HTC71126RE119 AFRICOM DPACS QAs.pdf

AFRICOM HTC71126RE119 Questions and Answers

Q# Document Question Answer Solicitation Change (if any)

1 PP Worksheet Page 1 Scope The addition of headings, Company Name of Offeror, and the instruction paragraph results in the Description of scope entry block on page 1 being smaller (16 lines) that all the other (29 lines). Is that correct?

Yes, the inclusion of headings, the Company Name of Offeror, and the instruction paragraph reduces the Description of Scope entry block on page 1 to 16 lines, compared to 29 lines in other sections. If additional space is required, USTC will allow the offeror to continue their response for item number 1 on one additional page. This additional page should be attached to Attachment 7 and designated as page 5.

Atch 7 - Past Performance Worksheet revised to add additional space page.

2 RFP Instructions Page 63 Paragraph (C) specifies that “The font shall be Times New Roman and no smaller than 12-point except for …” Atch. 8 - PPQ contains 10 point font. Is it acceptable to use the size point provided in a solicitation provided form?

Yes, the font size provided in solicitation-provided forms, such as Attachment 8

- PPQ, is acceptable and considered an exception to the general font requirements outlined in Paragraph (C). Therefore, utilizing the 10-point font size on the attachment is

No

3 RFP Instructions Page 64 “Volume II - Technical Proposal has a page limit based on the character limitations in Attachment 6.”

Atch. 6 responses to topics I.2, I.3, II.2, have a limit on the number of lines that can be entered in the response box. The other topics do not appear to have such limits and allow unlimited lines to be entered. However, the font size is reduced at some point. Please clarify the page limits.

Beyond the contents of Atch 3 and 6, are we permitted to provide any additional supporting information -- such as drawings of the various aircraft configurations?

The response boxes in Attachment 6 have been updated to maximize the number of characters allowed. Any additional information, including supporting details such as drawings of various aircraft configurations, can be placed on pages 8, 9, and added page 10 or addendum as indicated in the evaluation question.

Atch 6 - Technical Capability Worksheet revised.

4 Technical Capability - Additional Space Page 8 and

Attachment 6, Technical Capability Worksheet includes two “Additional Response Space” blocks. May we use the block to provide additional information to multiple of the responses above?

Is it permissible to add other “Additional Response Space” pages to provide supporting documentation or graphics for plans?

The Additional Response Space blocks in Attachment 6, Technical Capability Worksheet, may be used to provide additional information for multiple responses above. The box should be utilized for the primary response, and any expansion, including supporting documentation or graphics, can be added to pages 8-10 to ensure the requirement is addressed comprehensively.

Atch 6 - Technical Capability Worksheet revised.

5 Technical Capability - Subfactor 1.2 adaptability

“2. Mission Adaptability - Describe how your aircraft can be configured …”

Is this requirement for the primary aircraft only or for all aircraft offered? This requirement would be most clearly addressed with layout diagrams – but 22 lines is too little space to include multiple diagrams. Will the Government consider allowing a full page (66 lines) plus three additional pages for diagrams?

Added language that allows for submission of up to 3 graphical aircraft configurations per model of aircraft proposed as separate addendum to the worksheet.

Atch 6 - Technical Capability Worksheet revised at Subfactor 1.2 and page 10 added for additional space.

6 Technical Capability - Subfactor 2.1 Aircraft Positioning page 3

“1. Primary Aircraft Positioning - Provide a clear plan for positioning the primary aircraft and crew to ensure they are fully mission capable by 1 May 2026.” -- and -- “If proposing to utilize primary aircraft not currently authorized on the FAA-approved (or CAA equivalent) OpSpecs as of the date of proposal, Offeror must detail plan to receive FAA approval within 30 days of contract award.”

Please clarify the page limit for this response.

This block does not limit the number of lines allowed. Providing a “clear plan” and a “detail plan” in a strict size limited block will be

Added language that allows for submission of a graphical/chart/process flow depiction of the proposed positioning plan by separate, single-page addendum to the worksheet.

Atch 6 - Technical Capability Worksheet revised at Subfactor 2.1 and page 10 added for additional space.

