Attachment_10_-_Solicitation_QA_Matrix_2_of_2_-_Gov_Response.XLSX
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Worldwide Airlift Services Program - 135 (WASP-135) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HTC71119RR003
About this file
This document contains a question and answer matrix from a solicitation for worldwide airlift services. The solicitation seeks rotary and fixed-wing aircraft services to support transportation requirements on a global basis. Offerors must demonstrate experience providing various aviation operations including domestic, international, and in diverse environmental conditions. Aircraft and capabilities proposed must be under the offeror's control at time of submission. The government may consider updates to capabilities during contract administration but will not approve subcontracting at the indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity level. Questions cover topics such as weather criteria, security, carriage of weapons, navigation requirements, performance metrics, and eligibility to compete on future task orders. Response times for new orders will depend on customer requirements.
Government responses to second round of industry questions
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 28
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Solicitation Q&A Matrix | |||
| Question # | Reference (para./line item) | Comments/Questions | Government Response |
| 1 | PWS 1.9. Weather Factors, pg. 8 | “For the contractor to refuse to fly a transport mission due to marginal weather conditions, the weather must be such that the ceiling is below 700 feet and visibility less than two nautical miles.” Question #1: Please define the minimum weather conditions as pertaining to IFR or VFR and day or night operations. Question #2: Does the Government agree, although currently above minimums, the PIC can refuse to fly a transport mission if the temperature/dew point trending is unfavorable to sustain the listed minimum weather conditions for safety of flight? Does the Government agree to the following three items? |
1. The determining weather for flight is defined in 14 CFR Part 91 and 135, or the Host Country AIP, whichever is greater?
2. The contractor should be justified in cancelling weather that is below those minima, regardless of military weather minima?
| 3. At locations with multiple contractors, the COR should be integral in a weather determination that will equally affect all contractors? | Question 1: Government requirement remains unchanged; minimum requirements apply to all flight operations. Question 2: The PIC may refuse to fly any mission for safety reasons. The Government does not agree to sub-questions 1, 2 and 3, as they are situationally dependent. Consideration to waive NMC status may be given IAW PWS para. 1.17.3.1. | |||
| 2 | PWS 3.1. Ramp Space, pg. 14 | "Ramp space will be provided at or near bed down location for contractor aircraft." Question: If located near a "bed down location," will the Government provide aircraft/aircrew security? | Government-provided security is location specific and will be defined at the TO level. | |
| 3 | PWS 4.6 Passenger Service, pg. 19 | Question: Will the Government provide policy/guidelines for carriage of issued weapons/ammunition by authorized armed forces detailing procedures for entering/exiting contractor aircraft? | IAW PWS para. 4.6.1, prior to boarding, the troop commander or senior person, will meet with the carrier’s designated representative to ensure a mutual understanding of prohibited items (e.g. hazardous materials or knives) allowed in the passenger cabin. IAW PWS para. 4.6.6, Government-owned individual weapons may be transported by either of the following two methods: |
Unloaded, containerized and carried in the baggage compartment or Unloaded, carried in the passenger compartment, clips removed for M-16’s and M-4s, etc. and bolts locked in the open position for all other weapons.
| 4 | PWS 1.4.5 | This section mentions a GPS system. Will the Government clarify that aircraft operating outside of a Class I navigational environment, as most contracts are, require FAA approval to operate Long Range Navigation systems in remote areas, OpSpec B036? This should be stipulated, as the GPS navigation system must be certified by the GPS manufacturer, and authorized by Operations Specification. | Government requirement remains unchanged. See PWS para. 1.1.1. |
| 5 | PWS 4.1.2.1 PWS 4.4.2.1 | This flight time calculation is not in accordance with the FAA and industry norms conderning flight or block time. The time is either Block Time or Air Time. Block time is whenever the aircraft (RW or FW) moves under it's own power with the intent for takeoff (taxi) until the aircraft has landed with the engines shutdown. The PWS has a hybrid definition that will create a great billing and auditing challenge. All contracts to date have been billed by BLOCK time. It should be clearly defined as such. Please clarify. | Government requirement remains unchanged. |
| 6 | PWS 4.1.2.2.1 | Will the Government agree to remove this item as it is unreliable? Rarely is a flight able to maintain a Great Circle routing due to Flight Plan restrictions, weather, etc. This unfairly favors the US Government, and requires a contractor to provide services free of charge. | Government requirement remains unchanged. |
| 7 | PWS 4.3 | This definition does not reflect Part 25/23 takeoff requirements. FW takeoff requirements are defined as a balanced field length requirement for takeoff, and a Factored landing distance, under Part 135. After crossing an obstacle Part 135 requires a landing in the Touchdown Zone, which by definition is approximately 1000 feet from the beginning of the runway. It also requires a pilot to adhere to a standard 3 degree glideslope when possible. This PWS scenario asks a pilot to clear a 1500' obstalce. There must be clearance between the obstacle and the airplance, and so the airplane will be at least 1800'. This, on a 3 degree glide path, equals approximately 4-5 miles from the runway, and yet the PWS is asking that to be a STOL aircraft it should come to a complete stop within 1500' after the obstacle. The same for takeoff. This requested geometry is unrealistic. Please request feedback from industry for a realistic request. | Government requirement remains unchanged. PWS para. 4.3 requires clearance of a 50' obstacle vice 1,500' obstacle. |
| 8 | PWS 4.11 | Will the government add language to acknowledge that if air drop services are requested, it may be prohibited by some country AIPs? | Government will not require contractor to perform prohibited missions. |
| 9 | Attachment 3 & L-3(3)(B)(1)(c) | Attachment 3 and Section L provide no guidance to whether offerors must CURRENTLY be in possesion of the aircraft they propose or whether those aircraft must currently be listed on the offerors FAA Ops Specs para D085. Can an offeror propose an aircraft tail number that it does not currently have possesion of (only has a lease option) or an aircraft that is not currently listed on the offerors Ops Specs D085? | Aircraft proposed on Attachment 3 shall be under the offeror's ownership or control at time of proposal submission. At the Task Order level, the Government may allow offerors to propose aircraft not reflected on Attachment 3, given a signed Letter of Intent (LOI) to lease or purchase has been established. |
| 10 | Attachment 3 & L-3(3)(B)(1)(c)i. | Section L instructs offerors to calculate performance data under Standard Day conditions with no wind for the purposes of the IDIQ Aircraft Identfication Table. However, many aircraft type are significantly affected by more extreme environmental conditions found in austere environments (e.g. High-Hot conditions) which in many cases will severely restrict payload, take-off and landing requirements, etc. Will aircraft capabilities under specific environmental conditions be be examined and reviewed at the task order level to ensure the aircraft can perform in the AOR where the potential task order requirements exist? | The Government recognizes multiple factors impact aircraft capabilities. Parameters identified in the IDIQ solicitation best outline the Government's potential requirements. Specific aircraft capability requirements will be identified and evaluated against at the TO level. |
| 11 | Solicitation document Section L2 Page 91 of 96 | We have been trying to to obtain access to the SAFE (Secure Access File Exchange) and have sent two emails requesting access. Is there another means of contacting them other than the email address indicated in Section L2 of the Solicitation document? | The Government provided SAFE access to all requestors as of 6 Mar 19, and will continue to grant access as additional requests are submitted. |
| 12 | AMC Form 207 | Section IV.c. of AMC Form 207 requires applicants to provide data on the HQ AMC Form 82 (MS Excel Version) and HQ AMC Form 83 (MS Excel Version). The link provided does not work (http://www.amc.af.mil/library/businesscustomers.asp). Please clarify how to obtain AMF Forms 82 and AMC Form 83. | HQ AMC Form 82 and HQ AMC Form 83 are only related to Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF), and are therefore not required. |
| 13 | Attachment 2_Carrier Operations | If the Offeror has limited examples of Part 135 Operations during the past 12 months in one of the enumerated operations categories (Domestic, International, or Environmental), would the Government accept other relevant examples instead (i.e. Operations flown under Part 133, or Part 135 Operations performed more than 12 months ago) if the Offeror is otherwise qualified to perform Part 135 operations under those various scenarios? | Government requirement remains unchanged. See 32 CFR 861.4(e)(1). |
| 14 | Attachment 2_Carrier Operations | If the Government will not accept other relevant examples other than Part 135, and the Offeror has limited examples in one or more of the enumerated operations categories (Domestic, International, or Environmental), will the Offeror only be considered for (and ultimately invited to participate in) Task Order Proposals for the categories of operations for which they can provide Part 135 examples during the past 12 months? If yes, this acquisition strategy would limit competition and eliminate companies who otherwise are capable of performing the mission. For example, an air carrier that primarily operated Part 135 internationally during the past 12 months, but has all the authorizations, infrastructure, capabilities, and experience to conduct Part 135 operations domestically may potentially be excluded from competing in Domestic Task Order Proposals, despite clearly being qualified to do so. Is that the Government's intent? If not, what is the Government's plan for deciding who to include and who to exclude from participating/competing in Task Order Proposals? | RFTOP competition will be accomplished IAW Attachment 8, para. 11. In addition, during contract administration, IDIQ holders will have an opportunity to add aircraft/operations/services capability once validated per PWS para. 1.22.1.6. |
| 15 | Section L3(B)(1) | Is it the Government's expectation that Offerors are to embed an image of the requested documentation and Excel tables into a single Word, PDF, or like document format, or are Offerors to submit the requested information as separate and individual files? Additionally, does the Government request working versions of the various Excel attachments? | The Government does not expect offerors to embed images of the requested documentation into another format. Offerors are required to complete the excel Attachments and submit with their proposals without altering the format. |
| 16 | Section L3(B)(1)(c)(i) / (Attachment 3_Aircraft Identification Table | Most Offerors have diverse fleets comprised of many aircraft. Please confirm whether the Government requires performance data charts for each individual tail number, or if the information by aircraft make and model will be sufficient at this IDIQ stage. | Duplicate data charts for aircraft of the same type with identical performance capability are not required. |
| 17 | Section L3(B)(1)(c)(ii) / (Attachment 3_Aircraft Identification Table | In the Instructions to Offerors, the Government requests a list of Supplemental Type Certificates and a description of the capability provided by any such STCs. However, Attachment 3 does not appear to contain any location for the requested list and descriptions. Where (and in what format) should Offerors provide the requested STC list and descriptions? | Offerors shall submit all performance altering 337s and/or STCs with their proposals as separate documents. Submission of a summary page may be sufficient, if contained within the given STC and/or 337 and outlines changes to the aircraft and its performance capability. |
| 18 | Attachment 8_Ordering Procedures - Paragraph 11_RFTOP Source Selection. | Is it the Government’s intent to exclude Offerors from competing on task orders that require operating capabilities or aircraft configurations that the Offeror does not possess at the time of proposal submittal (but could install or certify by the time of performance)? | Aircraft and services proposed in Attachments 2, 3 and 4 shall demonstrate the offeror's current capabilities and/or aircraft ownership or control at time of proposal submission. Carriers may submit updated capabilities during contract administration; see PWS para. 1.4.1 (Amendment 2), and 1.22.1. |
| 19 | Attachment 8_Ordering Procedures - Paragraph 11_RFTOP Source Selection. | What is the contemplated mechanism or process for an Offeror to update the Government regarding that Offeror’s operating capabilities and aircraft configurations on the Master Capabilities List? | Offerors must comply with PWS para. 1.4.1 and 1.22.1 during contract admisitration, and the Government will maintain a Master Capabilities List based on IDIQ contract holders and their respective DoD approved capabilities (i.e. operations, aircraft and services). |
| 20 | Attachment 8_Ordering Procedures - Paragraph 11_RFTOP Source Selection. | Does the Government contemplate issuing task order solicitations that contain requirements for multiple airlift services (i.e. both rotary and fixed wing aircraft)? If so, how would an Offeror that currently does not possess all the types of required aircraft be eligible to participate in the solicitation without being able to subcontract or form teaming agreements for certain services? | RFTOPs may include any combination of airlift requirements under the WASP-135 umbrella--including both FW and RW. Federal Government policy as outlined in FAR 9.603 is that the Government will recognize validity of teaming arrangements, provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in an offer, or for arrangements entered into after submission of an offer, before the arrangement becomes effective. Nothing in this limits the Government's rights as outlined in FAR 9.604. Additionally, in any team arrangement both parties will need to be CARB approved prior to the teaming arrangement. Any joint venture or partnerships at the IDIQ level must be registered in SAM prior to offer being received IAW FAR 52.207-4(b)(1). The Government is not going to approve prime-subcontractor relationships at the IDIQ level, but the Government may consider prime - subcontractor relationships at the TO level. RFTOP responses utilizing only WASP IDIQ holders (including subcontracting arrangements) may receive preference for TO award. Any preferences will be identified in the RFTOP. |
| 21 | Attachment 8_Ordering Procedures - Paragraph 11_RFTOP Source Selection. | Historically, the short time period given to Offerors between contract award date and start date has limited competition to Offerors who happen to have aircraft that are: (1) available; (2) in a certain configuration; and (3) often, in certain locations. In light of the expanded nature of this program, does the Government intend to reconsider the delivery time frames that it will impose upon Offerors in an effort to broaden the competitive pool for specific task orders? | The Government strives to solicit RFTOPs as soon as practicable, but customer requirements dictate response times. |
| 22 | Attachment 8_Ordering Procedures - Paragraph 11_RFTOP Source Selection. | Does the Government intend to provide advance notice of potential task order proposals – i.e., by means of Market Research or a Request for Information – prior to issuing task order solicitations? If so, how much notice does the Government hope to provide? | Requirement dependent. The Government cannot quantify at this time. |
| 23 | Attachment 8_Ordering Procedures - Paragraph 11_RFTOP Source Selection. | If the Government is going to require a capability at the time of task order bid submittal, Offerors would greatly benefit from advance notice so that they can decide whether to pursue specific opportunities. Does the Government intend to provide advance notice of potential task order proposals – i.e., by means of Market Research or a Request for Information – to all IDIQ holders for all task orders, or does the Government intend to decide for itself which Offerors to invite to participate in a specific competitive task order? | RFTOP evaluation criteria and response times will vary depending on the requirement. |
| 24 | SF 33 | The Government has stated that it intends to award without discussions. In light of the substantial changes made as a result of the Government answers published on March 1, 2019, will the Government consider an one week extension to allow for additional clarifications and appropriate review and implantation as necessary to Offeror proposals? | The Government does not intend to extend the proposal due date at this time. |
| 25 | Clause 52.204-8 / paragraph (d) / pages 73-74; Section L.3.B.2.d / page 94 | Clause 52.204-7 is incorporated in the WASP 135 solicitation. Clause 52.204-8 notes that should clause 52.204-7 be included in solicitation that offerors may provide representations and certifications via sam.gov electronically. Section L provides detail on required sam.gov registration, and USG validation and verification following submission. Offeror is aware that sam.gov fully active registration statuses have timelines approaching 2 months. With this potential backlog, there is the possibility that Foreign Air Carriers, who may not traditionally operate in USG contract space will have delayed active status. Can the USG please confirm that for the purposes of submission, that a fully registered entity in sam.gov with a pending status would be compliant? | In accordance with FAR 52.204-7(b)(1) an offeror is required to be registered in SAM when submitting an offer and shall continue to be registered until time of award, during performance, and and through final payment. Regsistered is defined in FAR 52.502-4(a) and means that the Government has marked the record "Active." In accordance with the RFP, para L-3(3)(B)(2)(d), offerors are required to register in the System for Award Management (SAM) database at www.sam.gov prior to submitting its offer. Any updates or changes not reflected in SAM shall be denoted in solicitation provision FAR 52.204-8 para (d). NOTE: Please ensure your company's NAICS matches with the solicitation/contract NAICS (481211). |
| 26 | Clause 52.204-8 | If the Offeror, as AOC holder, does not have individual sam.gov registration, but can point to parent company registration in sam.gov, would the USG please confirm acceptance of bid? | The SAM.gov registration must reflect the entity that submitted the offer. |
| 27 | Att_3/Tab Rotary Wing/ Column F | Instruction state "Range shall be at Maximum Payload...". Helicopters often trade fule load for payload up to MGWT. Range at Max allowable payload may be minimal and does not accurately reflect the aircraft's true capability. Confirm the government requires max payload range calculations? Recommend setting performance paramters for Light (1,000lbs), Medium(2,500), Medium Heavy (5,000lbs) and Heavy (8,000) lift classes. | Government requirement remains unchanged. |
| 28 | Att_3/Tab Rotary Wing/ Column F | Instruction state "... runway length required should be at Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight (MGTW)." Runway length is rarely applicable to vertical lift aircraft. Should this be deleted? | See Amendment 2. |
| 29 | |||
| 30 | |||
| 31 | |||
| 32 | |||
| 33 | |||
| 34 | |||
| 35 | |||
| 36 | |||
| 37 | |||
| 38 | |||
| 39 | |||
| 40 | |||
| 41 | |||
| 42 | |||
| 43 | |||
| 44 | |||
| 45 | |||
| 46 | |||
| 47 | |||
| 48 | |||
| 49 | |||
| 50 | |||
| 51 | |||
| 52 | |||
| 53 | |||
| 54 | |||
| 55 | |||
| 56 | |||
| 57 | |||
| 58 | |||
| 59 | |||
| 60 | |||
| 61 | |||
| 62 | |||
| 63 | |||
| 64 | |||
| 65 | |||
| 66 | |||
| 67 | |||
| 68 | |||
| 69 | |||
| 70 | |||
| 71 | |||
| 72 | |||
| 73 | |||
| 74 | |||
| 75 | |||
| 76 |
HTC711-19-R-R003, Attachment 10
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .