ID08150088_AVMAC_Q A_20160303.pdf

AMENDMENT 001 RFP ID08150088

Amendment 001 is issued in response to questions submitted for Request for Proposal (RFP) issued for ID 08150088. Changes to the Performance Work Statement are indicated with vertical line(s) on the right side of the paper. The Government provides the following responses to all offeror(s):

Question 1: Wrt PWS 1.3.1, 1.3.7 and 1.3.11.13– Is it the government’s intention to have Aviation Life Support System (ALSS) maintenance performed by Contractor Maintenance Support (CMS). If so, will the Government please identify the ALSS labor requirement in the Historic Labor Mix table in Attachment 2?

Government Response: Refer to revised PWS dated 2 March 2016 to include Attachment 2 issued with this amendment.

Question 2: Wrt PWS 1.3.4 – What capabilities are required for the stand-alone team that’s referenced?

Similar aircraft CMS efforts that have stand-alone capability include: Maintenance Control (Safe-for- Flight [SFF] authority), Aviation Administration/Logs & Records, and Aviation Supply/Material Control and ALSS. The Historic Labor Mix table in Attachment 2 currently does not reflect all requirements for a “Stand-alone CMS Team. Does the Government intend to modify Attachment 2 to reflect all aforementioned Labor requirements for a Stand-alone Team at both locations?

Government Response: PWS para 1.3.4 states: Ensure all personnel are fully integrated with the work centers of the maintenance department or may perform as a standalone team as needed by the appropriate Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron (MALS) Aircraft Maintenance Officer (AMO) to best accomplish the requirements of the Marine Aircraft Group (MAG). This means the proposed contractor personnel may be integrated in the work centers OR may be in a standalone team. This is a performance-based acquisition. Attachment 2, Historic Labor Mix, was provided as historical data.

Question 3: Wrt PWS 1.3.5 – The Government indicates work involving logs and records and data analysis. These tasks are normally performed by non-maintenance personnel such as aviation maintenance administration personnel. Will the government be adding logs and records and analyst labor to the PWS?

Government Response: The proposed contractor maintenance personnel will be required to comply with PWS 1.3.5.

Question 4: Wrt PWS 1.3.11.6 Support Services – The government indicates work performing detachment on-load and off-load. Is it the government’s intention to have forklift qualified/licensed personnel and if so will it be added to the LIST OF REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS/CERTIFICATIONS table in Attachment 1?

Government Response: The Government does not require forklift qualified/licensed personnel.

Question 5: Wrt PWS 4.3.5 and para 9 Deliverables – both paragraphs refer to Attachment 3, which was not included in the Government’s release. Will the Government provide Attachment 3 in an Amendment?

Government Response: The Government has corrected the error as indicated in the attached PWS dated 2 March 2016 issued with this amendment. Changes are indicated with a line on the right side of page.

Question 6: Wrt Attachment 1, a Seat Mechanic and corresponding qualifications, is it the Government’s intention to have both qualified ALSS and Ejection Seat Mechanics on the AV-8 effort? IAW the CNAFINST 4790.2B, both ALSS and Ejection Seat Mechanics have to be “A” school graduates, and

Ejection Seat Mechanics must be trained in the Type/Model/Series/ aircraft supported. Will the Government differentiate the Labor requirements in Attachment 2 for ALSS and Ejection Seat Mechanics?

Government Response: Refer to PWS dated 2 March 2016 to include Attachment 2 issued with this amendment. ALSS is not a requirement.

Question 7: Wrt Attachment 2, the “Total per location” line is not clear. The total can be interpreted as 25 (Total # of Workers) if read vertically or 47 if one reads the “Total per location” line horizontally.

Since there is an “Aircraft Workers” SCA Labor category, we would like to ensure we clearly understand the total FTE requirement at each location. Adding an element of confusion, the DOL SCA WD has a labor category for “Aircraft Workers”. We would like to ensure the Government is not inferring the same in the “# of Workers” column heading in Attachment 2. Will the Government please specify the exact number of FTE required at each site.

Government Response: The chart was revised for clarity. The category identified in the Attachment 2 should not be confused with the SCA labor category. The historical information is provided for information; this is a performance-based acquisition. The Total # of Workers column listed in attachment 2 should be read vertically for a total of 25 FTEs per location. The other columns are to provide historically information on the required qualifications of the FTEs. For example: Airframes lists a total of 6 workers:

Three (3) - Aircraft Mechanic II/CDI

Three (3) - Aircraft Mechanic III/CDQAR

Six (6) Airframe workers have 4 years of aircraft maintenance experience

Six (6) Airframe workers have 2 years of AV8 maintenance experience

Question 8: Wrt Attachment 2, the government lists two I-level Power Plants mechanics. Is it the Government’s intention that these two FTE will be located within the respective MALS?

Government Response: Yes.

Question 9: Wrt the RFP para 3.A.4 – is it the Government’s intention to have Offerors submit a resume for each of the labor positions (50 or 94)? If so, does the Government want the resumes submitted with Volume I or Volume II?

Government Response: Refer to the attached revised RFP Amendment 001 dated 3 Mar 16. The instructions for resumes were deleted.

Question 10: Wrt the RFP, are Offerors to understand there is no requirement for Past Performance?

Government Response: Refer to RFP Evaluation Criteria.

Question 11: Wrt the RFP, 3.A. Volume I, Technical Factor, 8 page Limit, - How will the Government evaluate pages in excess of 8 pages, if submitted?

Government Response: Any pages submitted in excess of the page limit will not be evaluated.

Question 12: WRT PWS 8.1 is it the government’s intent for the contractor to provide Fall Protection Equipment or is it provided by the government?

Government Response: Fall Protection Equipment shall be provided by the Government.

Question 13: Wrt to the RFP does DFARS 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk apply to this contract?

Government Response: Yes. DFARS 252.228-7001 does apply.

Question 14: WRT to the RFP and the PWS is the contractor required to comply with NAVAIRINST

3710.1 Series “Contractor’s Flight and Ground Operations?

Government Response: Yes. NAVAIRINST 3710.1 is applicable; However, flying, taxiing, low and high powered turns are not required; only APU turn-ups are required.

Question 15: Wrt Section 3 Government Furnished Equipment/Property. PWS currently states “NA”.

Similar PWSs have had government will provide Tools, specialized equipment e.g. IMRL, Support Equipment, publications, work space, phones, NALCOMIS computers, desks, parts and consumables, HAZMAT, etc. Will the Government provide clarification who is responsible to provide this material/equipment?

Government Response: Government shall provide all tools/equipment at each location.

Question 16: Wrt to the RFP, para 2. Basis for Contract Award, GAS Region 8 has awarded similar aircraft support services contracts using Best Value as the basis for award. Would the Government consider Best Value as the basis for this award?

Government Response: The RFP states the basis for contract award. Refer to FAR 15.101, Best Value Continuum. For this requirement Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) is Best Value.

Question 17: SubFactor 4 requires a resume for each person proposed. Does that mean that we are expected to provide 50 resumes if we propose 50 personnel. If so, it is clear that this requirement provides a distinct advantage to the current incumbent. Recommend the government only require resumes for the key personnel.

Government Response: Refer to revised RFP issued with this amendment. This is a new requirement;

there is no incumbent.

Question 18: Attachment 2 shows that the historical workforce at each location is 25 personnel, but number of mechanics only add up to 22. Can the government explain this difference?

Government Response: Attachment 2, Historic Labor Mix, chart has been revised for clarity in PWS dated 2 March 2016 attached with this amendment. Also, refer to Government response to Question #7.

Reminder this is a performance-based acquisition.

Question 19: The Offeror response date for the subject effort is Monday 07 March 2016 at 0600 MST. Do you anticipate this date sliding to the right once an amendment is released?

Government Response: No extension will be granted. Refer to revised RFP issued with this amendment for proposal submission due date/time.

Question 20: To avoid answering any additional questions that may arise based on the Government’s response, requesting Offerors to provide a large number of resumes (i.e.50 minimum) is rather unorthodox compared to other similar aircraft maintenance requirements. Can you share the Government’s intent?

Government Response: Refer to revised RFP issued with this amendment 001.

Question 21: Some information that we thought was relevant, presuming that the Government will include the ALSS labor category, is ALSS technicians do not have to have Type/Model/Series specific aircraft experience. They just have to be a graduate of Aviation Life Support Systems “A” school and have whatever ALSS experience the Government deems necessary (i.e. four years of experience).

Government Response: Refer to revised PWS, Attachment 2, dated 2 March 2016 issued with this amendment.