Kirtland_Draft_RFP_Q A_Responses_31_Jul_14.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
Kirtland Draft RFP Q A Responses 31 Jul 14
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
| Kirtland Helicopter MX Draft RFP - Industry Q&A | |||
| Type | Reference | Question | Answer |
| Misc | Site Visit | Request the Site Visit/Industry Day and the One-on-One Telephone Session be scheduled/conducted prior to RFP release. There are too many questions that need to be addressed by Industry. This will allow time for Government response afterwards, since “No questions will be officially answered during the site visit.” |
| Why conduct the Site Visit after the RFP is released? Not only is that timing disruptive to the Proposal effort at a critical point, but it handicaps the bidders while they wait for answers to questions and forthcoming RFP Amendments while the clock is ticking. | The Government schedules the pre-proposal conference/site visits as reasonably possible. The Government's top priority is to ensure the quality of the RFP documents and progress toward RFP release. In general, as the RFP release date becomes more predictable, the Government will schedule visits as close to the release date as possible. The Government anticipates RFP release to occur relatively close to the Site Visit date of 5 Aug 14. | ||||
| Tech | 3.1.3.2 | Are E-Tools currently in use on the contract or will they be in use prior to contract start? | E-Tools are currently in use by helicopter maintenance personnel; however, management of E-Tools is a new requirement. | ||
| Cons | L.2.3.3 | We could not find referenced Paragraph L.3.2.5.4 | The reference was provided in error. Small Business Participation was originally an element of a technical subfactor; however, has since become a separate Volume (Vol IV). | ||
| Tech | 2.1.2.1.2 | Paragraph 2.1.2.1.2 and then throughout the PWS in numerous areas there is a reference to Section H-3 however there is no section H included in the draft RFP. Section H in the RFP only states "Blank Section H." Can Section H be made available or is this reference in error? If there is no Section H then what is the proper reference for all paragraphs that refer to Section H? | PWS paragraphs with references to H-3 will be removed from the PWS and updated accordingly. | ||
| Tech | 2.1.23.2 | Paragraph 2.1.23.1 outlines office and administrative supplies that are SP furnished. Printer paper and toner are included on this list. Paragraph 2.3.2.8.1 states that the government will provide consumables used in direct support of aircraft/equipment repairs. Aircraft forms (AFTO 781 series) and technical data not available in electronic format require paper and toner. Paper and toner are consumables. Is it the government's intent to provide paper and toner for aircraft forms/tech data or is it the expectation of the government for the SP to bear the burden of cost for paper and toner used to produce aircraft forms and non-electronic technical data? | It is not the Government's intent to provide paper for printing aircraft forms or digitized aircraft technical orders. However, the Government will provide aircraft technicians E-Tools (ruggedized laptops) to view/read digital technical data not available in paper form. In addition, the SP may use Government provided printers if used in direct support of aircraft maintenance. The Government will supply toner cartridges but will not supply paper for Government provided printers. PWS paragraphs 2.1.23.1. and 2.3.2.8.1 will be updated accordingly. | ||
| Tech | Appen C | Please provide the map for the work area for the CV-22 support personnel. | A map is not available for the work area for the CV-22. | ||
| Tech | 3.1.1.3 | Paragraph 3.1.1.3 requires the SP prepare the aircraft before crew arrival and have the aircraft ready prior to the next launch. Are there established crew ready times for UH-1N and HH-60G aircraft at Kirtland AFB. For example is a “crew ready” call to the MOCC meaning that the aircraft has an ER and the aircrew can step to the aircraft due at a specified time prior to take off? | Crew ready times for UH-1N is one (1) hour and HH-60G is two (2) hours prior to scheduled take-off for normal sorties. If the sortie is a GUN line, crew ready times for UH-1N is two (2) hour and HH-60G is three (3) hours prior to scheduled take-off. | ||
| Tech | 3.1.4.1.11 | Paragraph 3.1.4.1.11 states the SP shall coordinate and document repair procedures that exceed or lack technical data guidance with the appropriate ALC through the government COR office. Yet On/Off equipment structural maintenance support is provided by the 58th SOW. How is the SP supposed to hold the subject matter expertise to coordinate and document repair procedures when there is a lack of technical data guidance (assuming this means a T.O. 00-25-107 engineering assistance request through AIRCAT) when that responsibility is provided by the 58th SOW? If they do the repairs don’t they ascertain that the tech data is lacking and shouldn’t they be the ones to engage with the ALC to coordinate and document the repairs they will eventually do? | Re-worded PWS Paragraph 3.1.4.1.11 as follows: Structural Maintenance. On/Off-equipment Structural Maintenance Support is provided by the 58 SOW. | ||
| Tech | 3.1.4.1.17 | Paragraph 3.1.4.1.17 directs the inspection section be established as required by AFI 21-101 paragraph 5.10.4. Commercial practices and contract maintenance experience may have preferred organizational structures that have proven more cost effective and productive than the traditional inspection section structure mandated by AFI 21-101. Would it be permissible for the SP to use processes and organizational structures that deviate from the traditional USAF inspection section structure? | The SP must meet the intent and requirements of AFI 21-101 paragraph 5.10.4. | ||
| Tech | 3.1.4.5.1 | Paragraph 3.1.4.5.1 requires the SP to establish an effective means of recall communications that shall remain in effect 24/7. Upon notification by the GFR, the SP shall respond within thirty (30) minutes of the notification with the capability to launch and recover aircraft. |
1. What number and type of aircraft are expected to be ready to launch in 30 minutes? This will have a guge impact on the number of employees who need to be placed on standby.
2. The union Collective Bargaining Agreement states in paragraph 15.5(a) that a $25.00 stipend will be paid for each union member placed on standby. How does the government want this stipend to be bid? Should it be target cost or reimbursable under the weekend/holiday flying CLIN since those are the times when the site would not normally be manned and would require standby personnel?
3. Does this standby requirement include the FCF section of this contract? 1. The SP should be prepared to support a minimum of one (1) UH-1N and one (1) HH-60G to support emergency response requirements.
In addition, PWS Paragraph 3.1.4.5.1. has been re-worded as follows: The SP shall establish an effective means of recall communications with a 512 RQS Government Flying Representative (GFR), normally the Flight Operation Duty Officer (ODO) or the Supervisor of Flight (SOF) to support emergency response requirements. This communications recall requirement shall remain in effect , twenty-four (24) hours a day during non-duty hours. Upon notification by the GFR, the SP shall respond within one (1) hour of the notification with the capability to launch and recover UH-1N and/or HH-60G aircraft.
2. The CBA $25.00 standby stipend should be part of the target cost. Any approved/ actual Weekend/Holiday/Gov’t Directed OT would be reimbursed from the Weekend/Holiday/Gov’t Directed OT CLIN.
3. This standby requirement does not include the FCF sections of this contract.
Tech 3.1.12.5 Paragraph 3.1.12.5 states that the SP shall be responsible for all CFT support requirements to accomplish modifications, testing or TCTOs on assigned aircraft and equipment. Work accomplished by one contractor for the government (the CFT) cannot be signed off by another contractor (SP), normally DCMA or a government representative (COR) accomplishes/inspects/surveills the work done. Is it the intent of the language “the SP shall be responsible for all CFT support requirements to accomplish modifications, testing or TCTOs on assigned aircraft and equipment” supposed to include these types of inspections/acceptance of CFT work? In Paragraph 3.1.12.5, the CFT, not the SP, will be responsible for accomplishing modifications, testing or TCTOs on assigned aircraft and equipment. To eliminate the confusion of the SP CFT Project Officer responsibilities, removed the words, "to accomplish modifications, testing or TCTOs on assigned aircraft and equipment" from paragraph 3.1.12.5 lines 6 and 7 to read as follows:
"The individual(s) shall be responsible for all CFT support requirements. This support shall include escorting CFT members in restricted areas, coordinating/scheduling support, coordinating CFT environmental requirements with the organization Unit Environmental Coordinator (UEC), and monitoring CFT activities".
| Tech | 3.1.12.12.1 | Paragraph 3.1.12.12.1 states SP shall establish procedures to ensure all test and support equipment inspections, operational checks, and calibrations are performed IAW the Air Force Calibration Authority Viewer (AFCAV) and 00-20-14 as prescribed by applicable technical data. Table 3.1.4 states that PMEL scheduled calibration and repair is a host base provided service. How is the SP to establish procedures and ensure performance IAW the applicable tech data if the responsibility belongs to the host base? | Paragraph 3.1.12.12. and its subpara 3.1.12.12.1 refer to test and special equipment not specifically maintained by PMEL. For equipment maintained by PMEL, then Scheduled Calibration / Repair is a host base responsibility. |
| Tech | 3.1.15.1 | Paragraph 3.1.15.1 designates the SP responsible for recovery and repair of off-station aircraft anywhere in North America. However, K1.1 and M1.1 only require FCF crew support for the continental US. Is it the government’s intent for the recovery area to be consistent throughout all contracted services or will any aircrew support outside of the continental US be supplied by the government? | The assigned Kirtland helicopters and CV-22 aircraft are used for training/rescue purposes within the continental US and therefore contractor support/recovery outside of the continental US would not be required. |
| Tech | 3.1.26.1 | Table 3.1.26.1 note 2 mandates an active forms inspection be accomplished in conjunction with a Phase/PE QVI. It is not out of the ordinary for the active forms on Phase/PE aircraft to accumulate 400 or more pages on an H-60 or 200 or more on an H-1. Is this active forms inspection subject to the same AQL(number of discrepancies allowed) as a routine active forms inspection since the magnitude of forms is so great? Is this active forms inspection stand-alone next to the Phase/PE inspection or a part of it? If it is a part of it will the AQL be adjusted so that a tremendous amount of work accomplished during a Phase/PE is not failed due to excess forms errors? | 1. Is this active forms inspection subject to the same AQL(number of discrepancies allowed) as a routine active forms inspection since the magnitude of forms is so great? No, Phase inspection has its own AQL number. |
2. Is this active forms inspection stand-alone next to the Phase/PE inspection or a part of it? - The active forms inspection is part of the phase inspection.
3. If it is a part of it will the AQL be adjusted so that a tremendous amount of work accomplished during a Phase/PE is not failed due to excess forms errors? Excess form errors has not been an issue in the past and therefore no, the AQL will not be adjusted.
| Tech | B.8.2 | Table B.8.2 gives past examples of launch/recovery times showing UH-1N first launch’s landing at 1250 and afternoon launch times of 1400 and HH-60G first launch’s landing 1300 and afternoon launch times of 1345. In paragraph 3.2.4.1 it is stated that minimum turn times for the UH-1N are 2 hours and for the HH-60G are 3 hours however table B.8.2 does not reflect that showing only 1 hour 10 minutes and 45 minutes respectively. Can you please clarify how much time will be given to SP maintenance crews to accomplish required servicing and maintenance tasks between landing time and next take off time? | PWS Table B.8.2 provides examples of launch/recovery times and do not reflect the minimum turn times for the UH-1N and HH-60G. However PWS paragraph 3.2.4.1 will be updated to include "Crew ready times for UH-1N is one (1) hour and HH-60G is two (2) hours prior to scheduled take-off for normal sorties. If the sortie is a GUN line, crew ready times for UH-1N is two (2) hour and HH-60G is three (3) hours prior to scheduled take-off." |
| Cons | CBA | The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) has been incorporated into the contract. In accordance with Services Contract Labor Standards (SCLS-formerly known as the Service Contract Act), the CBA establishes the minimum wages and benefits the SP is required to pay/provide. As part of the pay provisions the CBA requires pay for special skills. These provision include Instructor Pilots or Instructor Engineers, fully qualified CV-22 pilots, Dual Qualified Pilots, Airframe and Power Plant Licenses, Federal Communications Commission License, Vibration Analysis Qualified. Therefore, the successful Offeror will be required by the CBA to pay these special qualification stipends. We understand that the Government has, inexplicably, disallowed the parts of Price Adjustment proposals that were for increases in these Dual Qualification pay provisions even when those proposals were submitted in accordance with FAR 52.222-43. Will the practice of disallowing Dual Qualification pay differential increases continue in the new contract. If so, should Offerors include estimated cost increases for these provisions in their Firm Fixed Price? If the estimated cost increases are to be included in the FFP, please explain how such increases will not be treated as a "contingency" that is prohibited by FAR 52.222-43? This clause clearly states that, "The Contractor warrants that the prices in this contract do not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under this clause." | The Government is not involved in the establishment of CBAs. |
The Government will review and allow adjustments that comply with the CBA and the requirement. If the requirement mandates use of Dual Qualification and the CBA allows/addresses the use, such adjustments will be allowed to the extent that the CBA increase specifies. If the requirement does not mandate and/or the CBA does not allow/address the use of Dual Qualifications, such increases will not be allowed.
You are correct in stating that pricing in potential increases under FFP may be considered a contingency.
Tech K-4 Paragraph K.4.1 states that the government will provide “initial” basic aircraft qualifications (academic, simulator, flying training) IAW AETC approved formal syllabus of instruction and courseware. However some of these requirements are recurring such as simulator refresher and academic refresher. Will these recurring requirements be provided by the government? Yes, simulator refresher and other similar training is provided by the government. Appendix K, paragraph K.4.1., will be updated to include "initial and refresher training".
| Tech | 3-1-11/M.1.1 | Table 3.4.1 breaks down responsibilities for UH1N/HH60G categories to include FCF as covered in Section K but nowhere are CV-22 responsibilities covered. Is the intent of Section M for the service provider to be the sole source of CV-22 FCF support for the 71 SOS? Currently the contract only augments FCF support has this changed? | The AF is evaluating this requirement and how best to accomplish CV-22 FCF services. For the purposes of this acquisition, FCF services are to be fully contracted until further notice. |
| Cons | Appen M | CLIN X009 states the CV-22 requirement may or may not be included in the basic award. Can the Government clarify this statement? | Currently, the AF is evaluating this requirement and how best to accomplish CV-22 FCF services. This has led to some delays in this acquisition. For the purposes of time, the Government is continuing this acquisition with fully contracted CV-22 FCF services; however, should an AF determination be made not to contract this function, the Government may not exercise the optional CLINs associated with CV-22, either in the Base period and/or Option periods. The Government's intent for this statement is to identify to industry that this contracted function may change or be eliminated and that industry should consider pricing as severable. |
| Misc | L.2.2 | RFP Section L, para L.2.2, states that the submittal requirements for Volume I – Price are: “a total of one (1) original paper copy with CD/DVD, and one (1) reproduced original paper copy. RFP Section L, para L.1.2, Table 1.2, however, states the submittal requirements for Volume I – Price are: Hard copies – Original + 2; and CD – 1. There appears to be a disconnect between the Volume 1 – Price submittal requirements stated in RFP Section L, paragraphs L.1.2 and L.2.2. |
| What does the Government intend to be the submittal requirements for Volume 1 - Price? | RFP Section L, Table 1.2 states the proper hard copy and CD/DVD submittal requirements. Para L.2.2 has been revised. | ||||
| Cons | Sch B | ITEM NUMBERS 0008, 0009 and 0010 have the word Option below them, does this indicate the Government may not award these ITEM NUMBERS? If so, how will this work be performed? If not awarded, how will the service provider recoup the project management and administrative costs that would be allocated to those ITEM NUMBERS? Will the government know before the final RFP if it is going to exercise the OPTION on the referenced ITEM NUMBERS? | Yes, the CLINS identified as "Options" in the base period may or may not be exercised in the base period. Further, the additional options may or may not be exercised in subsequent periods. The CLIN descriptions provide a statement to this effect. The AF is currently evaluating how best to accomplish CV-22 FCF services. The Government assumes that offerors may price this requirement as severable; however, how the offeror allocates the associated costs is ultimately dependent upon their business practices and decisions. | ||
| Tech | 3.1.12.5 | 3.1.12.5. Support Contract Field Teams (CFT). This shall include, as a minimum, providing Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) and positioning aircraft in hangars or on the flight line as required by the CFT. SP shall perform all preparatory and joint tasks as defined in the CFT work statements. When tasked by the CO, the SP shall appoint a CFT Project Officer to serve as a maintenance focal point. The individual(s) shall be responsible for all CFT support requirements to accomplish modifications, testing or TCTOs on assigned aircraft and equipment. This shall include escorting CFT members in restricted areas, coordinating/scheduling support, coordinating CFT environmental requirements with the organization Unit Environmental Coordinator (UEC), and monitoring CFT activities. |
Question: Is this requirement part of the FFP CLINS or is it priced with another CLIN? Will the Government provide historical or project workload to support this PWS requirement? This requirement is part of FFP CLINs. CFT requirements are very fluid and therefore support and requirements change year to year. Past "unscheduled" depot level modifications that required CFT support were for the HH-60G and were as follows: 2012-6 visits, 2013-2 visits, and 2014 thru Present-1 Visit. Currently, the only "notional" depot level modification to support CFT is for the HH-60G in Feb 2017, however duration and workload is not yet available.
Tech Sch B Please explain what Combat Munitions Training is, where it is conducted and what responsibilities the SP has with regards to this training. Combat Munitions Training (CMT) CLINS will be updated as follows:
Combat Munitions Training (CMT) requires TDY travel and weekend flying support and occurs approximately 3-4 times per year at either Holloman AFB, NM or Colorado Springs, CO. Each trip is approximately 7-8 days, departing on a Thursday, flying sorties through the weekend, and returning the following Thursday or Friday. CMT enables Operations aircrew munitions training on the H-1 utilizing M-240 weapon systems. It includes day, night, and formation flying while performing escort/cover fire scenarios.
| Tech | 3.1.12.5 | Paragraph 3.1.12.5 requires the SP to provide aerospace ground equipment (AGE) in support of contract field teams (CFTs). Table 3.1.4 indicates that the 58th SOW provides AGE maintenance, movement, storage and servicing. Please clarify responsibilities for AGE support as they relate to CFT. | AGE support is limited to the requirements outlined in PWS paragraph 3.1.22. through 3.1.22.4. The SP Project Officer will coordinate CFT AGE requirements with 58 MXS AGE Shop for delivery and pick-up of required AGE. |
| Tech | Appen B-7 | Replacement of tools. The Government’s estimated annual tool replacement cost is $35,000. Is it the Government's intent to provide this as a plug number or should the offeror price $35,000 for tool replacement cost in CLIN 0007? | IAW PWS 3.1.12.13.9, the Government provides tools to the SP as GFP. Should the provided tools break or become unusable, the SP is required to replace tools at SP expense. Appendix B-7 provides the estimated annual tool replacement cost for reference and consideration for offerors when building proposals. |
| Tech | 2.1.3.5.2 | PWS states, “All SP personnel shall be in company distinctive clothing not later than (NLT) sixty (60) calendar days following contract start date and NLT thirty (30) calendar days for newly hired employees. The SP, FC and CO shall jointly determine the appropriate dress for which an interpretation must be decided.” This appears to conflict with guidance in the CBA (Attachment 3 to RFP) states, “Office based employees may wear business casual…” Will the government clarify the uniform requirement for office based union members? | Reworded PWS paragraph 2.1.3.5.2. as follows: All SP personnel below branch/office level shall be in company distinctive clothing not later than (NLT) sixty (60) calendar days following contract start date and NLT thirty (30) calendar days for newly hired employees. The SP, FC and CO shall jointly determine the appropriate dress for which an interpretation must be decided. |
| Tech | Appen B | Appendix B, Workload Estimates, para B.8.1 (Off Station Recovery) references multiple locations that are not shown in Appendix C, Maps and Work Area Layout. Would the Government please provide locations and distances from the primary work center to the off station recovery sites identified in B.8.1 to facilitate proposal development? | Very few operational sites can be reached by vehicle but many are reached only by helicopter. It is approximately 9 miles from the workcenter to the Aux Field on base. |
| Tech | 3.1.4.1.11 | Reference: 3.1.4.1.11. Structural Maintenance. The SP shall coordinate and document repair procedures that exceed or lack technical data guidance with the appropriate Air Logistics Center through the Government COR office. On/Off-equipment Structural Maintenance Support is provided by the 58 SOW. |
| Please provide examples of on/off structural maintenance support provided by the 58 SOW. | Re-worded PWS Paragraph 3.1.4.1.11 as follows: Structural Maintenance. On/Off-equipment Structural Maintenance Support is provided by the 58 SOW. | ||||
| Tech | 2.3.1.7.1 | Please provide estimated workload for facilities upkeep and minor maintenance requirements. | Workload Data is not available since this only occurs when necessary. The first two lines of PWS paragraph 2.3.1.7.1. will be updated to read: "The Government will provide, as available, through the base self-help center, all material to perform facilities upkeep and minor maintenance when necessary." | ||
| Tech | FF.1 | What are the training frequencies for the courses listed in FF.1, i.e., annual, one-time, etc? | Courses listed in FF1, are one-time. Also Aircraft Crash Recovery is no longer needed and will be removed from the list of courses in Appendix FF1. | ||
| Tech | K.3.1 | The solicitation currently indicates that SP aircrew can be dual qualified on the HH-60G and UH-1N as indicated by successful completion of formal USAF aircrew qualification training course and as required by DCMA INST 8210.1C. It also indicates that in the event that such personnel are unavailable, the SP may substitute personnel who have the required qualifications in accordance with DCMA INST 8210.1C. Does the government intend to update this paragraph to indicate that CV-22 aircrew be allowed to be qualified on more than one platform as well? | The government does not intend to update this paragraph to indicate that CV-22 aircrew may be qualified on more than one platform due to the vast differences between the CV-22 and helicopters. | ||
| Tech | 3.1.3.2.5 | What percentage of the E-tool/IMIS effort is attributed to the C-130 platform? | Of the 164 E-Tools currently on-hand approximately 90% are attributed to the C-130 platform. | ||
| Misc | CBA | The Kirtland CBA runs out 31 August 2014. Will the government provide a copy of the new agreement so that offerors can provide accurate pricing or will the chance for an equitable adjustment be provided? | The Government will provide the current CBA in effect. If the CBA is extended and/or a new agreement is negotiated during the course of the acquisition, the Government will inform interested parties. Upon award, the current CBA in effect will remain until the awardee enters into a new agreement. | ||
| Tech | N/A | Is it anticipated that maintenance requirements will eventually expand to the CV-22 platform? | Currently there is no plan to expand maintenance beyond Government personnel to the CV-22 platform. | ||
| Misc | Sch B | Will the billing of overtime required for other than travel or emergency services be handled under a separate overtime CLIN? | Weekend, holiday, and Government directed overtime (OT) would be reimbursed under the Weekend/Holiday/Government Directed OT CLINs | ||
| Tech | N/A | Is the previous count of (6) UH-1N and (12) HH 60G still accurate? | Yes. As shown in PWS Appendix B, Table B.3., the current and projected numbers are six (6) UH-1N and twelve (12) HH 60G | ||
| Tech | 2.1.10.22 | Paragraph 2.1.10.22 states: “Identify in writing to the CO, the Hazardous Material Pharmacy, the Installation Hazardous Material Program (IHMP) manager, the Environmental Flight, and the Unit Environmental Coordinator (UEC) (primary and alternate) for aircraft maintenance environmental issues, prior to contract start date IAW AFI 21-101, paragraph 3.7.5, ….” |
| Whom is the SP required to identify in writing? Is the intent of this paragraph for the SP to provide the names, in writing, of the Unit Environmental Coordinator (UEC) for aircraft maintenance environmental issues to the CO, Hazardous Material Pharmacy, IHMP, and Environmental Flight? Please clarify. | Changed PWS, paragraph 2.1.10.22., to read as follows: Initial Accumulation Point Management Team. Identify primary and alternate POCs in writing to the CO, the Hazardous Material Pharmacy, the Installation Hazardous Material Program (IHMP) manager, the Environmental Flight, and the Unit Environmental Coordinator (UEC) for aircraft maintenance environmental issues, prior to contract start date IAW AFI 21-101, paragraph 3.7.5., AFI 32-7042, paragraph 1.10.11.1., AFI 32-7001, AFI 32-7086, KAFBI 32-7086 and KAFB HazWaste Management Plan. Changes shall be submitted to the above within five (5) workdays after changes occur. | |||
| Tech | 2.3.4.19 | PWS 2.3.4.19 states: “Maintenance Operations Center (MOC): The 58 SOW will perform MOC functions.” 3.1.4.1.1 states: “SP shall work closely with the 58 MOS MOC to report current aircraft status, request base agency support, ….” Table 3.1.4 indicates MOC is a 58 SOW responsibility. 3.1.12.1 states, in part, “The SP shall manage the full cycle of production by… and controlling all maintenance on primary mission…”Appendix A, CBA, shows a Production Control Clerk and Production Control Clerk Lead. These positions reflect duties usually performed by someone assigned to a MOC. |
| Is it the intent of the Government that the SP physically locate Production Control Clerks in the 58 MOS-operated MOC to act as MOC controllers for the SP? | It is not the intent of the Government that the SP physically locate Production Control Clerk(s) in the 58 MOS-operated MOC to act as MOC controllers for the SP. | ||||
| Tech | 3.1.26.2.8 | PWS 3.1.26.2.8 defines the requirements for a SP QC database. Would the Government be open to the SP using an existing AETC-approved QC database? | The QC database is the responsibility of the SP and will not be provided by the Government. | ||
| Tech | B.6.1 & B.6.2 | PWS paragraph B.6.1, UH-1N On-Equipment Maintenance Breakout provides a MMH/FH total of 17.26 hours. Likewise, PWS paragraph B.6.2, HH-60G On-Equipment Maintenance Breakout provides a MMH/FH total of 22.06 hours. These MMH/FH values are higher than the MMH/FH values provided in Appendix BD, Monthly Logistic Indicator Reports. |
| What is the correct MMH/FH total that bidder’s should consider when computing staffing for each MDS helicopter? | The most accurate MMH/FH is provided in Appendix B, PWS paragraph B.6.1 and B.6.2. | ||||
| Cons | Sch B | Draft RFP description for Combat Munitions Training (CMT) CLIN 0011, 1011, etc. appears to be incorrectly associated CLIN. Please confirm these are correct CLIN descriptions. | Combat Munitions Training (CMT) CLINS will be updated as follows: |
Combat Munitions Training (CMT) requires TDY travel and weekend flying support and occurs approximately 3-4 times per year at either Holloman AFB, NM or Colorado Springs, CO. Each trip is approximately 7-8 days, departing on a Thursday, flying sorties through the weekend, and returning the following Thursday or Friday. CMT enables Operations aircrew munitions training on the H-1 utilizing M-240 weapon systems. It includes day, night & formation flying while performing escort/cover fire scenarios.
Tech 2.1.5 Draft PWS Section 2.1.5 states, “Technical Training. SP personnel assigned shall be fully trained/qualified to a level of performing without direct supervision prior to being declared position qualified. All training required as a result of this PWS, including Federal, or State requirements to maintain certification or qualification shall be the responsibility of the SP, unless specified in Appendix FF. Loss of certification which leads to retraining shall be at the SP’s expense.”
Please confirm whether or not this provision means that any USG approved training provided by the SP will be reimbursed as long as it is not a result of “loss of certification.” Further, please clarify if routine SP recertification and/or recertification due to amendment of original standards are considered to be “loss of certification.” The SP is responsible for all training and certifications unless specified in Appendix FF. Re-worded PWS paragraph 2.1.5.1., line 5 through 7 as follows:
"Loss of certification initially provided by the Government which leads to retraining shall be at the SP’s expense. The Government will provide technical training and certifications for new equipment requirements/technologies not currently addressed in this PWS."
Tech 2.1.7 Draft PWS Section 2.1.7, Occupational Safety and Health has multiple subsections that require SP to immediately notify USG of mishap at or from time of occurrence. In certain circumstances, SP may not have immediate knowledge of incident, which provision should take into consideration.
| Please consider amending these provisions to indicate SP shall immediately notify USG of any health and safety incidents upon their discovery by SP. | It is in the Government's best interest to ensure all safety hazards, mishaps, and reportable incidents involving personnel, Air Force facilities, aircraft, or equipment are reported by the SP as stated in the PWS. | |||
| Tech | 2.1.10 | Draft PWS 2.1.10 states, “The SP shall operate all Government furnished and SP furnished equipment and facilities in accordance with Federal, state, county, and local environmental protection regulations and plans and permits or as directed by the 377 ABW Environmental Compliance Branch.” |
| Please confirm whether or not all regulations, permits and plans that SP will be obligated to adhere to under contract are specifically identified and listed within contract. Please identify and list any omitted documents that SP will be contractually obligated to follow. | It is the SP's responsibility to research, identify and follow federal, state and local environmental laws and permits not listed in the PWS. | |||
| Tech | 2.1.10.7 | Draft PWS 2.1.10.7 states, “the SP is responsible for paying any regulatory agency (OSHA or NRC, etc.) fines that are a result of contract operations.” As currently stated, this provision is broad and may unfairly subject SP to pay fines in areas that are not legally or contractually under SP oversight and/or responsibility. |
| Please consider revising provision to specifically indicate SP is responsible for paying SP’s share of agency fines resulting from SP’s failure to meet SP’s regulatory obligations in performance of this contract. | Reworded as follows: "The SP is responsible for paying any regulatory agency (OSHA or NRC, etc.) fines that are a result of SP operations. | |||
| Tech | 2.1.28 | Draft PWS 2.1.28 states, “The SP shall comply with all applicable Air Force System Security Instructions (AFSSI), other Air Force, AETC and local instructions and directives in the operation and use of ITE.” |
| Please confirm whether or not all applicable documents SP will be obligated to adhere to under contract are specifically identified and listed within contract. Please identify and list any omitted documents deemed applicable that SP will be contractually obligated to follow. | All applicable documents are listed in the PWS Sections and in Appendices. Removed the sentence “The SP shall comply with all applicable Air Force System Security Instructions (AFSSI), other Air Force, AETC and local instructions and directives in the operation and use of ITE.” from paragraph 2.1.28.3. | ||||
| Cons | Sec I | Draft RFP, Section I, includes FAR Limitation of Liability – Services as maintenance will be provided under contract. SP, however, will also most likely be providing supplies under contract and requests inclusion of FAR 52.246-23 (Limitation of Liability) in accordance with FAR 46.805. | Supplies provided under the contract are in conjunction with the services to be provided--this is congruent with FAR 52.246-25, Limited Liability - Services. FAR 52.246-23 is not required. | ||
| Cons | Sec I | As some services under contract may be provided on a cost basis (i.e. CLIN 0010), please include FAR 52.249-14 (Excusable Delays) in final RFP and contract in accordance with FAR 49.505(b). | The Government intends to award a FFP contract and does not intend to include the referenced clause at this time. Some portions of the effort are provided on a cost basis; however, if the events listed in 52.249-14 do not impede the flying mission, support will be required. | ||
| Cons | Sec I | In accordance with FAR 45.104 (Responsibility and Liability for Government Property) and FAR 45.107(a)(1)&(2) (Contract Clauses), the removal of FAR 52.245-1 ALT I from final RFP and contract is requested. | FAR 45.104(a), does not list an appropriate exception to FAR 45.107(a)(2) instruction requiring that 52.245-1 ALT 1 be included. | ||
| Misc | L.2.3.3 | RFP Section L, para 2.3.3 states: “…NOTE: Small business participation may be addressed in a large business offeror’s subcontracting plan; however, it shall also be addressed in the offeror’s Technical proposal volume, as required by L.3.2.5.4 and M.4.1.3.4.” |
The cited Section L and M paragraphs do not exist in the current RFP. We believe the intended references should have been the offeror’s Small Business Participation volume, as required by L.5.1 and M.6.1.
Will the Government please clarify the intended references for small business participation? The reference was provided in error. Small Business Participation was originally an element of a technical subfactor; however, has since become a separate Volume (Vol IV).
You are correct, the correct references for SB participation are L.5 and M.6 Cons L.2.3.3 RFP Section L.2.3.3 identifies the FY14 DoD subcontracting goals as follows:
Small Business 36.7% HUBZone 3% Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 3% Small Disadvantaged Business 5% Woman Owned Small Business 5%
Can the Government confirm that these subcontracting goals are to be applied to Total Subcontract Value (FAR 52.219-9)? Yes, the DoD goals are in the terms of total subcontracting value. Keep in mind that the DoD goals are provided for reference. Offerors should submit realistic goals based on SB availability, capability, etc.. Offerors' subcontracting plans shall state subcontracting goals in Total Subcontracting dollars IAW FAR 52.219-9(d)(1). Additionally, offerors also provide SB subcontracting values relative to overall contract value.
Ex: $1M contract, 10% of which is subcontracted. Of that 10% to be subcontracted, an offeror's SB subcontracting goals may be 37%, HUBZone goal of 2.5%, etc... The SB subcontracting value relative to the overall contract value would be $370K for SB, $25K for HUBZone, etc...
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .