Q&As_32-49_CENTCOM_RW_Solicitation.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HTC711-17-R-R001
About this file
Q&As 32-49
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Q&As_50-65_CENTCOM_RW_Solicitation.pdf | ||
| HTC711-17-R-R001-0003.pdf | ||
| HTC711-17-R-R001_-_0002.pdf | ||
| Contracting_in_Afghanistan_-_BSA_and_SOFA_Overview_17_Jan_16.pdf | ||
| Atch_3_-_Pricing_Table_Rev_1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Q&As_13-31_CENTCOM_RW_Solicitation.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Amendment_0001.pdf | ||
| Q&As_1-12_CENTCOM_RW_Solicitation.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Atch_1_-_PWS_Rotary_Wing_draft_9_Jan_17_.pdf | ||
| Atch_5_-_DD_254.pdf | ||
| Atch_3_-_Pricing_Table_v3.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Atch_6_-_Foreign_Entity_Information_Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| Atch_2_-_Aircraft_Identification_Table.docx | DOCX document | |
| Atch_4_-_Basic_Eligibility_and_Carrier_Flag_Status.docx | DOCX document | |
| Atch_7_-_Past_Performance_Questionnaire_v1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Atch_1_-_PWS_Rotary_Wing_updated_22_Dec_.pdf | ||
| HTC711-17-R-R001.pdf |
Show all 17
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 QA 32-49
| Number | Reference | Question | Response |
| 32 | PWS Section 1.2.7 page 7 | ||
| Is the offeror required to submit photos of all offered aircraft in the proposal, to ensure Government approves paint schemes in current condition? | Photos of proposed aircraft are not required. | ||
| 33 | PWS 1.2.8 page 7 | ||
| Is the offeror required to provide interagency load calculations to confirm all offered aircraft are compliant with the specifications for Heavy and Super Heavy aircraft? If so, will this count against page count, or will the Government accept these as attachments? Would the Government provide a revised Attachment 2 that takes into account the PWS requirements that aren’t included in the Attachment 2, such as cubic ft., internal load @ MSL and 68F (5,000 min.), external load @ MSL and 68F (5,000 min.), internal load @ 7,000 PA PAX and cargo (3,000 min.)? | Offeror is not required to provide interagency load calculations. Attachment 2 remains unchanged. | ||
| 34 | How many aircraft are currently supporting this contract’s predecessor? Will the Government provide aircraft type, as well? Are there aircraft required in addition to what is already operating on this contract’s predecessor, or is this a rebid of the existing requirement? | There are twelve (12) heavy aircraft currently performing rotary wing airlift services in Afghanistan. This solicitation is a recompete of the current contract and aircraft awarded will replace current aircraft performing now. | |
| 35 | Will the Government provide information on who the incumbents are currently working on this contract’s predecessor? | Current contract holders are AAR (HTC711‐10‐D‐R026) and Columbia Helicopters (HTC711‐11‐D‐R021). | |
| 36 | Please confirm that aircraft can be added to the Attachment 2 IDIQ aircraft list for future requirements. | Offerors may propose any number of aircraft for evaluation and inclusion into the IDIQ contract via Attachment 2. Aircraft on Attachment 2 will be available to propose on future task orders. | |
| 37 | M-3.2 (B) page 106 | ||
| “Operational is defined as all aircraft, equipment, and aircrew are present in Afghanistan and ready to perform mission taskings” |
Please confirm that this means onsite and operational at the base to which the aircraft have been assigned (i.e. Bagram, Jalalabad, or Kandahar). The time required to move aircraft, equipment and aircrew from Bagram to Jalalabad or Kandahar is dependent upon Government-provided resources, and should not be factored into the pre-deployment timeline evaluation.
| The instructions are to provide operational dates for Afghanistan in general. Aircraft are not assigned until award. | |
| 38 | PWS 1.1.1.1 page 3 |
| “Primary Aircraft. The Contractor is only authorized to operate under this contract the specific tail numbers, primary or alternate, identified in the Aircraft Identification Table in Attachment 2. In order to change the primary aircraft, a written request along with sufficient documentation supporting the aircraft can meet all requirements of the PWS must be submitted to the Contracting Officer. The primary aircraft will only be changed through a bilateral modification to the contract. The Contracting Officer has the sole discretion in permitting the contractor to change the primary aircraft on contract.” |
Please confirm that a serial number is sufficient, if tail number is not available for aircraft the offeror intends to lease. In some cases, leased aircraft are in-process of being registered.
| For purposes of the solicitation submittal, the serial number and required lease information is acceptable. | |
| 39 | L-3 (3)(a)(1) page 93 |
| “Offerors shall submit all documents requiring signature or completion by the offeror. Each offeror shall complete applicable fill-ins and signatures and submit the original documents listed below and complete Attachment 5. An authorized official of the firm shall sign the offer and all certifications requiring original signature.” |
Attachment 5 seems to be already completed, with N/A listed in the boxes that the offeror would typically complete. What is the offeror required to complete in Attachment 5, DD254?
| Attachment 5 will not need to be completed until after award. See Amendment 2 deleting the completion requirement. | |||
| 40 | PWS, Page 7, Section 1.3 Personnel Requirements – paragraph 1.3.3 states that all contractor personnel who work under this contract either in and out process through CRC Fort Bliss, TX, Camp Pendleton, CA or go through contractor provided screening equivalent to the requirements of CRC Fort Bliss (if approved by the Contracting Officer). | As stated, this section makes an approach to pricing these processes unclear. Will the Government amend the language to remove “if approved by the Contracting Officer” and allow equivalent CRC training vs Ft Bliss and allow reimbursement for equivalent CRC training? | The language will not be amended. |
| 41 | Solicitation Section L-3, Proposal Content Page 94, Paragraph (3)(a)(1)(i) | Offeror would like to know the Government’s preferred method of compliance with the requirement in Section L-3(3)(a)(1)(i) that “Offerors shall provide authorization to for its financial institution to release financial information to the Contracting Officer.” Is the Government seeking a copy of a release provided by Offeror to the financial institution, is there a specific Governmental form that Offeror should submit, or is the Government simply seeking assurance that the Offeror will facilitate any such request by the Government for financial information in the future? | There is no Government form. Offeror may provide a statement that it authorizes its financial institutions to release information or provide a relase that may be presented by the government to the financial institution. Offeror is expected to facilitate obtaining any necessary financial information. |
| 42 | Solicitation Section M-2.1 IDIQ EVALUATION CRITERIA Page 104, Paragraph M-2 (D) (3) | The Government will determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by adding the total price for each period of performance for the Monthly Service and Blade Hours as well as the highest price for Positioning and Depositioning one (1) Heavy aircraft. Request the Government clarify that reference to Heavy aircraft in the sentence is a typographical error and it should read Super Heavy aircraft. | Concur. There is a typographical error and this paragraph should only reference Super Heavy aircraft. See Amendment 2, Updated solicitation |
| 43 | Attachment 2. USCENTCOM Rotary Wing Support Contract IDIQ Aircraft Identification Table | a. RW air carriers are awaiting award of the TASC IDIQ and 1st Task Order. Is it acceptable to the Government for an Offeror to place aircraft on Attachment 2 that were submitted on the TASC 1st Task Order? This would provide the benefit to the Government of additional aircraft to select from and additional competition in the event an Offeror was unsuccessful on the TASC 1st Task Order. b. Will the Government allow an Offeror to remove tail numbers from the RW Air Lift Support CENTCOM AOR IDIQ in the event of TASC 1st TO award? | a. It is acceptable to place aircraft that were proposed under a different contract as long as they have not been awarded. B. Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice received at any time before award. |
| 44 | Attachment 3. Pricing Table for Task Order, Cells F40, G40, H40, I40 | Request Government clarify that the formulas for Attachment 3 Cells F40, G40, H40 and I40 are not an error. For base period of service, the monthly is for (1) aircraft, however once you move to option year 1, option year 2 and option year 3, the formulas add together the monthly service price of all aircraft therefore making in not a per aircraft dollar amount. This does not align with blade hour pricing which is a per aircraft dollar amount. | There is an error in the formula. See Amendment 2 with revised Atachment 3. |
| 45 | Solicitation Page 103 (D) Factor 4 - Price / Solicitation Page 2 CLIN 0001 & 0002 | Due to scaling down of mission requirements in Afghanistan, several prospective qualified CARB bidders have depositioneded their aircraft from in-country. The remaining incumbent carriers have aircraft still positioned in Afghanistan, decreasing positioning costs, and creating price differential that could give them a lower TEP. This gives incumbents an unfair advantage over carriers that have recently depositioned, or new carriers from providing a competitive bid. The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) requires federal government contracts to be awarded in a manner consistent with CICA's broad mandate for full and open competition. Precedents within other agencies allow and recommend pegged rates for CLINs to reduce barrier to entry in instances such as this. Will the government provide a pegged rate for the positioning cost to allow a full and open competition? | There will be no pegged rate offered |
| 46 | General | Afghanistan government requires all foreign businesses to become registered with the Afghanistan Investment Support Agency (AISA). In recent years contractors providing aviation services were required to register and pay Afghan taxes for services rendered to USTRANSCOM. Will this program be provided protection from this provision or will providers need to ensure coverage for Afghanistan taxes? | Offerors are responsible for determining tax responsibility. See attached guide for general information. |
| 47 | Attachment 3, Task Order 0001 Pricing Table | Cell B12- B22, include quantities of aircraft – i.e. Aircraft Quantity 1, Aircraft Quantity 2, etc. Is it the Government’s intention that offerors should price for those quantities as a lot (for example, 1 aircraft price is $5; 2 aircraft price is $8; 3 aircraft price is $13, etc.) or is the intention that the offerors provide a unit price for each aircraft (for example; aircraft 1 is $5; aircraft 2 is $5; aircraft 3 is $5, etc.)? | Price should reflect the price for each quantity of aircraft as a lot, as is shown in your first example. |
| 48 | PWS | Although it may appear that a foreign company should be able to compete as a contractor/operator for this activity, there are several requirements that are conflicting. Together, they prevent a foreign carrier from meeting the technical qualification for this solicitation. The conflicts stem from the basic requirement imbedded in Para 1.2.4, where the contractor must be the operator. Yet, according to Para. 4.4, the contractor must have an FCL. A foreign company cannot have an FCL. And if the operator cannot be a foreign company, then Attachment 6 is not relevant. Furthermore, the requirement for the FCL and for aircrew to possess a security clearance (Para 1.3.1), prevents the government from contracting with a foreign carrier for any aircraft not type-certified in the U.S. (and their foreign aircrew) which otherwise would be perfectly suited for use in Afghanistan. This is especially true of the Mi-8 series aircraft. |
Therefore, if it is the intention of the government to open competition for this solicitation to foreign carriers, and thus procure the most cost effective and safest airlift solution, it is not actually possible to do so under the existing combination of solicitation requirements. We, therefore, ask if the government would consider the following solutions? a. Eliminate the requirement in Para. 1.2.4 that the contractor be the operator and/or eliminate the requirement for the FCL in Para 4.4. b. In order to obtain the most capable airframes with the most qualified crews, we eliminate the requirement in Para. 1.3.1 that aircrews possess a Secret clearance. (In fact, there is no theater-specific written requirement or regulation for commercial contract aircrew to possess a security clearance.)
| a. PWS para 1.2.4. and 4.4 remain unchanged. b. PWS para 1.3.1. remains unchanged. | |||
| 49 | Attachment 3, Task Order 0001 Pricing Table and Section M-3.2(E)(2). | Cell B51 states, “Total Evaluated Price Heavy (1 Aircraft). Cell I46 includes the following formula, “=SUM(I38+I40+I42+I44)”. Cell F40 includes the formula, “=SUM(H12:H22)”. Cell G40 includes the formula, “ =SUM(J12:J22)”. Cell H40 includes the, “=SUM(L12:L22)”. It appears that the Government is evaluating for the extended price of one heavy aircraft for the first year, and the extended price of all proposed heavy aircraft for the option periods. This does not appear to be consistent with Section M-3.2(E)(2) of the solicitation which states, “All proposed rates will be evaluated; however for evaluation purposes only, the Government will calculate a Total Evaluated Price based upon one (1) aircraft, which is the minimum that can be proposed.” | See response to question 44 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .