RFQ_M6700117Q0011_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Questions and Answers RFQ#M6700117Q0011

Question: Can you specify GCH's current PoP / Period of Performance? Also the total contract value?

Answer: 27 February 2015-26 February 2016 plus 2-6 month option period. $5,251,885.20.

Question: Can verify if there is a CBA in place?

Answer: There isn’t CBA in place

Question: IAW SCA Wage Determination is 4% ordnance pay required for Mechanic Positions?

Answer: Yes, (1) Flight Equipment Mech will be entitled to a 4% diff. pay

Question: SOW page 7 of 51 para 9a (1) states “Shall possess extensive maintenance, modification, and repair experience on V-22 aircraft or possess industry experience such as Airframe and Powerplant (A&P)” seems to contradicts Encl 2 stating Min 2 years of V-22 Maintenance experience – given that having and A&P does not equate to this work effort and is currently stated as OR. Does this mean that an A&P can be used in lieu of the MV22 experience in enclosure 2? The ambiguous statement we believe this will cause a contractor to load their workforce with “A&Ps not necessarily MV22 or rotary wing experience. Recommend A&P requirement be removed since aircraft are not FAA standard aircraft but military derivative and FAA license in not a requirement.

Answer: Yes...up to 25% of workforce. Considering the large increase in manpower of this contract it may be necessary to pull talent from outside the MV-22 arena (hence the first note under encl 2). This is in lieu of ay MV-22 experience. The "option" of using (up to 25%) A&P Mechanics is in place in case the vendor cannot fill the billets with MV-22 Specific talent.

However if these folks are used, they will need to be knowledgeable enough to quickly grasp the maintenance of the MV-22 in order to qualify as a CDI or CDQAR in the specified amount of time (90 days). The government does not fill that it is necessary to remove this language. It is to the vendor's benefit when filling the positions.

Question: RFQ: Clauses Incorporated By Reference: Will 48 CFR 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk apply to this effort?

Answer: No.

Question: The DD254 indicates that the Avionics Technicians would require a “Secret” clearance. As a result of the new Personnel Security Investigation requirements the government enacted effective August 1, 2016, it is taking the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in excess of 90 days to grant Interim clearances.

If Avionic qualified technicians with secret clearances are not immediately available, is the government willing to allow individuals without clearances to be hired and work on the aircraft if they are not working with classified equipment until their Interim is granted? Or (2) reduce the penalty for staffing requirements

Answer: The government is aware of the long lead times associated with acquiring interim and new secret clearances. It is in the government and the contractor's best interest to fill the Avionics Billets on this contract with avionics Technicians who already possess Active secret clearances. The government will consider reducing the penalty for staffing requirements on a case by case basis. It is the contractor's responsibility to make every effort to provide the government with qualified personnel.

Question: Special Contract Requirements states: In order to obtain access to the US Marine Corps Air Station, New River, NC and obtain an identification badge, each contractor employee must present various types of information to the Pass and Identification Office.

Since only the Electrical/Avionics mechanics and workers shall possess at minimum a SECRET clearance, will the other contractor employees require a National Agency Check with Inquires (NACI) in order to receive CAC cards and flight line access?

Answer: Yes. All other contractors will be required to have an SF 85 and fingerprints on file with a favorable adjudication before being granted flight line access or a CAC. The MALS-26 security Officer will ensure that the contractor's personnel are properly vetted prior to being issued a CAC card or Flight line access.

Question: SOW: Work Hours Paragraph B indicates Current shifts of government employees are as follows:

1. Monday-Friday 0700-1600 (1st shift)

2. Monday-Friday 1600-0100 (2nd shift)

The contractor shall be given guidance from the COR to determine a schedule that best supports the maintenance work schedule.

Can the government provide a rough estimate of the percentage of the employees that have historically, or are expected worked the second shift?

Answer: With the increase of the new FTEs, it is not quite known yet how many FTE's will be on nights/days. This is a question that can be better answered once all FTEs are fully qualified and the government knows the contractor's capabilities. But as a generic guess percentage, the government would say 60% days and 40% nights.

Question: In regards to the recent solicitation that was released above is this contract only for 1 year?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Reference SOW Para. 6 E.: The Government has indicated a final Secret Security Clearance is required for all electrical/avionic positions. Because O-Level electrical/avionic maintainers only install/remove cryptographic equipment/components at the O-Level; they do not require access at the I- Level. Many Marine electrical/avionic maintainers fleet wide perform their functions under an Interim Secret Security Clearance status while they await their final secret adjudication.

Will the Government consider Interim Secret Security Clearances for Elec/Avi personnel while they await their final secret?

Answer: No. Interim security clearances take (at a minimum) 90 days to adjudicate from the time they are actually submitted. Security clearances can take up to 18 months. It is the contractor’s responsibility to find qualified, Active Secret Clearance Avionics Technicians to fill these billets.

Question: Reference SOW Para. 11 B and J: Under section 11 of the SOW, the Government refers to CTS Teams; however, we cannot properly ascertain the acronym CTS.

Can the Government define the term CTS?

Answer: It should be Contractor Maintenance Support (CMS)

Question: Reference SOW Para. 9A (5): The Government imposed 90-day NALCOMIS OOMA time limitation from the date of employment. Similar to our Enclosure-1 question, CMS personnel access to NALCOMIS OOMA is dependent upon the Government’s accomplishment of (SOW 11.M). Accordingly, the contractor should not be held accountable to a 90-day time limit imposed on/from the date of employment. This limitation should be imposed on/upon the date of access granted.

Suggestion: Suggest the Government revise paragraph 9A (5) to read, “Shall possess a thorough understanding or become familiar and proficient with NALCOMIS OOMA automated maintenance documentation system within 90 days of granted access.”

Answer: The Government will consider the suggestion.

Question Reference Enclosure 1 Note (1): Per SOW Section 11 paragraph M, the Government is responsible for providing CMS personnel access and identification badges. These badges (CAC cards) must be populated by processing through S-2 and S-6 before they can be used in the ASM and maintenance database systems. In our experience, this process can take as little as 1 week, or as long as 6 months. Obtaining the CAC is a fairly simple process through the COR and Pass and ID; however it is time sensitive and must be done the same day as personnel in-process. However the process of populating (loading) the CAC for ASM, Maintenance and Flightline Access is dependent upon many time consuming factors such as completion of the unit’s PII class, completion of the unit assigned SAR Form, unit S-6 verification of roster and security assignments, etc. There are also additional factors such Government personnel (COR, S-2 and S-6) personnel availability (leave, TDY, etc.); henceforth, our experience with a 6-month delay on access to the ASM and NMCI systems.

Because the Government imposed 90-day time restrictions synonymous with obtaining personnel qualifications/certifications (Enclosure-1), the contractor’s ability to obtain said quails/certs is directly dependent upon the accomplishment of the Government’s responsibilities (SOW 11.M). Accordingly, the contractor should not be held accountable to a 90-day time limit, if the Government has not completed their responsibilities thru loading of the CAC.

Suggest Enclosure-1 Note (1) be changed to read, “This qualification will be attained within 90-days of ASM/CAC system access.”

Question: Reference Enclosure 2 **: The Government has stipulated 75% of CMS personnel will currently have MATMEP Level III / T&R 4000-Level or grater and the remaining 25% must obtain these levels within 90-days. Given the fact that MATMEP and T&R training is Marine Corps specific, this requirement limits MOS equivalent training form other branches of service.

Will the government consider DOD service equivalent training certifications?

Answer: Yes …as long as it is V-22 specific, a DOD cert from another Branch of Service (i.e. Air Force) is acceptable and falls within the 75% percentile.

Question: Reference Enclosure 2 **: The Government has stipulated 75% of CMS personnel will currently have MATMEP Level III / T&R 4000-Level or grater and the remaining 25% must obtain these levels within 90-days. However, the following ** note states the “Qualification Requirement for Aircraft Worker (23080) is minimum two years of rotary wing experience”. We agree the omission of V-22 maintenance experience for the Aircraft Worker (23080) is correct as long as there is documented proof of 2-years rotary-wing maintenance experience. However, we are unsure as to the Governments enforcement of imposing a MATMEP III or T&R 4000-level requirement on the Aircraft Workers (23080) as this requirement will take much longer than 90-days. In our experience, it takes a NAVAIR experience (NAMP/NAVOSH) mechanic/technician approximately 16 months to achieve T&R 4000-Level (MATMEP III will not apply to personnel crossing from a different platform).

Will the Government consider removing or revising the MATMEP III/T&R 4000-Level requirement for Aircraft Workers with no V-22 experience?

Suggestion: Suggest the Government revise the MATMEP/T&R requirement such as, “CMS personnel with MV-22 experience must obtain MATMEP III/T&R 4000-Level within 90-days. Personnel without V- 22 experience must progress to T&R 4000-Level within 12 months? (16 months is realistic)

Answer: No, the idea is to hire individuals with the appropriate experience to be fully functional within a 90 day period on the MV-22/V-22. This includes veteran Marines/Air force who served only ~4 years on the MV-22/V-22 Platform. The government doesn’t expect these FTEs to have acquired the level of CDQAR (Mech III). It also includes (up to 25%) AMP/FCC certified individuals. As long as their experience level can cross over to the MV-22 platform in the 90 day time frame to appropriately be qualified, then they would be acceptable.

Question: Reference Enclosure-2 **: The Government imposed time limitation of 90-days synonymous with obtaining MATMET III or T&R 4000-Level certification. The contractor’s ability to obtain said quals/certs is directly dependent upon the accomplishment of the Government’s responsibilities outlined in the SOW Section 11 paragraph (M). Pursuant to issuance of access badges, the contractor should not be held accountable to a 90-day time limit imposed upon the date of employment; rather this limitation should be imposed upon the date of access granted to the ASM system.

Suggestion: Suggest the Government revise the 90-day limit from the date of employment to read, “…within 90 days of being granted access to the ASM system.”

Question: Page 7. Section 10 – Safety. Can the USG confirm that boots, eye protection, PPE, and coveralls will be provided at the Contractor’s expense?

Answer: PPE such as cranials, eye protection , respirators, and fall protection will be provided by the Government. It is the Contractors responsibility to provide their employees with uniform identifying clothing. Boots are typically provided by the Contractor.

Question: Page 16. Level of Effort Requirements Summary – Maintaining Qualified Personnel. Can the USG clarify what the start date/initiating event is for the 90-day period referenced in the Incentive block?

Answer: Start date of contracted work, 27 Feb 2017.

Question: Page 16. Level of Effort Requirements Summary – Maintenance Work and Documentation.

Can the USG clarify what is meant by “Past Performance” in the Incentive block?

Answer: Positive remarks in Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS).

Question: Page 19. 52.212-21 Evaluation – Commercial Items. Can the USG confirm there are no page limits or font/layout requirements for the RFQ responses?

Answer: No page limits or font/Layout requirements

Question: Page 19. 52.212-21 Evaluation – Commercial Items. Can the USG confirm that only a Technical Volume, Past Performance Volume, and price are required for the RFQ response?

Answer: Yes

Question: Page 21. Past Performance Factor, third paragraph. Can the USG confirm that it would like Contractors to identify any relevant contracts on which show cause notices, cure notices, corrective action requests, or terminations by default have been issued, or is this required only for those contracts that will be cited as past performance records?

Answer: It is required for all relevant contracts.

Question: Page 39 of 51 – 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Oct 2015) & 52.219-16 Liquidated Damages – Subcontracting Plan (Jan 1999) – Pursuant to FAR 19.708 – Contract Clauses, it is our understanding that set aside acquisitions, such as this, are exempt from small business subcontracting plans. Is it the Government’s intent that the prime contractor will be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan?

Answer: Prime contractor will not be required to submit a small business subcontracting plan.

Question: Page 43. 52.245-2 Government Property Installation Operation Services. In subparagraph (b), the USG states that, “If any or all of the Government property is lost or becomes no longer usable, the Contractor shall be responsible for replacement of the property at the Contractor’s expense.” Can the USG elaborate under what circumstances the Contractor will be responsible for property replacement should that property become unusable? I.e. if a piece of test equipment becomes unusable because of a software malfunction, will the Contractor be responsible for repair/replacement of the test equipment?

Answer: Any equipment that is lost or unserviceable as a result of misuse or abuse by the FTE will be replaced by the contractor. Normal wear and tear and situations out of the maintenance person's control will be replaced by the government tool control program and Supply system.

Question: Can the USG confirm that there is/are not Collective Bargaining Agreement(s) associated with the workforce referenced in the RFQ?

Answer: There is not a Collective Bargaining Agreement(s) associated with the workforce referenced in the RFQ

Question: Can the USG provide a list of incumbent employees with qualifications/certifications and/or salaries?

Answer: We cannot provide this information while RFQ is open.

Question: Reference: Page 21 of 51 of the RFQ, Past Performance Factor states, “Only the following entities will be used in the past performance evaluation: (a) the prime contractor, and (b) entities that perform at least 30% of the proposed total price for the contract, also referred to as principal subcontractors and other principal entities.”

If a proposed team consists of an SDVOB prime contractor that lacks relevant past performance by itself, and would therefore receive a neutral rating; but had subcontractors on the team that meet the 30% threshold stated above as part of the teaming agreement for this effort, and have relevant past performance both as a prime and subcontractor on other contracts (on V-22s and other DoD aircraft), and also meet the 30% threshold standard on their past performances, would their past performance be considered in the overall evaluation?

Answer: The Government will only accept prime vendor’s past performance as principal subcontractor (at least 30% of the proposed total price for the contract).

Question: On page 9 of 51 the RFQ states, “Within (5) days of contract award, the Contractor shall provide the following information on all personnel that will be providing services aboard US Marine Corps Air Station, New River, NC.” We infer from this statement that the Government is requiring that all 70 positions be filled and personnel ready to work on the first day of the contract period or incur penalties. The penalties cited on page 7 of 51 the RFQ state, “Any manning vacancies that remain unfilled after 14 days will have an invoice offset calculated using the total proposed daily cost (including profit and overhead) for the position left vacant (based on a 30 day month) times the number of vacant days in the billing cycle plus an additional 10% of the cost calculated.” The RFQ does not provide any reference to a transition period even though there is a clear staffing requirement to, for all practical purposes, double the organizational workforce. Would the government consider providing a 60 day transition period to accommodate just the increase in workforce requirements?

Answer: No. The government will not allow a 60 day transition period. There is already a 90 day qualification grace period built into the contract. The government expects the contractor to be able to hire FTEs within 14 days of contract start date and have those FTEs fully trained within 90 days of start of contract.

Question: The RFQ establishes a minimum security classification of Secret for all Electrical/Avionics positions. It is our experience on similar, current contracts, that security clearance requirements add time for processing paperwork that is out of the contractor’s control. Will the staffing timelines in the RFQ be revised to accommodate the government processing time for Secret Clearances for Electrical/Avionics staff?

Answer: An Interim clearance can be attained within 30- 60 days by the contractor submitting an SF86 for Avionics type FTEs. This should be completed ASAP upon award. The Government will monitor closely and understands that there are delays that are out of the contractor's control. However, if an FTE already has a security clearance it is as simple as the FSO owning them in JPAS and providing the security officer at MALS-26 with a roster of personnel that are cleared to work on secret equipment.

Question: The government is asking the winning Contractor to provide 70 FTE with specific aircraft type qualifications in a relatively low density population area, for a one-year period of performance.

Recruiting, hiring, and potentially relocating at least 30+ new hires will be costly. Would the government consider adding option periods in order to reduce cost, schedule, and performance risk through multi-year amortization of staffing costs?

Answer: Due to internal timeframes and budgeting of the USMC, this particular requirement can only be structured for 1 year at this time.

Question: Reference: M67001-17-Q-0011 SOW Section 16, page 9: The SOW calls out a requirements for a Data Analyst (DA) yet places said position under the SCA Category of Production Control Clerk (PCC) SCA code: 01270. The callout is very confusing because the responsibilities associated with the DA differ substantially from that of a PCC. Both the DA and PCC positions fall under USMC MOS 6046: Aviation Maintenance Data Specialist. As such, all 6046 personnel attend the same aviation maintenance administration school/courses; however, when said individual demonstrates superior expertise and is promoted to that of a Sgt (E-5), they are sent to the Data Analyst school/course.

The DA/PCC MOS (6046) was at one time a split MOS (Logs and Records/PCC and subsequently - Data Analyst). Because the DA roles, responsibilities, and functions differ quite a bit from that of a simple PCC, we are confused as to what the Government actually requires.

Because there is no job description or primary roles and responsibilities listed in the SOW for this position, does the Government require a simple Production Control Clerk, or do they require the more detailed Data Analyst?

Secondly, if the Government’s requirement is that of the Data Analyst (experienced DA -Sgt E-5 and above), we feel the SCA Code would equate to a 23019: Aircraft Logs and Records Technician; whereas the basic Production Control Clerk would fall under the currently listed SCA code: 01270 - Production Control Clerk.

Answer: The Government needs a Production Control Clerk.