Final RFP N00019-10-R-0069 Q A 011311.docx

N00019-10-R-0069 Attachment 116

Q# 001 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: In all the draft documentation, the response time from RFP to proposal submittal was given as 45 days. Potential bidders would all have planned their responses accordingly. Proposal response is not just proposal generation. It includes management review and approvals. Just as within the Navy, the holidays impact availability of the appropriate individuals. Quality of the proposals will be impacted by a shorter response time especially over the holiday period.

Question:

To provide the Navy with the best possible proposals, account for 45 day response plans and take into account the holidays would the Navy extend the proposal due date until February 8, 2011?

A: Solicitation Amendment 0001 was issued to extend the proposal due date to 1 February 2011, 45 days from Solicitation release.

Q# 002 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Subject RFP issued 18 December 2010, has a response due date of 25 January 2011.

This time seems very short for such an effort of this type. Please confirm this due date is correct as it only represents a thirty-seven day solicitation response time.

A: The 25 January 2011 due date was correct. Solicitation Amendment 0001 was issued to extend the proposal due date to 1 February 2011, 45 days from Solicitation release.

Q# 003 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Pricing Attachments 113 and 114 will require over 50,000 unique links. Schedule B and other required components will be in addition to that.

What is the Navy’s intent to have labor costs by “WORK CENTER”? Also, can Pricing Attachments 113 and 114 be simplified and/or eliminated?

A: A work center refers to a work group or person that performs all tasks associated with a particular process (such as maintenance, QA, management, etc). The intent is to be in alignment with technical requirements. There is no plan to change the layout of the Pricing Attachments.

Q# 004 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: RFP Section L, Part B, Section 2.2 instructs the offeror to complete the Manning Attachment 112, broken down by site, shift and shop for on-site (2.2.1). Section 2.2.1.a) instructs to complete the Manning Template form, RFP Manning Attachment 112 for the “most likely band” or appropriate SLIN required by the solicitation. Section 2.2.2.a) instructs to complete the Manning Attachment 112, showing manning for each Satellite Site required.

Question:

Does the Government intend for offerors to complete separate Attachments 112 for each of the 3 MOBs in Proposal Section 2.2.1 and another Attachment 112 for the satellite sites in Proposal Section 2.2.2, or does the Government intend for a single Attachment 112 to be completed for the entire program?

A: Attachment 112 includes all CLINs and, as a result, the 3 MOBs and satellite sites should be included within a single completed attachment. Offerors are to combine, on the same spreadsheet, the answers for 2.2.1a & 2.2.2a.

Q# 005 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: The RFP Section L and Attachment 112 instructions require our manning strategy to be portrayed in the Attachment 112 template broken down by, period of performance, site, work center/shop, classification/skill level, and shift for each CLIN/SLIN.

The level of detail and extreme number of pages added to Annex B to the Management and Maintenance volume by Attachment 112 will not add value to the evaluation of the Offeror’s Management and Maintenance Approach. In addition, due to the many Optional CLINs/SLINs and mass quantity of pages, it will be very difficult for the evaluator to draw a one-for-one comparison between the tabular format of the attachment 112, and the displayed organizational structure. We realize a high degree of fidelity is required in the CLIN structure presented in the Pricing volume for the customer to evaluate pricing reasonableness, however that same level is not needed to evaluate the Offeror’s approach to staffing a program.

Question:

Will the Government consider replacing the requirement to include RFP Attachment 112 in Annex B of Volume II, Management and Maintenance Approach?

A: Attachment 112 layout will remain the same. The information provided can be reduced if, for the option SLINs, the manning stays the same for those SLINs. Therefore, to simplify the process, see below example.

Example:

CLIN 0129, If the labor hours are the same for all SLINs with the same quantity, show the manning for SLIN 0129AA. For SLINs 0129AB through 0129AH, if the manning remains the same, state, “same as SLIN 0129AA.”

Q# 006 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 5.3, Section 6.b states: … The Offeror shall utilize the same manning information proposed in Annex B, RFP Manning Attachment 112, contained in the Maintenance Management Approach volume. The Offeror shall substantiate the staffing mix with a detailed Basis of Estimate (BOE).

RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 5.3, Section 7.5 states: … For the sum of the CPFF CLINs, the evaluated cost will include the Offeror’s proposed cost or Government’s Most Probable Cost (utilizing the Offeror’s proposal dollar amount of fee), whichever is higher.

Question:

If the offeror’s identified cost is less than the Government’s plug number in Section B, does the Government still require the offeror’s cost detail to be submitted?

A: See amended Exhibit B. Yes, IAW Section L, Part B, Volume 5, Contract Cost for CPFF, Section 6 b, the Offeror shall substantiate the proposed CPFF with a detailed Basis of Estimate (BOE).

Q# 007 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Attachment 113 & 114 instruct that “The "Total Sell Price" for each CLIN/SLIN should match the proposed price submitted in Section B.” Attachment 113 & 114 appear to only address labor.

Would the Government consider revising these attachments to include space for offerors to include Other Direct Cost (ODC) data so that the total price included in Attachment 113 and/or 114 would match the proposed price submitted in Section B?

A: See amended Attachments 113 and 114. The Offeror may add columns or rows, if needed, to document additional costs. The Offeror shall provide substantiation for need of additional rows or columns.

Q# 008 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 5.0 Volume 5 - Price

Is it the Government’s intent for attachments 113 & 114 to replace the cost detail an offeror would normally provide in the proposal?

A: The Government requires a complete Volume 5, which includes Exhibit B to be filled-in completely. The Government does not intend to use Attachments 113 and 114 to replace the cost detail.

Q# 009 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 5.0 Volume 5 - Price

Does the Government intend for offerors to provide the detail for the Non Most-Likely ranges for CLINs XX02-XX05, XX25-XX28, XX46-XX51 in Attachments 113 & 114?

A: Exhibit B requires all costs for all ranges to be filled in. Attachments 113 and 114 require cost buildup for only the ‘most likely’ SLIN if the CLIN provides a ‘most likely’ SLIN. See Price Attachment 113 (Instructions tab – Note A)

Q# 010 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 5.0 Volume 5 - Price Discussion:

Attachment 113 and 114 provide instructions to price material related to “per occurrence” items in these attachments such as CLIN 16 – Engine Overhaul and CLIN 17 – Propeller Overhaul. These attachments also instruct that the "Total Sell Price" for each CLIN/SLIN should match the proposed price submitted in Section B. Attachment 113 & 114 appear to only address labor.

Question:

Would the Government consider revising these attachments to include space for offerors to include the material cost so that the total price included in Attachment 113 and/or 114 would match Section B?

A: See answer to question #7.

Q# 011 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 5.0 Volume 5 - Price

CLINs such as XX06 contain multiple SLINs that are for the same exact level of effort (i.e. CLINs XX06AA-AD are all options for adding 1 additional aircraft at Whiting Field), and thus would each be the same cost/price. Attachment 113 instructs offerors to identify per SLIN, the breakdown of staffing to show the unit price.

Question:

Would the Government consider revising Attachments 113 and 114 to allow offerors to only show the unit cost buildup for each different level of effort (eg. for CLINs XX06AA thru XX06AM: one buildup for 1 Aircraft, one buildup for 2 aircraft, and one buildup for 3 aircraft, rather than 4 separate unit cost buildups for each level of additional aircraft), in an effort to reduce the size of this file and the printed copy?

A: See answer to question #5.

Q# 012 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference: CLINs XX17 and XX38 Propeller Overhaul

Is it the Government’s expectation that the Propeller Overhaul prices include all material that may be required?

A: Yes, CLINs XX17 & XX38 are to include all pricing for the materials listed in PWS.

Q# 013 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference:

Section B, paragraph B-1.2a states T-34s will be removed from Whiting Field in FY13 and not be listed in FY13 Qtr 1 performance period and beyond.

Options 4-7 show 10 T-34 aircraft assigned.

Question:

What is the correct number of T-34 aircraft at Whiting Field for FY13?

A: Section B of the RFP has been amended, see Section B Pricing Note B-1.2a

Q# 014 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference:

Section B, paragraph B-1.sb states T-44As will be removed in FY15. PWS Enclosure 3 shows FY14 4th quarter.

Question:

What is the planned date for the last T-44As?

A: Section B of the RFP has been amended, see Section B Pricing Note B-1.2b

Q# 015 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference: Section B, paragraph B-1.2c states nothing about removal of T-34s from Corpus Christi. PWS Enclosure 3 shows removal FY15.

Are we correct in just bidding the numbers in Section B?

A: Yes, Section B of the RFP is correct for T34s in Corpus Christi. See Pricing Note B-1.2c & d for T-6 Standup in Corpus Christi.

Q# 016 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference: RFP Attachment 40 – PWS Enclosure 3 CNATRA Flight Hour Data does not match Section B CLINs.

Are we correct in bidding the numbers shown in Section B?

A: Offerors shall bid to quantities identified in the Section B Line Item requirements.

Q# 017 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: PWS Paragraph 5.21.3: “The Contractor shall provide transient support for east/west coast detachments and perform satellite site overflow maintenance as required at Fort Rucker, AL.”

The referenced paragraph requires the contractor to provide transient support services at Fort Rucker, AL. Paragraph 2.0, however, identifies the satellite site locations, but does not list Fort Rucker. In addition, RFP Section B does not contain CLINs in support of Fort Rucker.

Question:

Was paragraph 5.21.3 inadvertently left in when the 8 Dec ’10 revision to the Draft RFP and the subsequent Final RFP were accomplished, and does the Government intend for the contractor to provide transient support services at Fort Rucker, AL? If it is the Government’s intention for the contractor to provide transient support services at Fort Rucker, AL, does the Government intend to provide workload data?

A: This paragraph was inadvertently left in the PWS. The RFP has been revised by Amendment 0002.

Q# 018 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference: PWS Paragraph 2.0, page 4 of 44: “A transient T-34 Satellite Site is located at Fallon, NV.”

We have been unable to locate workload data for T-34 transient services at NAS Fallon, NV, in either the Bidder’s Library, RFP Section B, or any of the attachments provided with the solicitation.

Question:

Does the Government intend to provide workload data for T-34 transient services at NAS Fallon, NV, from which offerors can base their manning solution for this satellite site?

A: This paragraph was inadvertently left in the PWS. The RFP has been revised by Amendment 0002.

Q# 019 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference: PWS – General

Will the host military bases provide emergency medical response and confined space entry rescue services to Contractor personnel when involved in providing services as described in the RFP? Are prospective bidders not required to provide emergency response services on US military bases as defined in 29 CFR 1910 as a function of this contract?

A: Emergency services are available as identified in each base standard operating procedure. PWS Enclosure 9 identifies all applicable base instructions and standard operating procedures. In addition, the performing Contractor shall comply with 29 CFR 1910.

Q# 020 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference: PWS Paragraph 5.14.6.3: … “The Government will be considered the generator of all wastes.” … PWS Paragraph 5.16.1: … “The Contractor shall operate under its EPA identification number and be responsible for hazardous waste collection.” …

Discussion:

The above PWS references are in conflict for services provided on military installations in support of services provided during detachments and downed aircraft recoveries.

Question:

Are offerors to operate under the Government’s environmental permits and registrations when those operations occur on US military bases as described in PWS Paragraph 5.14.6.3, and then under the Contractor’s environmental permits and registrations when operating on sites leased or owned by the Contractor?

A: Yes. This requirement has been updated by Solicitation Amendment #0002.

Q# 021 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference: PWS Paragraph 5.16.2 , Contractor’s Environmental Program Plan (EPP) (to include sub-paragraphs)

As a function of the requirements listed in Section 5.16.2, will the Contractor be provided written descriptions of the specific requirements to be complied with by the Contractor when operating on US military bases (and therefore the local US military environmental permits and registrations) with respect to air permits, spill control prevention and countermeasures, hazardous/universal waste, industrial wastewater, storm water, EPCRA, etc

A: This requirement has been updated by Solicitation Amendment #0002.

Q# 022 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference: PWS Paragraph 5.14.14: Security of Government Property – … “The Contractor shall secure property of a manufacturer where the Government has incurred an obligation to secure proprietary rights.”

Discussion: We are unsure as to the Government’s intent of the last sentence of paragraph 5.14.14

What is the Government’s intended meaning/application of the last sentence in PWS paragraph 5.14.14 (“The Contractor shall secure property of a manufacturer where the Government has incurred an obligation to secure proprietary rights.”)?

A: The Contractor shall secure and safeguard, not only the real property and buildings/spaces, but also the contents (i.e. documents, Government property and proprietary data provided by the Government, IAW 252.227-7025 Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Government-Furnished Information Marked with Restrictive Legends) contained within the facilities.

Q# 023 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference: PWS Paragraph 5.16.2.2: … “Adjacent storm drains shall be covered during outdoor fueling and maintenance operations.” …

Discussion: Approved fueling and maintenance parking spots should not be located adjacent to storm drains. During the industry day site visits, we were not informed of any maintenance or fueling areas with EPA restrictions. Storm drains are engineered to safely channel rain water to prevent damage to property and infrastructure. We are concerned that covering storm drains could result in flooding and damage to Government property in the event of pop-up storms, as are likely at all three MOBs, and a majority of the satellite sites. This raises the question of liability for damage to Government property should a storm drain remain covered when a storm hits during normal maintenance operations.

Question:

What is the Contractor’s responsibility in regards to covering storm drains during outdoor fueling and maintenance operations? If storm drains are to be covered, what are they covered with, who covers them, and when are the covers removed?

A: The PWS has been updated to reflect the Government’s requirement. The Contractor is responsible for complying with Federal, State, and Local Base Instructions as identified in PWS Enclosure 9.

Q# 024 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference: RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 5.3, Section 7.5 states: The Total Price for the Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs XX13, XX34, and 0166 is defined as the estimated cost plus the proposed fee (dollar amount). For the sum of the CPFF CLINs, the evaluated cost will include the Offeror’s proposed cost or Government’s Most Probable Cost (utilizing the Offeror’s proposal dollar amount of fee), whichever is higher.

Discussion: Section B identifies CLINs XX13 and XX34 as CPFF but does not provide a “Most Probable” cost.

Question:

Would the Government please consider revising Section B to include a cost for these CLINs?

A: No most probable cost will be provided. Clauses 5252.211-9503 Level of Effort and 5252.232-9510 Payment of Fixed Fee shall be addressed when proposing the CPFF.

Q# 025 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference:G-1 INVOICING INSTRUCTIONS - Payment of Services and Performance Incentive (b) Disincentives shall be deducted on the Final invoice for each performance period proportionally from all Fixed Aircraft Maintenance SLINs by the amount determined IAW H-1 of this contract. A Fractional quantity shall be entered into the invoice.

Discussion: In the event a disincentive is applicable to the contractor, Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) will not allow fractional quantities, i.e. no decimals. Units of measure must be input into WAWF as whole numbers.

Question:

Does the Government intend to issue a formal contract modification each period to change the unit price of each Fixed Maintenance SLIN to allow final invoicing?

A: This instruction is updated by Solicitation Amendment #0002.

Q# 026 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference:

PWS Paragraph 5.1.4.2: … The Contractor shall perform O-Level conditional maintenance on T-44 and T-6 aircraft.

PWS Paragraph 5.1.4.4.1: T-34/T-44/T-6 - When O-Level repairs (T-34/T-44/T-6) and on site D-Level repairs (T-34 only) …

PWS Paragraph 5.1.4.4.1.1: T-6 Depot Level Repairs – The Contractor shall verbally notify the ACO within 24 hours.

Discussion:

PWS paragraph 5.1.5.5.1.1 is a sub-paragraph of 5.1.4.4.1, which states that on-site D-level repairs apply only to T-34.

Question:

Did the Government intend for paragraph 5.1.4.4.1.1 to apply to T-34 D-level repairs vice T-6?

A: This requirement is updated by Solicitation Amendment #0002.

Q# 027 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference:

PWS Paragraph 5.6.5.1: The first band may be scheduled two (2) hours before local sunrise…

PWS Paragraph 5.6.6.1: The first band may be scheduled two (2) hours before local sunrise…

PWS Paragraph 5.6.8: Site Operating Hours are shown in Appendix C

RFP Section H-1, Paragraph II.1.2: Total On-Time Aircraft (TOTA) is defined as a Mission Capable (MC) aircraft (as defined in CNAFINST 4790.2A) assigned to the flight schedule in TIMS one hour prior to scheduled take-off time.

Discussion:

Throughout the year, it is possible that the flying window of 2 hours before local sunrise could fall outside of the field operating hours specified in Appendix C.

Does the Government intend to adjust field operating hours to accommodate the start of the first band two hours prior to sunrise, should this period (2 hours prior to sunrise) fall outside of the stated field operating hours?

A: The note at the bottom of Appendix C explains the adjustment of operational hours .

Q# 028 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q:

Reference:

PWS Paragraph 5.7.5 Quality Control (QC) Program PWS Table 5.7.5 – Quality Control Program Special Program Matrix

Discussion:

PWS Paragraph 5.7.5 requires the offeror to provide a commercial quality system that complies with AS 9100B. PWS Table 5.7.5 instructs that the oversight method for the special programs listing in the table is the CSEC.

Question:

When using the CSEC as the oversight method for special programs is it the Government’s intent for the contractor to use the CSEC site to log/track contractor QC audits or is a contractor-provided system for tracking audits acceptable?

A: Yes, it is the Government’s intent to utilize the CSEC per CNAFINST 4790.2A.

Q# 029 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Reference: RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.3.b): Interim Component Repair Plan - Provide the plan that identifies the repair processes and quality assurance procedures that shall be implemented for component repair from contract award until approval of the Contractor's Component Repair Manual….

RFP Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.3.b).v): Provide the schedule, process/procedures to be implemented to develop, obtain Government approval and implement the contractor's final Component Repair Manual(s)

PWS Paragraph 5.3.1.6: The Contractor shall develop and maintain an On-Site Component Repair Report detailing the specifics of components repaired on site. The Contractor shall deliver the On Site Component Repair Report for final review and approval to the COR within 60 days after contract award and then monthly thereafter IAW CDRL A011.

CDRL A011, On Site Component Repair Listing: The first submission of this CDRL is due 60 days after contract start, and monthly thereafter.

Discussion:

Section L of the RFP, paragraph 2.3.b) requires approval of the contractors final Component Repair Manual. The revision of PWS section 5.3 that occurred for the Final RFP removed reference to a component repair manual, and replaced it with a component repair report, which is due 60 days after contract award and then monthly thereafter IAW CDRL A011. There appears to be a disparity between the RFP Section L requirement and the PWS.

Question:

Did the Government intend for a Component Repair Manual (specified in the RFP Section L, paragraph 2.3.b)) to be submitted for approval separate from the Component Repair Report/Listing which is to be submitted IAW CDRL A011?

A: This requirement has been updated by Solicitation Amendment #0002.

Q# 030 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: This question applies to all FH generated CLINS such as 0003 which we will use to explain our question.

Section B: The description of service described under CLIN 0003 says “T-34 Flight Hr GEN Maintenance (scheduled and unscheduled) - NASCC. …)

Section C of the RFP defines CLIN 0003 et al as, “- The Contractor shall perform scheduled Flight Hour (FH) generated maintenance for T-34/T-44/T6 aircraft IAW Section 5.1.2, Section 5.6 through 5.6.13 of Attachment 1, PWS.”

PWS Sections 5.1.2 speaks to FH generated maintenance and inspections, oil sampling and maintenance resulting from oil sampling.

PWS Sections 5.6 through 5.6.13 speak to Maintenance and production support services (which is not defined)

Flight line coordination (we assume to mean launch and recovery, but wonder if it includes, daily, turnaround, preflight inspections, which are not FH driven)

Para 5.6.7 of the PWS speaks to “additional aircraft which are also billable under CLIN 06 et al. Please clarify where additional aircraft should be priced.

Detachment support tasking identified in 5.6.11 is not tightly coupled with flight hours and would be more appropriately placed in CLIN 19.

Recommend the following:

Clearly define what tasks are to be performed under which CLIN. For Instance:

FH Driven Inspections (Look phase only) or FH Driven Inspections (Look and fix phase) etc

Alternatively and preferably, Combine Base and FH driven CLINS into one CLIN Base loading and FH plan are fairly predictable. Combine all Organizational Level maintenance, including flight hour driven maintenance flight line support etc into one CLIN. Provide the projected number of aircraft for each quarter and the minimum expected number of flight hours. Make that CLIN FFP/month. That will greatly simplify time keeping and will likely result in reduced cost and risk to the government. Flight hours above the minimum could be billed under CLIN 7

Combine T-44A and T-44C pricing into one CLIN. In practice, mechanics will flow between the two aircraft. Timekeeping, billing for those personnel would be greatly simplified. The government has indicated the transition timeline, offerors can price their T44 efforts on one CLIN.

Correct section C to remove detachment support paragraphs from FH driven maintenance CLINS

A: This requirement has been updated by Solicitation Amendment #0002.

Q# 031 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Paragraph beginning Items 0002 says contractor should perform maintenance IAW PWS Para 5.3.1.3.2 through 5.3.1.6.

Question: PWS Para 5.3.1.3.2 does not exist. Please clarify.

A: This requirement has been updated by Solicitation Amendment #0002.

Q# 032 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Paragraph beginning with Items 0002 says work should be performed IAW PWS Sections 5.7 through 5.12.14.1.

Question: PWS Para 5.12.14.1 does not exist. Please clarify.

A: This requirement has been updated by Solicitation Amendment #0002.

Q# 033 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Paragraph beginning with Items 0009 indicates maintenance should be performed IAW PWS Section 5.1.2.3, 5.14.21 through 5.14.21.4

Question: PWS Para 5.1.2.3, 5.14.21 and 5.14.21.4 do not exist. Please clarify.

A: This requirement has been updated by Solicitation Amendment #0002.

Q# 034 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

H

1.3.1

Q: RFP does not speak to exemption SLMMESA for aircraft undergoing special rework/In service repair. Since depot maintenance may be performed by the government under this contract, the contractor would be unduly penalized should the government be delayed in initiating or completion depot maintenance.

Question/Recommendation: Recommend adding exemption for aircraft undergoing any depot maintenance during the period.

A: This requirement has been updated by Solicitation Amendment #0002.

Q# 035 T34/T44/T6 CLS RFP, N00019-10-R-0069, QUESTIONS/ANSWERS

Q: Although we completely understand the government’s desire to balance flight hour consumption, we believe that in the case of a platform being phased out, such as the T-34, compliance with this metric may be responsible for driving decisions that will unreasonably drive costs. For instance in order to keep a T-34 aircraft in the proper band, the contractor may be faced with installing a new engine, on an aircraft that is destined for AMARC the next month.

Question/Recommendation: Recommend adding a provision to allow ACO to unilaterally designate specific aircraft as SLMM exempt.

A: The Government’s requirement is stated in the PWS; refer to #34.