Attachment_10_-_Solicitation_QA_Matrix_-_Government_Response.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Worldwide Airlift Services Program - 135 (WASP-135) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- HTC71119RR003
About this file
This document contains a solicitation for the Worldwide Airlift Services Program - 135 (WASP-135) along with a questions and answers matrix from potential offerors. The solicitation seeks Part 135 airlift services including passenger and cargo transportation, aeromedical evacuation, and other aviation services worldwide. Offerors must submit proposals by March 11, 2019 addressing technical capabilities, past performance, and price. The government intends to award multiple IDIQ contracts to responsible offerors deemed capable of meeting requirements. Specific task order requirements will determine use of capabilities. The questions and answers provide clarification on proposal submissions, evaluation criteria, and contract terms.
Government responses to questions submitted on or before 28 Feb 19.
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 | Submission Requirements | Do we need to send in hard copies of our representations & certifications with our proposals? | No. The Government can obtain representations and certifications from the SAM website. 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). |
| 2 | Section L para. 3(B)(2)(g) | Is the Government willing to sponsor any company attempting to obtain a facility clearance? | The Government intends to sponsor any company who submits a DD Form 254 requesting a facility clearance after issuance of IDIQ contract award, but cannot guarantee it will ultimately be approved. |
| 3 | Section M para. M-1 | In order to help deem us "responsible", will the Government accept information from previous contracts? | Past performance data is not necessary to submit. Responsibility will be determined IAW FAR 9.104-1(c). |
| 4 | Submission Requirements | Do we need to submit airworthiness documentation for aircraft? | Yes; refer to requirements laid out in Section L-3(3)(B)(1). |
| 5 | Submission Requirements | Do we need to submit aircraft performance charts? | Yes; refer to Section L Para. L-3.3.2.1.3 (i). |
| 6 | Submission Requirements | Our company is required to submit form "138" for certain services in South Africa. Is there a requirement for that under the WASP-135? | Submission requirements are identified in Section L-3. |
| 7 | PWS para. 4.9.3 | Current contracts require CAMTS/NAMMTA under CASEVAC/MEDEVAC, as well as Air Ambulance. Is that a requirement under these services for WASP-135? | See Amendment 1. CAMTS/NAMMTA certification is required when Task Order performance requires contractor-provided medical personnel. |
| 8 | General | If we are a Joint Venture, how do we submit these requirements? Other teaming/subcontracting questions. | 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. |
| 9 | General | Will the WASP-135 supersede any current contracts? For example, if a requirement is identified in Africa, will it be competed under the AFRICOM IDIQ or WASP-135? | WASP-135 will not directly supersede any current contract or IDIQ. During requirement generation, the Government will decide which contract vehicle to utilize. |
| 10 | General | Will WASP-135 incorporate any domestic Task Orders? | While the WASP-135 has abilty to provide domestic FAR 135 services, the WASP-135 is not intended to replace the Domestic 135 contract. Like any requirement, the Govenrment will decide how to best fulfill its requirements when the need arises." |
| 11 | General | When are questions due? | Refer to the RFP para L-1(c). |
| 12 | Submission Requirements | Does the Government require Form 337s in lieu of STCs? | Offerors shall submit all performance altering 337s and/or STCs. 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. |
| 13 | Submission Requirements | Are offerors required to submit FAA opspecs? | No, the Government can view and retrieve U.S.-Flagged carriers' Operations Specifications (OpSpec) information. |
| 14 | Attachment 2 | Are offerors required to submit a carrier operation spreadsheet for every aircraft offered? | Information provided in Attachment 2 is used to document a carrier's overall operation, not required for every aircraft. |
| 15 | Attachments 2/3/4 | Are offerors required to submit these spreadsheets for subcontractors? | No. |
| 16 | Attachments 2/3/4 | Must the examples provided on the spreadsheets be FAR part 135, CARB approved aircraft missions? | The examples do not have to be "CARB Approved" missions; however, must fall within the FAR-135 (or CAA equivalent) category. |
| 17 | Attachment 2, Tabs 1 & 2 | What specifically is the Government looking for under "Brief Description of Ops" column under the International/Domestic Tabs? | Examples for international and domestic operations are provided. For International Operations, explain how exactly the example constitutes "international" in accordance with the definition and sample provided. |
| 18 | Attachment 2, Tab 3 | Are offerors required to submit only one example within the previous 12 months for each category? | Offerors are not limited to one example. Information provided shall demonstrate the ability to operate in these environments. Submissions should best exemplify operations in winter, remote and mountainous environments, respectively. |
| 19 | Attachment 3 | If an aircraft has an ability (e.g. NVG), but the offeror does not have trained crews, etc., should "Y" or "N" be marked? | Offerors marking "Y" to any service or category must be fully capable to perform as of the date of proposal submission. For example, if aircraft are approved for NVG, but the offeror does not have trained crews, "N" shall be marked until crews are fully qualified and offeror is fully certificated. |
| 20 | Attachments 2/3/4 | How do we update this information? | Refer to PWS Paras 1.4.1 and 1.22. |
| 21 | General | What about new entrants into the industry? May they have a chance to compete under WASP-135? | See Basis for IDIQ Contract Award at RFP Para M-1. In addition, the Government may reopen the competition under the solicitation if there is a shortfall in meeting the requirements among the existing IDIQ contract holders; refer to RFP Para H-16. |
| 22 | Line 41 of Q & A Response | Does the foreign owned entity have to be approved prior to submission of a bid or will they be awarded in the staggered approach as discussed in line 41 of the draft PWS Q&As? | The timing of IDIQ contract awards per RFP Para. M-1.1, is the same for all offerors. |
| 23 | PWS Para 1.21 | Please confirm, that an “indirect air carrier” means the Indirect Air Carrier Program participant, approved by U.S. Transportation Security Administration? | An Indirect Air Carrier (IAC) means any person or entity within the United States not in possession of a Federal Aviation Administration air carrier operating certificate that undertakes to engage indirectly in air transportation of property and uses for all or any part of such transportation the services of a passenger air carrier. |
| 24 | PWS Para 1.21.1 | “For all first tier foreign air carriers that fall within the scope of the reporting requirement, contractor shall provide a copy of the Air Operating Certificate.” – Please confirm that CARB approval is not required for first tier subcontractors – foreign air carriers? | All air carriers transporting DoD passengers or cargo must be CARB approved. However, in very limited circumstances when identified by the Contracting Officer at the Task Order level, non CARB approved carriers may be utilized when transporting non DoD cargo or non DoD passengers. The purpose of paragraph 1.21 and its subparas is to enable USTRANSCOM to vet foreign entity subcontractors. |
| 25 | PWS Para 1.21.1 | Is participation of non-CARB-approved AOC holders allowed as lower-tier (second or third) subcontractor? | The purpose of paragraph 1.21 and its subparas is to enable USTRANSCOM to vet foreign entity subcontractors. All air carriers transporting DoD passengers or cargo must be CARB approved. However, in very limited circumstances when identified by the Contracting Officer at the Task Order level, non CARB approved carriers may be utilized when transporting non DoD cargo or non DoD passengers. |
| 26 | PWS Para 1.21 | Please confirm, that the following subcontracting arrangement is possible under the contract: Prime Contractor (CARB-approved) – first-tier subcontractor (non-aviation company) – second-tier subcontractor (foreign, non-CARB-approved, AOC holder)? | See Government response to question 8 (cell D10) above. |
| 27 | PWS Para 1.21 | Is a Prime contractor required to report all its potential subcontractors by IDIQ award date? By task order (TO) date? | Para 1.21 is a post award reporting requirement. Report is required semi-annually during contract performance. |
| 28 | PWS Para 1.3 | Is CARB approval required from contractor on IDIQ or TO award date? | See Basis for IDIQ Contract Award at RFP Para M-1. In addition, the Government may reopen the competition under the solicitation if there is a shortfall in meeting the requirements among the existing IDIQ contract holders; refer to RFP Para H-16. |
| 29 | PWS Para 1.3 | Will a team of a CARB-approved AOC holder and non- aviation US company (with an appropriate teaming agreement) be eligible for an IDIQ award? | See Government response to Question 8 (cell D10) above. |
| 30 | PWS Para 1.3 | Will the government consider the use of air carriers without CARB approval in cases when no CARB-approved carriers are available? | All air carriers transporting DoD passengers or cargo must be CARB approved, except in emergency situations to save life, limb or eyesight (see 32 CFR 861.4(b)(4)). However, in very limited circumstances when identified by the Contracting Officer at the Task Order level, non CARB approved carriers may be utilized when transporting non DoD cargo or non DoD passengers. |
| 31 | PWS Para 1.22.6 | For foreign air carriers, do financial statements have to be audited in accordance with IFRS and/or US GAAP, or national accounting standards will be accepted? | The instructions in the AMC Form 207 does not identify by whom financial statements must be audited. |
| 32 | General | Is there a limit for / expected number of IDIQ awardees? | The Government has not set a number limit of IDIQ awardees. |
| 33 | General | Will companies be able to qualify for the program as PRIMES in the future or IDIQ contracts will be awarded only to those bidders that respond to the RFP at this time? | The Government may reopen the competition under the solicitation if there is a shortfall in meeting the requirements among the existing IDIQ contract holders; refer to RFP Para H-16. |
| 34 | Attachment 4; PWS Section 4.9 & 10 | Does the Catalog of Services Section 4.9 "Aeromedical Evacuation/Air Ambulance Level of Care" apply to both Sections 4.9 ("Air Ambulance") and 4.10 ("Medical Evacuation") of the PWS? | See Amendment 1 additions to PWS para 4.10. |
| 35 | Solicitation Section L-3.3.B.2.g | Please confirm that, in Accordance with DD254, Attachment 5 instructions, upon receipt of a contract the offeror is required to provide the Cognizant Security Office listed in block 6c, a copy of the award DD254 with any continuation pages, attachments or enclosures and the contract PWS within 60 days. | See Amendment 1. Offerors with a current facility clearance shall submit their approved DD254 with their proposals. Offerors without a current facility clearance who receive an IDIQ award may apply for facility clearance any time during contract performance IAW the DD254 instructions. |
| 36 | Solicitation Section L-3.3.B.2.h & FAR 52.219-9 | Please confirm that companies who are considered "small business" in accordance with NAICS Code 481211 Size Standards are NOT required to complete and submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, in accordance with Attachment 9 - Small Business Subcontracting Plan Template. | Confirmed. Only Large Businesses are required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. |
| 37 | General - Attachments 2, 3 and 4 | Are attachments 2, 3 and 4 required to be submitted in excel format, or are offerors permitted to create and populate the tables within the body of their proposals? | Offerors are required to complete the excel Attachments and submit with their proposals without altering the format. |
| 38 | Attachment 2, Tab 3 "Environmental Operations" | How are offerors supposed to provide verification of environmental operations? Is a flight log entry required, as with the International (Tab 1) and Domestic (Tab 2) operations? | See Amendment 1. Flight log information is required for International Operations (Tab 1), Domestic Operations (Tab 2) and Environmental Operations (Tab 3). |
| 39 | Solicitation Section L-1.c | Please confirm that the final date for questions is March 1st, 2019 (i.e. 10 calendar days prior to the due date of offers). | Refer to the RFP para L-1(c). |
| 40 | FAR 52.219-4 | FAR 52.219-4 (b) "Evaluation Preference" states, "(1) Offers will be evaluated by adding a factor of 10 percent to the price of all offers, except-- |
(i) Offers from HUBZone small business concerns that have not waived the evaluation preference; and
(ii) Otherwise successful offers from small business concerns.
| Please further define how preference will be provided to small business concerns on this IDIQ, such as Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSBs), Woman-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs), etc. | Price is not an evaluation factor for IDIQ award. No small business preference will be applied at the IDIQ level. Sections L and M of the solicitation outlines the evaluation criteria. Small business preferences may be applied at the Task Order level. | |||
| 41 | FAR 52.204-8 and Solicitation Section L-3.3.B.2.d & FAR 52.219-9 | Please confirm that if offerors have completed their annual reps and certs through the SAM website, completion and submission of this section within the offeror's proposal is not required. | The Government can obtain representations and certifications from the SAM website. 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). | |
| 42 | Solicitation Section L-3.3.B.2.e | Please define what a "county and facility code" is in this context, and what is required to be provided by the offeror. Is this the same code that is required in the box labeled "FACILITY" to the right of box 15A of SF33? | A county code is not required; see Amendment 1. A Facility code is a number used to identify where an item(s) is produced if different than the CAGE code. | |
| 43 | Solicitation Section L-2.b | Since the document size limit for the Secure Access File Exchange (SAFE) is 8 GB, is the offeror permitted to submit its proposal in multiple documents if the file exceeds the file size limit? | Refer to RFP para L-2(b), Step 4. If your proposal exceeds the 8GB size limit of ARL, you may request an additonal file drop link. | |
| 44 | WASP-135 Letters to Carriers (dated September 18th, 2018) | The original WASP-135 "Letter to Carriers" dated September 14, 2018, included the following statement, "The Government intends to allow all active FAR-135 IDIQ contracts and subsequent task orders to come to their natural conclusion prior to being competed under the new WASP-135 contract." |
| Please confirm that this is still the Government's intent. Further, please confirm that if any new requirement emerges that would naturally be competed under an existing IDIQ because of PWS or AOR similarities, that the Government intends to solicit these task orders under the existing IDIQ contracts to the existing IDIQ contract holders only, rather than soliciting through the WASP-135 contract vehicle. | The Governments intentions have not changed. | |||
| 45 | IDIQ | At Industry Day, the evaluation criteria cited that only entities that operated the aircraft and deemed acceptable will be awarded a contract. Section I 52.204-17 infers that Joint Ventures can be used. If a Joint Venture is used to ensure that TRANSCOM is provided with an organization that provides contract management and oversight of performance, cost, and schedule, is it acceptable for the certifications (AOC/135) of the members to be used to satisfy the requirements of this solicitation? | See Government response to question 8 (cell D10) above. | |
| 46 | IDIQ | Will the US Government be performing or requesting financial information on companies as part of the evaluation process? | If offeror is not currently CARB approved, it shall submit financial statements IAW AMC Form 207 DoD Statement of Intent. | |
| 47 | 1.21 | The US Government States that First Tier Subcontractors can be used directly or indirectly as an air carrier, however the AOC that is being reviewed is only that of the Prime Offeror. Is the USG reviewing the AOC of the Prime Offeror or of the Offeror's team collectively? | See Government response to question 8 (cell D10) above. The Government will only evaluate offerors proposing as a prime contractor at the IDIQ level. The Government will not review subcontractor information at the IDIQ level. | |
| 48 | General | Could you please explain if on 11th March we need to present a proposal for the whole bid? Or is it something different (eg. estimate, interest, etc)? | See Section L of the RFP to understand what offerors are required to submit as part of their proposal. | |
| 49 | General | We missed the conference hold on 12th Feb, could you please tell us if there were some agreements/teaming with the different companies that attended the event? Thank you very much for your time and attention. | The Government is not aware of any agreements/teaming among vendors at this time. | |
| 50 | (Pg 96 Line ii) | In regards to the AMC Form 207 DoD Statement of Intent, Is this form submitted on 3.11.19 or prior to the bid? | Non-CARB Approved carriers shall submit a completed AMC Form 207 concurrently with their proposals by the due date. See RFP para L-3(3)(B)(2)(i). | |
| 51 | (Pg 30 Line H-14.2.4) | Will security clearances be sponsored upon award or are they required upon submittal? | See Amendment 1. Offerors with a current facility clearance shall submit their approved DD254 with their proposals. Offerors without a current facility clearance who receive an IDIQ award may apply for facility clearance any time during contract performance IAW the DD254 instructions. | |
| 52 | (Preproposal Brief) | During the prepoposal conference on 2.12.19, the differences between teaming and subcontracting was discussed and your representative suggested that you would publish a clarification. May we have that clarification at this time? | See Government response to question 8 (cell D10) above. | |
| 53 | (pg 94 Line g) | Is a facilities clearance required? If so, upon what date is this clearance needed? | A facility clearance it not required to receive an IDIQ award. However, only IDIQ holders with an approved facility clearance will be eligible for Task Order awards requiring such a clearance. | |
| 54 | PWS Sections 1.4.1 and 1.22.1.4 | Please confirm that offerors can bid aircraft the offeror intends to lease to support impending task orders, and that the aircraft tail numbers do not have to be on the offeror's OpSpecs at time of IDIQ proposal submission. In the past, the Government has allowed offerors to offer aircraft for which it had arranged a Letter of Intent (LOI) to purchase or lease. | 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. | |
| 55 | Solicitation Section L-3.3.B.1.c.i | Please confirm that the offeror is not required to submit a performance data/chart for each aircraft and tail number if multiple aircraft tail numbers that are the same type demonstrate the same capability. | Duplicate data charts for aircraft of the same type with identical performance capability are not required. | |
| 56 | Solicitation Section L-3.3.B.1.a.ii.1 | "Copies of any supplemental type certificates shall be provided for applicable proposed aircraft." |
| Please confirm that a complete table showing all STCs and 337s (Field Approvals) done on the aircraft, complete with STC number and description of modification, would be sufficient. | Offerors shall submit all performance altering 337s and/or STCs. 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. Offeror-constructed tables are not sufficient. | |||
| 57 | Solicitation Section L-3.3.B.1.a.ii.1 | Please confirm that the Government also wants to see references to any performance enhancing FAA Form 337 field approvals, in addition to STCs. If a 337 is not performance enhancing, please confirm that offerors are not required to provide reference. | Offerors shall submit all performance altering 337s and/or STCs. | |
| 58 | Solicitation Section L-3.3.B.1.c.i | "Aircraft Technical Capability" subsection i. states "Range shall be calculated at Maximum Payload, and runway length required at Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight (MGTW)." |
If offerors calculate range this way, the Government's perception of offeror's capabilities with rotorcraft will be distorted, because it will show aircraft capable of flying within a very small range, because they are being loaded to full capacity.
It is recommended that the Government identify a standard fuel load out in hours, or specify full fuel, to ensure a fair side-by-side comparison between multiple aircraft models.
Also, the minimum crew weights can be an essential piece of information when completing calculations. 200 lbs. per crewmember is a widely-used industry standard for calculation purposes.
| Please provide a designated figure, so offerors can accurately complete the Attachment 3 "Aircraft Identification Table" and performance charts. | The Government recognizes multiple factors impact aircraft capabilities. Parameters identified in the solicitation best outline the Government's potential requirements. Government requirement remains unchanged. | |||
| 59 | PWS Section 4.15 and Attachment 3 “Aircraft Identification Table” | Please define what the Government means by "NVG Capable". If the offeror's aircraft are equipped and the aircrew are appropriately trained, qualified and maintain proficiency for NVG operations, but the offeror is in the process of adding NVG to its OpSpecs (Section A050 (helicopter), Section A051 (airplane)), please confirm that this still qualifies as "NVG capable" | The NVG example provided does NOT qualify as "capable." Services proposed shall reflect full performance capabilities IAW all applicable regulations as of the date of proposal submission. Capabilities include (but are not limited to) properly equipped aircraft, required certifications/OpSpec and qualified crews. | |
| 60 | Attachment 3 “Aircraft Identification Table” | The column furthest to the right on Attachment 3 “Aircraft Identification Table” is titled "HAZMAT Capable (Y/N; if Y, identify Levels I-X)". Please define the HAZMAT levels referenced here. Is the Government referring to the Classes of Cargo specified in Section 4.7.1? | Refer to PWS para. 4.17. HAZMAT levels can be found at 49 CFR part 173. Amendment 1 will reflect levels I-IX vice I-X in Attachment 3. | |
| 61 | PWS Section 4.19 | Please further define what "Range Test Support" entails in this context, and please define how the offeror should go about demonstrating its capability to perform this service. | Offerors shall demonstrate capabilities in Attachment 4 outlining like services IAW PWS para. 4.19. (E.g. over-land and sea operations, flight duration, lift capability, take off and land from vessels at sea, etc.) Range test support specific requirements will be further defined in the RFTOP. | |
| 62 | PWS Section 4.16 | Please further define how the offeror should demonstrate its capabilitiy to accomodate "Defense Courier Services" (DCS). It seems that if the offeror has airlift capability, and wishes to permit DCS, there should be no issue, correct? | Statement of willingness to provide service is not sufficient. Offerors are required to demonstrate their ability to provide the appropriate personnel, equipment and procedures necessary to successfully perform services described in the PWS. | |
| 63 | PWS Section 4.13 and Solicitation Section L-3.3.B.1.c.i | Please confirm that performance data charts are to be completed assuming standard aircraft configuration at the IDIQ-level submission, and that the Government is not looking for offerors to submit performance data charts for aircraft configured with ballistic protection systems (BPS). BPS adds significant weight to the aircraft and may provide a distorted perception of aircraft capabilities. | Offerors are to submit in standard aircraft configuration. | |
| 64 | Attachment 2 "Carrier Operations Form" | Can offerors provide the same reference under multiple tabs? For example, can offerors list a certain flight in a given month under the "Domestic" tab, and then list that same flight because of its applicability to either Mountainous, Remote, and/or Winter Ops conditions under the "Environmental Ops" tab? | Yes for International and Environmental Tabs or Domestic and Environmental Tabs. International and Domestic Tabs cannot use the same flight. | |
| 65 | General | Does USTRANSCOM intend to release the attendee list for the pre-proposal conference held on Feb 12th, 2019? | No. Permission to release was not obtained from attendees. | |
| 66 | Atch 2 & Atch 4 | During the pre-proposal conference, the govt stated that an offeror should only annotate and offer the capabilities they are qualified and certified to provide at the time the proposal is submitted and those capabilities will be substantiated based on technical documentation (e.g. STC, Form 337, etc) reviewed of AMC/A3B. How will an successful offeror who receives an award substantiate adding capabilities to their profile after award (i.e. will they have to submit the same technical documentation which is required under the solicitation)? If yes, will the government clearly state this requirement? | Refer to PWS paras. 1.4.1 and 1.22.1. | |
| 67 | Attachment 4 | During the pre-proposal conference, the govt stated that an offeror should only annotate and offer the capabilities they are qualified and certified to provide at the time the proposal is submitted. The govt also stated, based on those vetted capabilities the govt will develop a capabilities matrix and future task orders will only be solicited to IDIQ contract holders who have the capabilities to satisfy the requirements in the task order. This could result in reduced competition because companies will not receive RFTOPs that they could otherwise respond to via a teaming relationship and the use of a subcontractor. USTC currently has contracts in place similar to this when RW-only and FW-only contractors are joined in a subcontractor relationship to provide the capabilities required. How will the govt handle task orders that may require the capabilities of a teaming relationship (e.g. a RW-only air carrier as the Prime and a FW-only air carrier as a subcontractor)? | See Government response to question 8 (cell D10) above. | |
| 68 | Attachment 4 | USTC currently has several contracts that combine RW and FW services and include a wide variety of services and capabilities. Some of these contracts are serviced by a team consisting of a RW-only and FW-only operator. How will the government maintain a resonable level of competition within this IDIQ when combining FW, RW and a variety of capabilities and services within a single TO? | See Government response to question 8 (cell D10) above. | |
| 69 | Attachment 4 | For task orders that include both FW and RW operations, will 2 or more IDIQ Prime Contract holders have the option to submit a combined (team) proposal consisting of RW-only and FW-only operators? | See Government response to question 8 (cell D10) above. | |
| 70 | Attachment 4 | Will the government accept/consider a proposal from a team of Part 135 operators consisting of a prime contractor and one or more subcontractors if all of the operators (whether prime or subcontractor) meet the requirements for award under Section M-1 Basis for IDIQ Contract Award? the purpose of the team concept is to provide a single prime contract holder that is able to offer RW and FW services and capabilities across the full spectrum of Part 135 platforms, services, and capabilities. This will also increase competition by allowing a FW or RW operator to compete for a Task Order that requires a combination of RW and FW services and capabilities. If so, will the prime contract holder be able to add/remove or replace team members (subcontractors) after initial award? | See Government response to question 8 (cell D10) above. | |
| 71 | Atch 4 | During the pre-proposal conference, the govt stated that an offeror should only annotate and offer the capabilities they are qualified and certified to provide at the time the proposal is submitted. How should an offeror go about substantiating capabilities they provide via a subcontractor who is performing a portion of work on existing contracts, which could be competed under WASP-135 after the current contract ends (i.e. FW-only Prime, with a RW-only subcontractor on an existing contract which requires both FW and RW capabilities)? | See Government response to question 8 (cell D10) above. | |
| 72 | Atch 3 | If an offeror's proposed aircraft is capable (i.e. approved modifications actually exist for the airframe type via STC or the modification can be completed via Form 337) of being modified to provide a required capability (e.g. FW NVG), but the proposed aircraft is not currently modified or capable at the time proposals are submitted, should an offeror mark that the aircraft is capable or not? | Services proposed shall reflect full performance capabilities IAW all applicable regulations as of the date of proposal submission. Capabilities include (but are not limited to) properly equipped aircraft, required certifications/OpSpec and qualified crews. | |
| 73 | Atch 3 | If an offeror's proposed aircraft is capable (i.e. approved modifications actually exist for the airframe type via STC or the modification can be completed via Form 337) of being modified to provide a required capability (e.g. FW NVG), but the offeror does to currently possess the required FAA Part 135 approvals (i.e. Ops Specs) to conduct the type of operations the capability requires, should the offeror mark that the aircraft is capable or not? | Services proposed shall reflect full performance capabilities IAW all applicable regulations as of the date of proposal submission. Capabilities include (but are not limited to) properly equipped aircraft, required certifications/OpSpec and qualified crews. | |
| 74 | Atch 4 | If an offeror is authorized, under 14 CFR Part 61, 91, 105, but not 14 CFR Part 135, to conduct the type of operations a capability requires or listed in the catalog of services (i.e. FW NVG or Air Drop), shall the offeror annotate they are capable of providing that capability/service or not? | Yes, but recommend you identify what authority you are operating under. | |
| 75 | L-3(3)(B)(1)(a)ii.1. | Does the govt require copies of all Supplemental Type Certificates (STC) for each aircraft or only the STCs required to substantiate relevant enhanced capabilities the offeror is stating the proposed aircraft is capable of? | Offerors shall submit STCs to substantiate relevant enhanced capabilities for proposed aircraft. Offerors must Identify the applicable tail numbers, but not required to submit duplicate documentation. | |
| 76 | L-3(3)(B)(1)(a)ii.1. | During the pre-proposal conference, the HQ AMC/A3B representative stated that an offeror should also submit copies of Form 337 (Field Approval) and Aircraft Manufacturer Service Bulletins (SB) for items not covered by STCs that are relevant to the capabilities of the proposed aircraft (e.g. some gravel kits installations can be completed via SB and documented via Form 337). Can the govt confirm this is required and update section L & M language to reflect the requirement? | Yes. See Amendment 1. | |
| PWS Para 4.10 | The PWS mentions air carrier accreditation by CAMTS or NAAMTA in para 4.9 pertaining to Air Ambulance services, but there is no mention of accreditation being required for Medical Evacuation services in para 4.10. All current enduring USTC contract which have a CASEVAC or MEDEVAC component require the contractor to accredit at the appropriate level of care via CAMTS or NAAMTA with a specified time period after award and maintain accreditation throughout the period of performance. Is the govt's intent to no longer require medical accreditation via CAMTS or NAAMTA for CASEVAC or MEDEVAC services as is current standard? If not, will the govt revise para 4.10 to include requirements for accreditation IAW current standards? | Yes, see PWS para 4.10 revisions in Amendment 1. | ||
| PWS Para 4.10 | The PWS mentions air carrier accreditation by CAMTS or NAAMTA in para 4.9 pertaining to Air Ambulance services, but there is no mention of accreditation being required for Medical Evacuation services in para 4.10. All current enduring USTC contract which have a CASEVAC or MEDEVAC component require the contractor to accredit at the appropriate level of care via CAMTS or NAAMTA with a specified time period after award and maintain accreditation throughout the period of performance. Without accreditation requirements mentioned currently in para 4.10, how should an offeror go about substantiating their experience and performance providing CASEVAC or MEDEVAC services as required under Atch 4? | See PWS para 4.10 revisions in Amendment 1. | ||
| PWS Para 4.10 | The PWS mentions no minimum level of care, i.e. Advanced Life Support or Basic Life Support under para 4.10, nor does it specify any specific training, certification, or medical programs standards that must met (ACLS, PHTLS, etc.) if the contractor is ordered to provide fully trained and qualified Flight NREMT-Paramedics? Will the govt specify minimum training and certification aside from NREMT-Paramedics so that offerors understand the minimum requirements in order to anticipate potential medical program needs? | See PWS para 4.10 revisions in Amendment 1. | ||
| Solicitation Section B, CLIN 0006 & 0007 | CLIN 6 and 7 appear to conflict: CLIN 6 (mobilization): The price may include costs for positioning of contracted aircraft, personnel travel costs, transportation of support equipment, vehicles, etc. CLIN 7 (demobilization): The price does not include depositioning of alternate aircraft, personnel travel costs, transportation of support equipment, vehicles, etc. Confirm that it is the governments intention not to include depositioning costs in CLIN 7 for personnel, support equipment, vehicles, etc? | CLIN 0007 revised, see Amendment 1. | ||
| PWS 1.22.1.1 & 1.22.1.2 | Attachment 2: This report is not required if Contractor is currently performing under a TCAQ TO for dedicated international / domestic airlift. Please clarify whether or not the report is required if currently performing dedicated international/domestic airlift on other TCAQ contract vehicles or does this statement apply exclusively to this IDIQ? If this statement applies to other TCAQ contract vehicles and the contractor is currently performing under a TCAQ TO on another contract vehicle is the report required for the initial submission? | Yes, offerors are required to fill out and submit attachment 2 IAW solicitation section L-3.(B)(1)(b). PWS para. 1.22.1 specifically addresses reporting requirements after IDIQ award. | ||
| PWS 4.1.2.1 Flight Hours | The definition of "Flight Hours" is a non-standard combination of flight time & block time and does not conform to any regulatory standards. Recommend the authority modify the PWS to adopt the industry standard definition of block time. Change "Flight hours are calculated from the moment the aircraft lifts off the ground and ends when the aircraft had landed and the engines are stopped." to read "Flight hours are calculated from the moment the aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing." | Government requirement remains unchanged. | ||
| PWS 4.10 Medical Evacuation | The PWS defines "Medical Evacuation" as "The movement of one or more patients to a treatment facility by transportation." in the definition section and "movement of ambulatory and/or littered patients, 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 suitable for fixed-wing airlift support." in the referenced paragraph. ICAO defines “MEDEVAC” as: “Life critical medical emergency evacuation” The terms MEDEVAC & CASEVAC are not found in the US Federal Aviation Regulations. For US operators a particular flight is either an “air ambulance operation” or it is not. There is no distinction between levels of care as is often the case with the terms MEDEVAC & CASEVAC. A "Medical Evacuation" mission (as described in the PWS) to transport a non-stabilized, littered patient with no medical treatment provided (no medical personnel or equipment on board) would be conducted under the regulatory authorities of a typical passenger flight. If NREMT-P Paramedics are provided IAW 4.10.3 the mission would likely be classified as an "Air Ambulance Operation" requiring the appropriate regulatory approvals. Recommend modification of the PWS to align with regulatory requirements: remove 4.10.3 from this section & modify the definition to read "The movement of one of more passengers to a medical treatment facility by transportation with no medical care proved en route" | Government requirement remains unchanged. Level of care will be defined at the Task Order level. See PWS para 4.10 revisions in Amendment 1. | ||
| PWS 4.21 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) | Requirements for IFR operations will vary depending on the location. For example, some areas with limited or no infrastructure may required Class II navigation. How will the government determine if an operator has the capability to provide appropriately equiped aircraft, trained, current, and proficient aircrew and has the appropriate regulatroy authorities to conduct IFR operations in a specific AOR that may require unique capabilities? | Offerors shall demonstrate services offered in Attachment 4 outlining their full range of capabilities corresponding to each category of service at the time of proposal submission. Capabilities include (but are not limited to) properly equipped aircraft, required certifications/OpSpec and qualified crews. Specific IFR requirements will be fully identified at the TO level. | ||
| PWS 1.17.3.1 | The PWS states "If an aircraft becomes FMC after 1100 local time, the aircraft will be considered NMC for the day." This definition appears to be overly restrictive and arbitrary by assuming all aircraft are scheduled to fly during the morning hours. Due to operational requirements an aircraft may return to service after 1100 local time and still complete all assigned mission tasking, but under the language the contractor would be forced to report the aircraft as NMC, despite the fact the aircraft was operational and FMC when it was scheduled to fly later in the day. How will the contractor report aircraft status for an aircraft that completes a scheduled maintenance action and is returned to service after 1100 and then completes a mission that was originally scheduled later in the day (e.g. an aircraft that was not scheduled to fly until that evening)? | Government requirement remains unchanged. | ||
| PWS 1.17.3.1 | The PWS states "If an aircraft becomes FMC after 1100 local time, the aircraft will be considered NMC for the day." This definition appears to ignore specific operational requirements, such as CASEVAC services where aircraft are on alert or aircraft that primarily provide support in the afternoon/evening. If the govt's intent is to require an aircraft to be reported as NMC if it is not available for more than 12 hours in a 24 hour period, will the government revise this language to something less restrictive an arbitrary, which considers specific operational requirements that may exist on some contracts? | Government requirement remains unchanged. | ||
| L-3 PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS (3) Proposal Content | REF: (b) Solicitation/Contract Form. Offerors shall complete blocks 17a, and 30 a, b, and c of the SF 33. QUESTION: SF 33 does not have blocs 17a and 30a-c. Please clarify or provide link to the appropriate form. | See revised language in Amendment 1. | ||
| L-3,(3) (B)(2)(b) & | ||||
| SF 33 | Guidance states: "Solicitation/Contract Form. Offerors shall complete blocks 17a, and 30 a, b, and c of the SF 33. |
Signature by the offeror on the SF 33 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept."
There is no block 17a. Block 17 is SIGNATURE.
There are no Blocks 30 a, b, or c. Believe that this should read: "Offerors shall complete blocks 16, 17, and 15 a, b, and c of the SF 33. Signature by the offeror on the SF 33 constitutes an offer, which the Government may accept."
Also, the SF 33 used in the proposal is not the latest version. The latest version is STANDARD FORM 33 (REV. 6/2014) Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.214 (c).
| Will the Government please clarify the instructions? | See revised language in Amendment 1. | |
| L-3,(3) (B)(2)(g) & | ||
| Attachment 5 | Guidance in Section L states: "Offeror shall submit DD Form 254 utilizing Attachment 5 if currently holding a Facility Clearance, or request the Government sponsorship for a Facility Clearance." |
Attachment 5 states in Section 6 "NOT APPLICABLE TO SOLICITATIONS or FOREIGN CONTRACTORS".
This guidance appears to be in conflict since this is a solicitation. Will the Government please clarify the instructions?
| See revised language in Amendment 1. | |||
| Section L-3(3)(B)(2)(g) | The referenced section states that the Offeror shall submit DD Form 254 utilizing Attachment 5 if currently holding a Facility Clearance, or request the Government sponsorship for a Facility Clearance. Can the Government please confirm that the Attachment 5 is only provided for informational/bidding purposes and the Offeror is to provide the current status of their Facility Clearance as part of the Business Proposal narrative (i.e. no inputs required by Offeror on Attachment 5)? | See revised language in Amendment 1. | |
| Attachment 4 and PWS 4.10 | Attachment 4 indicates PWS reference 4.10 is for Air Drop Cargo Services; however, PWS 4.10 is actually Medical Evacuation. Will the Government provide instructions for addressing 4.10 and 4.11 in the PWS? | See revised language in Amendment 1. | |
| Attachment 4 | PWS reference 4.11 is not included. Will the Government provide instructions for addressing 4.11? | See revised language in Amendment 1. | |
| Attachment 2 | Will the Government allow hyperlinks in Attachment 2 that direct you to attachments/appendices within the proposal file for backup information (e.g. flight log/mission data)? | Hyperlinks will not be permitted. |
HTC711-19-R-R003, Attachment 10
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .