as Prehospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS), nor is there any consideration of the challenges posed to all personnel in this contract's area of responsibility wilderness/austere environment. The Advanced Tactical Practitioner (ATP) credential and its civilian equivalencies are designed for exactly these circumstances. (A) Will the Government agree to CASEVAC requirements of two NREMT-P with PHTLS, ACLS, BLS under the provisions to do so in 1.3.5.4? (B) Will the Government consider changing the CASEVAC staffing requirements to one PA and one RN OR two NREMT-Ps (with the list of certified qualifications above) which has proven a robust capable solution and effective, given the operational environment in other regions of Africa?

The Central Africa Task Order has been revised via Amendment 2 and no longer requires a medical team.

117 CA TO PWS

Section: CA TO PWS, Page: 13, 14, Para: 1.3.5.1, 1.3.5.4, 1.3.5.5, 1.3.5.6

Paragraph 1.3.5.5 and 1.3.5.6, state the requirements for the Physician Assistant (PA) and ICU-trained Nurse (RN) personnel requiring “documented skill certifications” of Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) qualifications.

However currently in W. Africa, USTC contract HTC711-13-D-C013, Trans-Sahara STOL and CASEVAC services requires medical attendants be NREMT-Paramedic personnel who are certified and qualified in BLS, ACLS, and Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS). PAs and RNs are most often trained to work in hospital or clinical settings and their training is not traditionally focused on emergent field trauma care. On the contrary, Paramedics are trained precisely for responding to the point of injury and providing field trauma care, when a patient may require stabilization. Intubations for example are routinely conducted by paramedics before the patient is turned over to a PA or RN at a critical care clinic or emergency room. Aside from the title and formal classroom education, the medical attendant skill-set called for in the PWS is, arguably, a lower standard than what is currently provided on contract in W. Africa. Recent experience in W. Africa supporting a similar customer reveals that greater than 90% of patient transports are trauma related (i.e. IED/mine detonation, grenade explosion, catastrophic vehicle rollover). Is it the government’s intent for the medical attendants to provide clinic care or to provide trauma care from point of injury? (B) To meet the patient needs of this region, will the government consider aligning the medical attendant requirements with a certification and qualification most often trained to provide such care from point of injury?

The Central Africa Task Order has been revised via Amendment 2 and no longer requires a medical team.

118 CA TO PWS

Section: CA TO PWS, Page: 14, Para:

1.3.5.5

The paragraph referenced states Physician Assistant (PA) personnel “shall maintain active clinical privileges and work in hospital-based emergency or critical care environment to maintain proficiency.” Both CAMTS and NAAMTA Accreditations processes review duty time of personnel in comparison to off-duty time. Specifically, it is largely acceptable to balance multi-week/month rotations in austere locations with the approach that personnel are truly not working when they are off-rotation at home. Therefore, if the PA is required to maintain clinical privileges when off-duty at home it will most likely mean they have to working in clinical rotations several days per week when they are off-duty. To maintain CAMTS or NAAMTA accreditation of the program, the contractor will then have to staff each PA position with two (2) PAs in order to balance duty time with off-duty time during the rotation, thereby doubling the labor cost passed on the government. Since the government requires accreditation to be maintained, will the government consider removing the “clinical privileges” requirement since it could significantly affect staffing levels in order to balance duty/off-duty time in order to maintain CAMTS or NAAMTA accreditation?

This language was revised via Amendment 2.

119 CA TO PWS

Section: CA TO PWS, Page: 13, 14, Para: 1.3.5.1, 1.3.5.4, 1.3.5.5, 1.3.5.6

The requirements for CASEVAC service in paragraph 1.3.5.1 and 1.3.5.4 states the contractor’s medical attendants are required to provide initial combat trauma stabilization and field trauma care. However, the credentialing, qualifications, and skill-set listed in paragraphs 1.3.5.5 and 1.3.5.6 are geared toward clinical care. Given that the credentialing, qualifications, and skill-set called for do not appear to meet the CASEVAC service requirements (i.e. clinical qualifications are not exactly suited for field trauma stabilization and care), will the government provide a critical task or critical skill list to further clarify the medical requirements?

The Central Africa Task Order has been revised via Amendment 2 and no longer requires a medical team.

120 CA TO PWS

Section: CA TO PWS, Page: 11, 13, Para: 1.3.3, 1.3.4

The paragraphs referenced enumerate Cargo and COMBI services required, however no cargo dimensions are specified which can significantly the offered aircraft’s usefulness. For example an aircraft capable of accommodating a 4,000 lbs payload, but not capable of accepting one or more standard kicker pallets measuring 48”(L) x 48”(W) x 50”(H) constrains the usefulness of the aircraft for cargo missions. (A) Will the government specify minimum dimensions for cargo for each aircraft type and amount of cargo the aircraft must be capable of carrying of minimum dimensions? (B) Will the government specify whether the aircraft needs to be capable of accepting cargo of the minimum dimensions and amount while in COMBI configuration?

A) At this time there is not a specific pallet size that needs to be met. Most often loads are not on pallets.

The cargo and passenger capacity for each category of aircraft are identified in the

IDIQ PWS.

121 RFP

Section: 52-216.19, Page 30, Para:

52-16.19(b)

The paragraph referenced states maximum order amounts. Will the government please clarify whether the $200,000,000.00 is the maximum value for any single task order to include all option periods?

Correct

122 TASC PWS

Section: IDIQ PWS, Page: 19, Para:

1.3.7.1

The paragraph referenced requires a Large Fixed Wing aircraft capable and proficient at operating on unimproved runway surfaces less that 5,000 feet, and a minimum lift requirement (Pax and/or cargo) of 14,000 lbs, which requires Part 121 operations. (A) Can an offeror propose a Part 135 passenger aircraft meeting the minimum 20 pax and unimproved airfield requirements, and a Part 121 cargo aircraft to meet the 14,000 lb. requirement? (B) If the answer is no, please advise if there are Part 121 DOD/CARB approved air carriers with the aircraft capability to transport pax and/or cargo on unimproved runway services.

Yes

123 RFP

Section: 52.212-2, Page: 57, Para:

(a)6, (b)

The RFP provides that IDIQ Factor 1 “Basic Eligibility” will be rated as “Acceptable or Unacceptable,” that each Basic Eligibility subfactor will be evaluated “on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis,” and that “Offerors must be rated Acceptable for all Basic Eligibility subfactors in order to be eligible for award.” If a proposal offers some, but not all, US Flagged Aircraft, i.e. a combination of U.S. Flagged and Foreign Flag Aircraft, that meet all other eligibility requirements, i.e. DOD CARB: A) with respect to IDIQ Factor 1, Subfactor 6 “Fly America Act Preference,” will the proposal receive a rating of unacceptable? See RFP section 52.212-2(b)(1)(F) at page 58 of 78.

(i) If not, what are the evaluation criteria that will be used to evaluate the “acceptability” of proposals that offer a combination of US Flagged and Foreign Flag Aircraft? (ii) If yes, will not a rating of unacceptable eliminate an otherwise acceptable proposal from the IDIQ panel and decrease the potential options available to the USTC- CO on a particular TO, including the option, for particular missions, of using a Foreign Flag Aircraft when it is deemed a matter of necessity to accomplish the agency’s mission?

IAW 52.212-2, the offeror only has to identify whether the carrier is US or Foreign Flag to be rated acceptable. Also IAW 52.212-2, preference of award will be given to US Flag over Foreign Flag. For example, Offeror A has US Flag carrier for FW aircraft (all categories) and US Flag carrier for RW aircraft (all categories).

Offeror B has US flag carrier for FW aircraft (all categories) but Foreign Flag carrier for RW aircraft (in one category). Offeror C has US flag carrier for FW aircraft in two categories and Foreign Flag for the remaining FW category. Offeror C also has a Foreign Flag carrier for RW aircraft (both categories). Assuming all other evaluations are equal, preference would be given to Offeror A, then Offeror B, and lastly Offeror C.

124 RFP Section: 52.212-2, Page: 57, Para (b)

If under the current evaluation approach, the inclusion in the proposal of one or more Foreign Flag Aircraft that meet all other eligibility requirements, i.e. DOD CARB, would result in a IDIQ Factor 1, Subfactor 6, rating of “unacceptable,” and hence the evaluation of the entire proposal as unacceptable, would it be in the best interests of the government to evaluate Fly America Act Preference as a separate Factor (or as a separate subfactor within Technical Capability) to permit the government to maximize competition and permit the Government to consider proposals from offerors that may provide a combination of US Flagged and Foreign Flag Aircraft?

See question 123

125 RFP

Section: 52.212-2, Page: 61, Para:

(c)(1)

The RFP provides that under TO Factor 1 “Basic Eligibility” each Basic Eligibility subfactor will be evaluated “on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis” and that “Offerors must be rated Acceptable for all Basic Eligibility Subfactors in order to be eligible for Task Order award.” If a proposal offers some, but not all, US Flagged Aircraft, i.e. a combination of U.S. Flagged and Foreign Flag Aircraft, that meet all other eligibility requirements, i.e. DOD CARB: (A) With respect to TO Factor 1, Subfactor 2, “Fly America Act Preference,” will the proposal receive a rating of unacceptable? See RFP section 52.212-2(c)(1)(B) at page 61 of 78. (i) If not, what are the evaluation criteria that will be used to evaluate the “acceptability” of proposals that offer a combination of US Flagged and Foreign Flag Aircraft? (ii) if yes, is not a finding of “unacceptable” inconsistent with the discretion provided to the USTC-CO in PWS section 1.2.4.2 that provides: “Use of US Flag, DoD approved carriers is the standard for this effort. However due to the operational factors use of non-US Flag or non-DoD approved carriers may be authorized by the USTC-CO on a case-by-case basis.”?

IAW FAR 52.212-2, a rating will be assigned for each subfactor under the Basic Eligibility factor; there will not be an overarching single rating for Basic Eligibility. Award will be made to the offerors which represent a best value to the Government (FAR 52.212-2(a)(2)).

Preference for award will be given based upon the Fly America Act. In a situation where one offer has US Flag carriers for both fixed and rotary wing service and another has US Flag for fixed wing and Foreign Flag for rotary wing, the offer with both US Flag carriers will be given award preference. Additionally, if two offers each have one US Flag and one Foreign Flag, the Government would determine which represented the best value (assuming all other requirements of the PWS were met).

126 RFP Section: 52.212-2, Page 61, Para (c)

If under the current evaluation approach, the inclusion in the proposal of one or more foreign flagged aircraft would result in a TO Factor 1, Subfactor 2, rating of “unacceptable,” and hence the evaluation of the entire proposal as unacceptable, would it be in the best interests of the government to evaluate Fly America Act Preference as a separate Factor (or as a separate subfactor within Technical Capability) to permit the government to maximize competition and permit the Government to consider proposals from offerors that may provide a combination of US Flagged and Foreign Flagged Aircraft?

An Offeror is only Unacceptable in this subfactor if a carrier is not identified as US Flag or Foreign Flag, meaning no category was identified. Application of the preference is applied in the best value determination, not at this subfactor.

127 RFP

Section: 52.212-2, Page: 56, Para:

(a)(2)

RFP section 52.212-2(a)(2) on page 56 of 78 provides that "To receive an IDIQ or Task Order award, the offeror(s) must (1) be deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) FAR Part 9, (2) conform to all required terms and conditions, and (3) represent a best value to the Government, price and other factors considered. Additionally, when US Flag carriers are reasonably available, preference for award will be given to US Flag carriers in accordance with the Fly America Act." (A) with respect to the IDIQ, if an offeror meets items 1 and 2 and would otherwise represent the best value per item 3, but proposes a combination of US Flagged and Foreign Flag Aircraft and the proposal is not evaluated as "unacceptable" under evaluation Factor 1, subfactor 6, because it has proposed a combination of US Flagged and Foreign Flag Aircraft, how will the preference be determined IAW 48 CFR 15.501-1, which states the relative importance of each evaluation factor and significant subfactors must be clearly stated in the solicitation?(B) with respect to the TO, if an offeror meets items 1 and 2 and would otherwise represent the best value per item 3, but proposes a combination of US Flagged and Foreign Flag Aircraft and the proposal is not evaluated as "unacceptable" under evaluation Factor 1, subfactor 2, because it has proposed a combination of US Flagged and Foreign Flag Aircraft, how will the preference be determined IAW 48 CFR 15.501-1, which states the relative importance of each evaluation factor and significant subfactors must be clearly stated in the solicitation?

52.212-2 (a)(6) states "Relative Order of Importance: Basic Eligibility will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. Past Performance is significantly more important than Technical Capability, and when combined, non-price factors are significantly more important than Price.

This order of importance is applicable to both the IDIQ and the Task Order."

128 RFP

Section: 52.212-2, Page: 61, Para:

(c)

Which TO Factor will be weighted more important in Task Order Evaluation, TO Factor 1, Subfactor 2 - Fly America Act Preference or TO Factor 2: Technical Capability Proposal?

See questions 126 and 127

129 RFP Section 52.212-2, Page 57, Para: (b) For IDIQ Evaluation will the IDIQ Factor 1: Basic Eligibility, Subfactor 6 - Fly America Act Preference or IDIQ Factor 2: Technical Capability Proposal be weighted more importantly?

See questions 126 and 127

130 RFP

Section: Attachment 3 IDIQ Price Table, IDIQ Positioning/Depositioning Tab

Instructions to Offerors state the offeror shall provide positioning and depositioning prices for each aircraft type to assume positioning and depositioning aircraft is from the Offeror's base of operations. There is no Start up CLIN (SF1449 Continuation Sheet) or TAB in the price table (Attachment 3) to account for costs of initial set up of operations at base locations (Uganda, South Sudan, Central Africa Republic, Niger, Burkina Faso, etc.) (A) Should the offeror include these startup costs (austere man-camp, shipment of GSE, spares, and tooling in the Positioning/Depositioning Tab and CLIN? (B)Will the government consider adding a separate CLIN/TAB for these costs (i.e.

austere man-camp, shipment of GSE, spares and tooling)?

A) Yes B) No

131 RFP

Attachment 3 - IDIQ Price Table, IDIQ Per Pound Rates

Attachment 3 - IDIQ Price Table, includes three separate sheets for IDIQ Per Pound Rates; 1) Cargo Loads up to 2,000 pounds; 2) Cargo Loads over 2,000 up to 4,000 pounds; 3) Cargo Loads over 4,000 up to 14,000 pounds. These Cargo Loads, i.e. 2,000 pounds, 4,000 pounds, and 14,000 pounds correlate respectively to the minimum lift requirements for Light, Medium, and Large Fixed Wing. Additionally, given the locations and mileages in Attachment 3 - IDIQ Price Table, Mileage Chart, this appears to be a Fixed Wing only requirement. Can the government clarify if the Attachment 3 - IDIQ Price Table, IDIQ Per Pound Rates is only for Fixed Wing, Light, Medium, and Large?

Yes, only for Fixed Wing

132 RFP

Attachment 3 - IDIQ Price Table, IDIQ Per Pound Rates

Attachment 3 - IDIQ Price Table, includes three separate sheets for IDIQ Per Pound Rates; 1) Cargo Loads up to 2,000 pounds; 2) Cargo Loads over 2,000 up to 4,000 pounds; 3) Cargo Loads over 4,000 up to 14,000 pounds. Under Instruction to Offerors, #2 states, "Prices are Per Pound for Base Period." The requirement for the Offeror to supply NTE pricing per pound is impractical. For instance, examining the Light FW being able to transport up to 2,000 pounds of cargo, flying from point A to point B, the cost to the Offeror will be the same whether 1 pound or 2,000 pounds are flown, but the instructions to offerors stipulate that prices are per pound. Will the government consider removing the IDIQ Per Pound Rates and rely on the IDIQ Per Mile Rates for both passenger and cargo movements?

The instructions were revised in Amendment 2, however the Government requires per pound rates.

133 RFP

Attachment 3 IDIQ Price Table, IDIQ Flight Hour Ops

The CLIN total column (Column N) for each quantity of aircraft (1, 2, 3, 4) calculates a total based on a monthly total and sums the base year and option years together for a total of five monthly values. Will the government please correct the spreadsheet to reflect a total value summary reflective of the formula necessary to produce the amount it desires the offeror to enter into the SF 1449 continuation pages CLINS Schedule?

The Offeror only needs to complete the price tables; no need to enter rates on the

SF 1449.

134 RFP

Attachment 3 IDIQ Price Table, IDIQ Blade Hour Ops

The CLIN total column (Column N) for each quantity of aircraft (1, 2, 3, 4) does not calculate a total. Will the government please correct the spreadsheet to reflect a total value summary reflective of the formula necessary to produce the amount it desires the offeror to enter into the SF 1449 continuation pages CLINS Schedule?

The Offeror only needs to complete the price tables; no need to enter rates on the

SF 1449.

135 RFP

Attachment 3 IDIQ Price Table, IDIQ Per Mile

Will the government clarify whether the Per Mile rates is an all-encompassing blended rate that should account for basing costs in the case of ad hoc aircraft availability or if the Per Mile rate will be used with a separate basing CLINs?

The instructions were revised in Amendment 2.

136 RFP

Attachment 3 IDIQ Price Table, IDIQ Per Pound tabs (0-2K, 2K-4K,4K- 14K)

Will the government clarify whether the Per Pound rates are all-encompassing blended rates that should account for basing costs in the case of ad hoc aircraft availability or if the Per Pound rate will be used with a separate basing CLINs?

The instructions were revised in Amendment 2.

Attachment 3 - IDIQ Price Table, IDIQ Basing, IDIQ Flight Hours, IDIQ

Attachment 3 - IDIQ Price Table, IDIQ Basing, under Instruction to Offerors, states, "Unit Prices Proposed shall include all costs associated with Basing the aircraft, The instructions were revised in Amendment 2.

138 RFP Para: 1.3.7.1

The payload requirement for the Large FW Aircraft is 14,000 lbs which requires Part 121 Air Carriers. NVG operations are not authorized in Part 121 operations now and there is no roadmap within the FAA for Part 121 NVG to be authorized ever.

Additionally, very few Part 121 aircraft can operate on unimproved/unpaved runways 5,000 feet or less. (A) Does the government have knowledge of an air carrier that can meet this requirment? (B) Will the government please explain how it expects offerors to propose and show substance to meeting this requirement?

See question 122.

139 TASC PWS Section 1.3.7.5 Question: If the air carriers are required to adhere to Helicopter Air Ambulance (HAA) guidance then will the additional equipment be required such as HTAWS, Flight Data

The carriers are only required to provide the equipment requested.

140 TASC PWS Section 1.3.7.1 Comment/Reference: Gaining FAA approvals for Night Vision Landings and Departures for a Large Fixed Wing has never been approved to date.

Noted.

141 RFP

Solicitation Document (page 50 of

92) (1a)

Comment/Reference: The instructions do not note any page limitations for this Volume.

Most responses are to be provided on RFP Attachment 8. Certification documentation is cannot be restricted.

142 RFP

Solicitation Document (page 52 of

92) (5a-g)

Comment/Reference: The Instructions do not note any page limitations for this Volume.

Acknowledged

143 RFP

Solicitation Document (page 53 of

92) (E1)

Comment/Reference: The instructions do not note any page limitations for this Volume.

Page limits are not necessary for items a.

and b., and item c is answered on RFP Attachment 8.

144 TASC PWS Section 1.3.3.2, Shipping Document.

Comment/Reference: PWS states that “when requested by Government representatives, Contractor personnel shall sign inventory documents for the loads they transport.” Question: Can the USG confirm these are not custody transfer forms?

Can the USG confirm the purpose and format of the documents required for signature on cargo?

Contractor should be prepared to sign custody transfer documents to maintain accountability and chain of custody of DoD property. Documents would reflect over/short shipments due to loss or pilferage in-transit.

145 TASC PWS Section 1.3.3.6.3 Question: Can the USG confirm that all items listed for potential airlift support are

GFE?

Yes

146 CA TO PWS Section 1.3.3.2 Shipping Document.

Comment/Reference: PWS states that “when requested by Government representatives, Contractor personnel shall sign inventory documents for the loads they transport.” Question: Can the USG confirm these are not custody transfer forms?

Can the USG confirm the purpose and format of the documents required for signature on cargo?

The only form required for signature is the manifest document at origin.

147 CA TO PWS PWS TASC CAAS Section 1.3.3.5.3 Question: Can the USG confirm that all items listed for potential airlift support are

GFE?

All equipment will be furnished by USG or partner forces.

148 CA TO PWS

PWS TASC CAAS (Section 4.3.1 (and sub-paragraphs); 4.5 (and sub-paragraphs))

Comment/Reference: PWS makes multiple references to security and clearance requirements to be defined at Task Order Level. Question: Can the USG please clarify the specifics of the security and clearance requirements for the personnel/positions/labor categories in support of the CAAS Task Order?

Aircrew members and site leads require a Secret clearance.

149 RFP

RFP (page 49/50) 52.212-1 Addendum (b)1

Comment/Reference: RFP notes that proposal is to be supplied in a sealed package to USTRANSCOM. Question: Can the USG confirm that handcarry delivery/drop-off be accepted? If so, can the USG advise on any specific access requirements for personnel and if we should coordinate a time for drop-off?

Drop off delivery is an option.

Coordination is necessary to access the installation. Please contact Ms. Dorothy Del Rosario (618-220-7045)or Ms. Denise Cameron (618-220-7031) to coordinate hand delivery.

150 RFP RFP (page 52) (2)a

Comment/Reference: RFP states in Technical Approach, “Offeror shall complete the IDIQ Aircraft Identification Table, RFP Attachment 2…” Question: Can the Contractor assume this can be provided as an addendum or attachment to the Technical Approach, and that it will not count against page count?

It is included in the page count.

Amendment 2 increased the page limit.

151 RFP RFP (page 54) 2(a)

Comment/Reference: RFP states in Technical Approach, “Offeror shall complete the CA Aircraft Identification Table, RFP Attachment 6…” Question: Can the Contractor assume this can be provided as an addendum or attachment to the Technical Approach, and that it will not count against page count?

It is included in the page count.

Amendment 2 increased the page limit.

152 CA TO PWS

TO PWS, Table 1.3.7.1. Aircraft Requirements

Comment/Reference: “All hours provided are estimates”. Question: If all hours are estimates, is there any minimum guarantee monthly minimum hours to base our fixed and hourly pricing quotes?

The Government will guarantee 50 hours per month per airframe supporting other than CASEVAC. No minimum for CASEVAC.

153 RFP RFP, Attachment 2 Question: Can the USG advise how many aircraft are required to be listed on the IDIQ aircraft identification table? Is it safe to assume as Task Orders are released that additional aircraft may be added?

The Offeror shall identify a sufficient number of aircraft to demonstrate it has capacity to provide to support under this contract. Preferably 4 aircraft will be provided for each category, but providing less will not cause an offeror to be ineligible for award. The aircraft on the aircraft identification table will be reviewed/evaluated by the DoD Commercial Airlift Division to ensure they meet the requirements of the PWS. This will give the Government a pool of already validated aircraft to support future task orders. If necessary, additional aircraft may be added in the future but will require evaluation to ensure the aircraft can meet the requirement.

154 RFP

RFP (page 4) Fuel Reimbursable

CLIN

Comment/Reference: “All indirect costs, such as overhead, G&A, profit, etc. are specifically prohibited” Question: Contractor will have costs involved in procurement of fuel. Will the government reconsider the prohibition on Contractor indirect cost burdens or provide the Contractor with appropriate fuel cards or other payment source for fuel at time of purchase?

Direct costs are allowable (for example, labor associated with procurement), indirect costs are not. Fuel cards may be available.

155 RFP (page 5) Reimbursable – Other than Fuel

Comment/Reference: “All indirect costs, such as overhead, G&A, profit, etc. are specifically prohibited” Question: Contractor will have costs involved in procurement of other than fuel reimbursable. Will the government reconsider the prohibition on Contractor indirect cost burdens or provide the Contractor?

Direct costs are allowable (for example, labor associated with procurement);

indirect costs are not.

156 RFP General Can the government please clarify when the Contractor, Prime or Subcontractor, is required to have the appropriate FCL? Is the FCL required at proposal submission, at award or within a specified time from the date of award?

Prime is required to have FCL at time of proposal submission for IDIQ.

Subcontracted air carrier may require clearance which will be indicated in the task order.

157 RFP General

Comment/Reference: With the Final Task Order Details and Amendment coming 4 and 7 October respectively, contractors were given 21 days to complete all requirements for submission. Question: In order to support the due diligence necessary, and the coordination for all applicable positioning/deployment activity, would the USG provide an extension to the proposal submission?

The proposal submission date was extended via Amendment 2.

IDIQ PWS and

CA TO PWS

TASC PWS Section 1.3.7.5.1 and CAAS PWS Section 1.3.7.2.7

Question: Does the external load capacity of the cargo hook need to be the expressed cargo load maximum of 5000lbs for the medium RW?

Yes.

159 RFP

Attachment 3 – TASC IDIQ Pricing – Tab Basing NTEs

Comment/Reference: IDIQ pricing workbook provides for each aircraft category, but assumes only one aircraft offering. Question: Is Contractor allowed to add rows per aircraft category to support multiple platform offerings?

For the Not To Exceed rates, provide the most expensive rate. Rates for the specific platforms will be provided at the Task Order level when ordered.

160 RFP

Attachment 3 – TASC IDIQ Pricing- Tab Basing NTEs

Comment/Reference: IDIQ pricing workbook, Tab “Basing NTEs” does not define the number of aircraft to be priced. Question: Should the Contractor assume this to be one aircraft?

Price Table Instructions indicate the Basing NTE is for one aircraft.

161 RFP

RFP – 52.212-1 entitled “Multiple Offers”

Comment/Reference: RFP states, “The government will not consider multiple offers presenting alternate terms and conditions for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation.” Question: Does this suggest that the USG will not entertain more than one platform offering per aircraft type category, or simply that Contractor is not authorized to propose changes to any contract terms and conditions?

Offeror cannot propose changes to the contract terms and conditions. More than one airframe may be proposed per aircraft category.

162 CA TO PWS

CAAS PWS -1.2 Task Area 1 - Contract Management

Comment/Reference: Contract Management is not identified as a Subfactor that will be evaluated. No performance objectives address contract management. No color ratings are identified for this Task Area. Question: Is response to this Task Area required? And if so, how is it to be evaluated?

Contract Management is not specifically identified but can be part of the offerors technical approach.

163 RFP

52.212-1 ADDENDUM (b) 3.E., p. 54 and 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items, revised, (c) (2),

p. 58

Comment/Reference: 52.212-1 Addendum notes, “Provide an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement, with little or no potential to cause increased cost or degradation of performance.” 52-212-2 notes, “In addition to proposed performance and capability requirements, the Government will evaluate the risk for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.”

No color ratings are provided for these criteria. Question: How is this to be evaluated?

The color ratings identified in 52.212-2 (c )(2) include risk.

164 RFP

52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items, revised, (c) (2), p. 61

Comment/Reference: 52-212-2 notes, “The Government will assign a combined technical/risk rating for each technical subfactor of each eligible offerors proposal in accordance with the table below.” Only two technical sub-factors are listed: 1) Aircraft-related requirements, and 2) Pre-deployment plan. Question: Are these the only two subfactors to be evaluated?

The factors listed are those that will be evaluated.

165 CA TO PWS

CAAS PWS – 1.2, p.3 and 52.212-1 ADDENDUM (b) 3.E(2), p.54

Comment/Reference: CAAS PWS states, “The contractor shall provide adequate personnel and manage its personnel resources, including its sub-contractors, to partner with Department of Defense (DoD) and its stakeholders to successfully accomplish the tasks outlined in this PWS.” 52.212-1 notes, “Provide a personnel matrix identifying number of personnel assigned, by labor category, to each location.”

No color ratings are provided for this evaluation criterion. No performance objectives are listed for this criterion. Question: How is this being evaluated?

IAW 52.212-2 (c)(2)(A)(i).

166 CA TO PWS

CAAS PWS 1.2.1.11, p5 and 52.212- 1 ADDENDUM (b) 3.E(2)a, p.54

Comment/Reference: CAAS PWS states, “…The Contractor shall prepare a personnel contingency evacuation plan from this location for its personnel. “ 52.212-1 states, “Submit a contingency evacuation plan for effectively and efficiently evacuating contractor personnel. “ No color ratings are provided for this evaluation criterion. No performance objectives are listed for this criterion. Question: How is this being evaluated?

52.212-2, (c)(2)(A)(i) has been revised.

167 CA TO PWS

CAAS PWS, and 52.212-1 ADDENDUM (b) 3.E.(2)b., p. 55 and 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items, revised, (c) (2), p. 62

Comment/Reference: No reference to a pre-deployment plan except within the content of SPOT-generated letter in the PWS exist. 52.212.-1 states, “Submit a Pre- Deployment Plan which identifies all major actions and timelines required to obtain aircraft, etc.” 52.212-2 states, “The Offeror’s Pre-Deployment Plan identifies all major actions and timelines required to obtain aircraft; obtain the necessary regulatory certifications; hire and train personnel; obtain and deploy initial required supplies, equipment and spare parts; deploy the proposed aircraft; and performance start.”

Question: This is not a requirement of the PWS. How will/does evaluation criteria apply if it is not a requirement?

Positioning of aircraft and personnel are a requirement.

168 IDIQ PWS IDIQ PWS 1.3.5.11 , page 18 Please confirm if Malpractice Insurance is required for the medical effort.

Yes, malpractice insurance is required for contract medical provider assets.

169 IDIQ PWS IDIQ PWS 1.3.5.7, page 16 Please clarify if the Nursing Personnel can be Registered in countries other than the United States.

RN (and ALL Providers) must be licenced in the US. If other countries require registration, it will be in addition to the US requirements.

170 IDIQ PWS IDIQ PWS 1.3.5.6, page 16 Please clarify if both the PA and the Nurse are required to be present on the aircraft at the point of injury (POI)?

Depends upon the tiered contract requirement.

171 IDIQ PWS IDIQ PWS Section 1.3.5; page 16 Please clarify if the PA, Nurse, and medical attendants require Medical Director supervision.

Depending upon which state of licensing the contracted provider comes from will dictate.

172 IDIQ PWS IDIQ PWS 4.3.1.1 pg.31 Medical Attendants: Please clarify if any medical attendants are designated as “non-critical sensitive”.

Depends upon the tiered contract requirement.

173 RFP

Evaluation 52.2.1.2-2 (b) (1) (G);

Page 58 of 78; Para (G) Subfactor 7

Medical Attendants: Please clarify if the…