Q&As_1-12_CENTCOM_RW_Solicitation.xlsx

RFP QA 1-12

a. The solicitation was published 23 December 2016 and the responses are due 23 Jan 2017. With the RFP published on a Friday (two days before Christmas) and the week between Christmas and New Years generally accepted as a holiday period, this only gives offerors fifteen days to prepare a response. Fifteen days is not adequate for such a complicated proposal and the short time-frame could end up reducing competition.

b. HTC711-17-R-R01, Section L-3 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Page 96, para (3), (4), (d) requires completed Past Performance Questionnaires to be received in the issuing office ten days prior to the solicitation close date (11 Jan 2017), this is only seven days after the end of the holiday season. This is not enough time and could end up reducing competition.

a. The Government does not intend to extend the solicitation close date at this time. b. Solicitation Attachment 7, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) Section 2 states questionnaires must be returned no later than 31 Dec

16. This is an erroneous date, therefore, please refer to RFP Section L-3, Proposal Preparation Instructions, para (3), (4), (d) stating PPQs are requested to be received in the issuing office ten (10) days prior to the solicitation close date which can be found in block 9 of the SF 33.

Melinda Lewis: Melinda Lewis:

Cindy, I did not see a need to update the close date - it is correct on the SF33 2 a. Section L-3 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Page 95, para (3), (2), v Subfactor 5 b. Section M-2.1 IDIQ Evaluation Criteria, Page 101, subfactor 5 c. Solicitation document Can the government clarify who has to have 12 months of prior continuous equivalent service for each aircraft type proposed (Offeror or Carrier)?

a. HTC711-17-R-R01, Section L-3 Proposal Preparation Instructions, Page 95, para (3), (2), v Subfactor 5 states “Offeror must have at least 12 months of prior continuous equivalent service for each aircraft type proposed.”

b. HTC711-17-R-R01, Section M-2.1 IDIQ Evaluation Criteria, Page 101, subfactor 5 states “…the government must determine the proposed carriers have at least 12 months of continuous …”.

c. The Offeror (Prime) and the Air Carrier (Sub-contractor) are two different entities.

a. This language is found numerous places, a good example is HTC711-17-R-R01, Section M-2.1 IDIQ Evaluation Criteria, Page 102, (C) Factor 3- Past performance.

Payload Range for Heavy-Lift Aircraft: Aircraft must have at least 600 cubic feet of usable cabin volume and shall be capable of moving either (1) a payload combination of at least 12 passengers and baggage (planning weight of 300 lbs. for each pax and one bag) or (2) at least 5 portable cargo boxes which measure 40Lx 48Wx50H, or (3) a minimum mixture of 2 portable cargo boxes and 7 pax. Any stated variation of 600 cubic feet of usable cabin volume plus one of the above mentioned three loads combine for a minimum internal load of 5,000 pounds at Mean Sea Level (MSL). Carrier must also be able to move external cargo only with a minimum payload of 5,000 pounds at MSL. At 7,000 ft. PA or temperatures above 20 degrees Celsius, the minimum payload requirement for a combination of passengers and baggage is 3,000 lbs. Fuel calculations for aircraft payload should include a range of 1 hour 30 minutes plus FAA defined fuel reserve requirement.

(PPQ) Section 2 states questionnaires must be returned no later than 31 Dec

16. This is an erroneous date, therefore, please refer to RFP Section L-3, Proposal Preparation Instructions, para (3), (4), (d) stating PPQs are requested to be received in the issuing office ten (10) days prior to the solicitation close date which can be found in block 9 of the SF 33.

and Page 100 Paragraph M 2-1 (B) FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL, Subfactor 1 - Technical Approach Both L and M in these locations refer to only PWS paragraphs 1.1 - 1.1.3, 1.2.1 – 1.2.10, and 1.3 as required for discussion in the Technical Approach. Can you please verify that discussion of other PWS sections is not desired and that not addressing other PWS sections will not result in an Unacceptable rating?

As further stated in L-3, para (3) (a) (3) (a) (i), offerors shall clearly explain how the aircraft proposed will satisfy the minimum requirements of the PWS. The proposal shall provide an adequate approach and understanding of the requirement, with little or no potential to cause increased cost or degradation of performance. Therefore discussion of any PWS sections to meet these criteria are desired and will be assigned a rating accordingly.