7 RFP Evaluation Factor 1 page

“b.All aircraft types proposed must be CARB-approved consistent with 32 CFR Part 861.

Aircraft not validated as approved by the CARB at the time of award decision will not be considered for award.”

“iv.Provide current FAA OpSpecs (or CAA equivalent) as of time of proposal. Ultimately, all aircraft proposed under this solicitation must be listed on the offeror's FAA issued OpSpecs paragraph D085, or CAA equivalent, identifying each aircraft proposed to be utilized and Offeror's currently authorized operations within 30 days of award.”

The two referenced requirements appear to set different standards. Please clarify these two statements.

CARB approval is about the aircraft type and ensuring it meets regulatory standards for DoD use, while FAA OpSpecs focuses on your authorization as an operator to use specific aircraft (i.e., tail #). This language contemplates, for example, a CARB-approved air carrier operates GIVs (listed on OpSpec). To meet this requirement, they offer a GV (not on OpSpec).

CARB may approve the GV because it is a similar aircraft type to the GIV without it being on the OpSpec. However, this carrier, assuming they were awarded the contract, would need to have this aircraft added to its OpSpec within 30 days of award.

No

8 RFP Evaluation Factor 1 page

“c. If the Offeror proposes an aircraft type that was added to their Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued Operations Specification (OpSpecs) paragraph D085, or Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) equivalent, within the last year or not otherwise previously approved by the CARB for use on a DoD requirement, the offeror must consult with the AMC/A3B CARB Office to verify that the aircraft is fully CARB-approved and eligible for use under this solicitation.”

Can we provide evidence of this approval in Volume I Business?

Yes, evidence of this approval can be provided in Volume I Business as part of the eligibility requirements under Section F. It is also identified on the AFRICOM Business Compliance Checklist Coversheet, Attachment 5.

No

9 Pricing Table Row 30 Row 30 contains pricing summary data that does not align with the heading in column B. Please correct.

Row 30 revised. Atch 2 - Pricing Table revised.

10 Pricing Table Row 30 CLIN X006 Cell D22

“Contractor shall mobilize surge fixed-wing aircraft when requested under PWS 1.14.

Compensation is a one-time payment of costs necessary to mobilize and demobilize a surge aircraft to and from SAAF for dedicated airlift performance, upon each surge event.”

Please clarify that we are required to provide the same price to mobilize and to demobilize the aircraft, and that the quantity 2 is for one mobilization action and one demobilization action applicable to the surge aircraft. Or is this unit price for both mobilizing and demobilizing an aircraft?

Is mobilization / demobilization of the primary aircraft included in this CLIN?

The unit price encompasses both mobilization and demobilization of the aircraft for each surge event.

The quantity of 2 is provided as an estimate, representing two separate surge events within the specified period.

Mobilization and demobilization of the primary aircraft is not subject to separate compensation as indicated in PWS 1.14.

No

11 PWS 4.2.6 page 14 “4.2.6.Communication Airtime. The Government will reimburse the Contractor, at cost, for all communication airtime used by authorized passengers under this contract.”

Would CLIN X004 allow the reimbursement of satellite communication system subscription fees?

Yes, in accordance with the Pricing Sheet CLIN Description, reimbursement will follow a Time and Materials (T&M) basis as outlined in PWS Section

4.2. All reimbursable

expenses, excluding fuel invoices, must be substantiated with paid third-party receipts to ensure proper documentation and

12 PWS 4.1.5 page 13 “4.1.5. Monthly Basing – Surge Aircraft.

Contractor shall provide surge fixed-wing airlift service when requested under PWS 1.14.

Compensation includes all recurring fixed costs, including fully burdened personnel salaries, fixed equipment and maintenance costs, insurance, leases, recurrent training, overhead, G&A, and profit, necessary to base surge aircraft at static location and provide dedicated transportation services for the duration tasked. Partial months of surge deployment shall be compensated on pro-rata daily basis.”

Can the Government provide an estimate of the estimated duration and flights for the future surge periods based on prior years contract usage.

Also, many of the cost elements identified in this section are charged on a monthly basis. Pro-rating the allowable billed amount on a daily basis will not align with the actual cost incurred by the contractor.

Historical usage has been for a 3 month period, which is reflected in the quantity estimate of 3. Description of this CLIN in Atch 2 - Pricing Table and the PWS have been revised to indicate that surge deployments will be ordered for at minimum one month, with pro-rata daily basis applying after that month.

Atch 2 - Pricing Table CLIN x005 Description revised. PWS para. 4.1.5 revised.

13 PWS 4.1.2 page 13 “1.6.3. When unexpected events arise that make the primary aircraft unable to meet the standards outlined above, the Contractor will provide a substitute aircraft within 48 hours of first learning of the unavailability unless otherwise authorized by the CO.”

Is the 48 hour requirement satisfied if the offeror identifies a substitute aircraft and initiates a plan to position that aircraft to Stuttgart within that timeframe? Is the aircraft required to be on the ground at Stuttgart to meet the 48 hour requirement?

The 48-hour requirement means that the substitute aircraft must be physically on the ground at Stuttgart and capable of supporting missions within 48 hours of the primary aircraft becoming non-mission capable (NMC). Identifying a substitute aircraft and initiating a plan alone does not satisfy the requirement.

Flexibility may be granted based on actual mission requirements, as authorized by the Contracting Officer.

No

14 PWS 1.6.3 page 6 “4.1.2.Flight Hour Rate. …. and also includes a $4.00 per gallon pegged fuel rate.”

Section 4.1.3 describes fuel as T&M. Please clarify the pegged fuel rate.

The $4.00 per gallon pegged fuel rate referenced in Section 4.1.2 represents a fixed rate used for calculating the Flight Hour Rate, i.e., offeror's flight hour rate should include $4.00 per gallon times the hourly burn rate of the aircraft. For example, if your proposed aircraft burns 100 gallons per hour, your flight hour rate would include $400 per hour for this pegged fuel. PWS 4.3 further discusses how this interplays with fuel reimbursement made under the T&M CLIN.

15 RFP Section: Evaluation Factor 1, vi page: 68 PWS Section: 5.3.7 page: 34

RFP evaluation page 68 - “vi. Have available a NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment, no more than three years old, in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) module within Procurement Integrated Enterprise Environment (PIEE) (https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/) for each covered contractor information system. Additionally, to be eligible for award, Offeror must be certified under the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program as CMMC level 2 (self), as confirmed in SPRS.

PWS 5.3.7 “CMMC level 2 (self) certification is required. The Contractor shall have a current (i.e., not older than 3 years) CMMC certificate at the CMMC level required by this contract and maintain the CMMC certificate at the required level for the duration of the contract.”

Other than having completed a self-assessment of all 110 elements and posting it in SPRS, are there any other requirements for this factor? For instance, if an offeror’s score is not 100%, is that offeror eligible for award. Does the evaluation consider offerors who have a corrective action plan to achieve a 100% score prior to the period of performance?

An offeror whose SPRS score is not 100% (i.e., less than 110 points) may still be eligible for contract award under conditions related to the CMMC program's "conditional certification" status. The evaluation may consider offerors who have a corrective action plan (POA&M) that clearly identifies security gaps, assigns responsibility for remediation, and provides a defined timeline for achieving full compliance, however this conditional certification must be indicated in SPRS.

No

16 Document: PWS Section: 1.14 Aircraft Positioning Page: 9

This states “ …fully mission capable, as defined in PWS para. 4.3, on 1 May 2026.”

Is PWS 4.3 the correct reference for this subfactor?

Reference corrected to 4.4.2.

PWS 1.14

revised

17 Attachment 1-Africom

DPACS PWS -19NOV2025

Section 5.1.5 Pg. 25 and Africom DD Form 254

Will the Government confirm that Offerors must have a current Facilities Clearance (FCL) by time of contract award?

Yes this is true - See https://www.dcsa.mil/Indust rial-Security/Entity-Vetting- Facility-Clearances-FOCI/

No

18 General Question Will the Government consider a ten (10) day extension to the proposal submission deadline to support full and open competition and ensure USTRANSCOM receives fair, complete, and competitive proposals?

No - Proposal's need to meet the deadline of 22 Dec 2025 (1600 CST) as defined in the solication