Kirtland_Draft_PWS_QA_(18_Feb_14).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
Attached is an Excel Spreadsheet containing additional questions/comments and answers in repsonse to the Draft Kirtland PWS.
View the file
Other files
Show all 48
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
Sheet1
| Type Question | PWS Page Ref. | PWS Para. Ref. | PWS or additional cross ref. | Comment/Question | Answer |
| Technical | 3-2-3 | 2.1.3.2., page 2-1-2 | Paragraph 2.1.3.2 makes reference to Section H-4. Can Section H-4 be made available before the Final RFP is issued? | Reference to Section H-4 has been removed from the PWS. | |
| Technical | I-1 | Table 3.2.1 note A, page 3-2-2 | Directs that computations for computing the aircraft availability (AA) standard will be done IAW AFI 21-101 attachment 25. Will the source data numbers need to compute operational requirement (OR) be given or will the OR number AETC uses to compute AA be made available? | Operational Requirement (OR) data is given in the PWS Appendix B, Workload data. | |
| Technical | 3-1-6 | 2.1.8.6.1., page 2-1-13 | Does this requirement pertain to employees re-hired from the incumbent SP who have already undergone this process and already have base access granted? | This requirement is for new hires. Employees already working on Kirtland from the incumbent SP would have already undergone this process. | |
| Technical | 3-1-8 | 3.1.12.13., page 3-1-19 | Directs use of TC Max as the tool accountability software program. Is TC Max currently being used by the incumbent SP and has it been fully implemented, replacing TAS? Is there any anticipated work load associated with TC Max implementation? Is the purchasing of the TC Max software and training to be included in the SP’s price? | Yes. TC Max is currently being used by the incumbent SP and has been fully implemented, replacing TAS. TC-Max software and training are provided by the Government. See PWS paragraphs 3.1.12.13, 3.1.12.13.1. and Appendix FF. | |
| Technical | 3-1-28 | 2.1.13.4., page 2-1-26 | Paragraph states SP shall appoint a Records Custodian and Functional Area Records Manager. Who will be the Chief of Records that the employees assigned these duties report too? | The Chief of Records will be a Government employee. According to a ruling by the AF/JA, a non-government employee cannot be legally responsible for government records nor can he/she hold the position as "Chief of an Office." |
| Technical | 2-1-2 | 3.1.3.2., page 3-1-2 | Table 3.1.3 | Paragraph establishes requirement for SP to manage, maintain, configure, repair and provide technical support of all government e-tools for the 58th MXG. The table breaks down responsibility for the C-130 section and SP only. Will the rest of the units in the 58th MXG using e-tools have assigned TODO’s? Will the responsibilities of those TODO’s mirror the C-130 section responsibilities in table 3.1.3? | Yes. The rest of the units assigned to the 58MXG will have their own assigned TODOs and will mirror the C-130 section responsibilities. |
| Technical | 2-1-31 | 3.2.4.1 & 3.2.4.1 Note A, page 3-2-4 | It appears that there is no correlation between the minimum daily aircraft requirement and actually operational needs based on the weekly flying schedule. If the weekly/daily schedule requires for example 2 H-60’s and 1 spare H-60 to support real world operational/training requirements for that day, is the SP still required to produce 5 H-60’s (if 10 are possessed) with pre-flights 2 hours prior to the first scheduled take off time? By not using the actual scheduled requirements to establish the minimum daily aircraft requirement the government is placing an undue burden on the SP to use productive man hours for the sake of meeting this requirement. Performing pre-flights on aircraft there is no intention of flying. Those productive man hours could be utilized elsewhere (phase docks/unscheduled/scheduled maintenance) and the flying schedule requirements would still be met. For example, flying schedule calls for 2 H-60’s and 1 spare H-60 means the daily minimum aircraft requirement would be 3. | Paragraph 3.2.4. tables have been removed. Paragraph 3.2.4 has been revised to reflect Minimum Daily Aircraft requirements. In addition, the only aircraft required to have a valid preflight are the flyers for the day. | |
| Technical | B-3 | 3.1.12.5, page 3-1-17 | If the CFT is required to work in a restricted area will the government arrange access for them or will the SP have to provide escorts? | The SP will be required to escort CFT members in restricted areas. Paragraph 3.1.12.5 has been changed to add this requirement. | |
| Technical | 2-1-30 | 3.1.17, page 3-1-22 | Paragraph states “SP shall establish and perform MMA functions IAW AFI 21-101 paragraph 6.2.6”. AFI 21-101 paragraph 6.2.6 establishes the responsibilities of the MXG maintenance analysis section specifically stating they will “act as the group POC”. Is it the government’s intent to have the SP perform all the duties of MXG maintenance analysis or only those associated with SP maintained aircraft? Is it the government’s intent to incorporate SP maintenance analysis into the MXG consolidated maintenance analysis section? | It is the Government's intent that the SP perform MMA duties for only SP maintained UH-1N and HH-60G aircraft. Para 3.1.17 has been revised to clarify the MMA function for the SP. | |
| Technical | 2-1-34 | 3.1.18.1, page 3-1-22/23 | States that SP “shall establish and perform PS&D functions IAW AFI 21-101 chapter 7 and AETCI 21-104 (all).” AFI 21-101 chapter 7 establishes the organizational structure of the MXG consolidated PS&D shop. Is the SP performing duties for just SP maintained aircraft or for the entire group using the consolidated group structure detailed in AFI 21-101 chapter 7? | It is the Government's intent that the SP perform PS&D duties for only SP maintained UH-1N and HH-60G aircraft. Para 3.1.18.1 has been revised to clarify the PS&D function for the SP. | |
| Contracting | 3-2-3 | 3.1.25.1.1, page 3-1-27 | 2.1.5.10 | Paragraph states that the explosive training plan is due to the CO NLT contract start however paragraph 2.1.5.10 states that the explosive training plan is due NLT pre performance conference. Which suspense date is correct? | Revised paragraph 3.1.25.1.1 to match paragraph 2.1.5.10. The explosive training plan shall be submitted no later than the pre-performance conference, and upon revision, for review and acceptance by the CO. |
| table 3.2.2, page 3-2-1 | Table establishes the performance thresholds for e-tools as no more than 5 and no more than 2 valid customer complaints per month. What is the customer complaint process for e-tools and who is the validation authority for such complaints as it relates to successful accomplishment of the performance objectives? | Customers using E-Tools must submit their complaints in writing to the CORs for initial review and validation. The Functional Commander (FC) will have final validation authority for complaints. When the number of validated complaints exceeds the threshold, the CORs, through the FC, will provide the validated complaints to the CO. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .