Final_RFP_Q A.xlsx

Final RFP Q&A

a. RDT shows 3rd level while Definitions go to 4th level

b. Definitions has a 1.1.1.1 Operator – no such counterpart on the RDT

c. Definitions have a 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 - no such counterpart on the RDT

d. Please clarify the discrepancies so bidders understand how to fill out the RDT.

The WBS Definitions, RDT, and CSDR Plan are tailorable. DCARC mandates that cost shall be reported down to a minimum of 3 levels. If the Offeror intends to report down lower than 3 levels the definitions from 4th level and below are provided as a guide and the Offeror should define what those definitions are.

If an Offeror deems that a certain WBS does not apply to the program, it may be omitted from the RDT and the CSDR Plan.

a. Please clarify that the contractor’s role regarding test instrumentation, wiring, and equipment is to support AVMI vice having the contractor maintain and install.

Please clarify the requirement. Recommend the sentence be changed to read as follows: “The Contractor shall provide the Government with unlimited access and rights to all data maintained in the web-based system.”

Request the Government clarify the material requirements to be priced by providing documentation or estimates bidders can use to determine the material requirements.

If the material are provided by the Govt, then recommend deleting and material from the B-3.7 definition. If it is the Government’s intent to have the bidders price the materials for IMPs and S&Ps, then please provide data and/or government estimates. 0X07 and 0X08 IMP: Material required to conduct IMPs will be requisitioned from Government Supply and paid for directly by the Navy or procured through the open market and reimbursed via CLINs 0X25.

0X09 Strip and Paint: HAZMAT for Strip and Paint will be requisitioned from Government Supply and paid for directly by the Navy; therefore no HAZMAT pricing is to be included in the proposed FFP. All other material required for Strip and Paint is to be procured through the open market and reimbursed via CLINs 0X25.

Therefore, the RFP will be revised via Amendment 1 to exclude any material from the FFP of CLINs 0X07, 0X08, and 0X09 and include a SLIN under CLINs 0X25 for reimbursement when material is procured from the open market vs. Government Supply.

Discussion: Under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), no defense article may be exported, or technical data or defense services provided to a foreign person in the United States or abroad, without an authorization from the U.S. Department of State. This requirement applies to exports which are on behalf of the U.S. government, including those in support of contracts with the U.S. government which require such exports as a deliverable under or incident to a USG contract (including classified and special access program contracts).

We understand that foreign pilots may be present at some of the four sites contemplated in the RFP for training purposes. We also understand that as part of its efforts to promote cost sharing and increase interoperability of defense and intelligence systems and organizations, the DoD and other agencies of the USG enter into certain defense cooperative agreements with allies and friendly nations. The scope of the articles, data and technology to be provided by the USG under such agreements must be approved via USG foreign disclosure policy mechanisms, and is therefore subject to control by the President by means other than the ITAR.

The purpose of the following questions is to ascertain whether an export authorization will be required by the selected contractor for certain activities that may be directly related or incidental to the RFP requirements:

Questions:

1) Is the presence of the foreign pilots, attending training at the sites contemplated in this RFP, covered under defense cooperative agreements with the foreign pilots’ countries of origin, or Foreign Military Sales (FMS) cases include the scope of training on equipment?

2) Will foreign pilots be trained by the contractor at any of the four locations? If yes, what will the contractor train the foreign pilots on?

3) Will foreign pilots witness contractor personnel performing maintenance services (e.g. witnessing conduct of maintenance, inspections, testing, repair, etc.)?

4) Will the contractor be required to provide any type of assistance to the foreign pilots at any of the four bases? If yes, what type of assistance will be required and at which location?

a. If the intent is to have bidders price 07XX as half of 06XX then recommend all Government provided data be removed from the RFP with direction to bidders to simple enter half of 06XX values into 07XX lines and/or worksheets for:

i. Schedule B

ii. Schedule L-7_Vol_3_Prime_CCS

1. Note: L-5_Vol_2_T-2_Manning_Analysisi does not have columns for the FAR 52.217-8 Option period)

iii. Schedule L-8_Vol_3_Sub_CCS.

Question: Due to the possibility of multiple paragraph numbers on a single page, will the Government allow for the pages to be numbered with only the volume and page number OR the proposal section and page number?

Question: Is it the Government’s intent for the Contractor to provide this level of detail regarding actual costs for these Firm Fixed Priced items via CDRL A011, in addition to the various financial and manpower reporting requirements found in 6.1 of the Performance Work Statement?

Question: Based on the recent rescission of class deviation cited above, will the Government remove reference to FAR 52.232-99 (Dev) in this solicitation?

Questions:

1) Should the CDRL reference for A030 actually be located in PWS section 5.14.24 as the RASP Command Inventory Report?

2) Did the Government intend to have a separate serialized item warranty tracking report or should this requirement be incorporated into CDRL A029 or A032?

PWS 5.18.2.1 states, “the contractor shall perform validation and verification and incorporation and all O-,I-, and D-level TD associated with related SE.

Question: Is the T-45 contractor responsible for incorporation of TD’s on equipment listed in (attachment 34) VX-23 shared GSE?

Question: “…please provide copies of each TD (VMTS, RAMP, DDS, and MFCD) so bidders can understand the TD requirements and therefore determine labor requirement.”

Response: “Competition library will be populated with TDs.”

Discussion: We have been unable to find the referenced TDs in the competition library.

i. position descriptions;

ii. qualifications/ certifications; and

iii. supervisory and technical training.

Discussion/Question: Due to the potential numbers of management and supervisory positions within the proposed organization by site, would the government consider removing this requirement from the page count of the Technical Volume and adding the required position descriptions to either the staffing plan (Annex A: Manning) or as an annex in the Technical Volume?

a. Please clarify if it is the Government’s intent to not include the FAR 52.217-8 Option period on the roll-up sheets?

b. If there is an error on the roll-up sheets, please provide revised roll-up sheets for L-7 and L-8.

Attachments will be revised via RFP Amendment 1.

3 April 2013 T45CLS Official Solicitation N00019-12-R-0001

H-14 Clause

Question: Does the Navy intend to include the contractor declared subcontractor fee on material, as will be provided per paragraph (b) of the H-14 clause, in the Total Evaluated Price? If not, does the Navy intend to use any other sort of evaluation process (qualitative or quantitative) to assess the subcontractor fee as part of the award selection?

In addition, clause H-14 could force the prime contractor to issue cost-reimbursement subcontracts to material suppliers of non-commercial items so that the prime would be able to verify the amount of the fee. The likelihood that all the affected suppliers would accept such a flow down appears to be remote, particularly in the case of sole-source suppliers. The Goshawk is based on a widely sold airframe and systems worldwide, and the OEMs for the parts have fee rates that are competitive for the marketplace. Even though the airframe is sold internationally, its parts do not meet the strict FAR definition of commercial item since they are sold only to government buyers. The likely refusal of these OEM part suppliers to agree to cost-reimbursable subcontracts is yet another reason why the H-14 Clause will prove impracticable for the prime contractor to administer during contract performance.

Question: Will the Navy remove Clause H-14 from the RFP? Or in the alternative, will the Navy modify Clause H-14 to remove any limitation on subcontractor fee on material for those parts supplied by non-exclusive OEM suppliers.

Question: Does the Government interpret the phrase “or any other entity of the contractor” in paragraph (d) of Clause H-14 to have the same meaning as the phrase “affiliates of the contractor under a common control” in FAR 31.205-26(e)? If not, would the Government provide a definition of “entity of the contractor” that allows bidders to address examples such as the one provided above?

Paragraph (d) of H14 will be revised via Solicitation Amendment 1 to read as follows:

(d) This clause does not supersede FAR Part 31 for commercial material costs between interdivisional work authorizations (IWAs); however any non-commercial materials or services obtained directly from a division, subsidiary, interdivisional work authorization (IWA) or any affiliates as defined in FAR Part 2.101 shall not be considered subcontracted effort and no profit/fee shall be included at the IWA contractor level for the subject CLINS.

In addition, the combination of the preclusion of prime contractor fee on materials with the subcontractor fee limitations in the H-14 Clause unfairly discriminates against prime contractors that are also an OEM for any of the T-45 parts. If an OEM were to bid as a prime, or were to be considered an “entity of the contractor” under paragraph (d) the H-14 Clause, the OEM would be entitled to no fee on the materials. In that scenario, neither the bidding entity nor any subsidiaries or sister companies of the OEM prime would be able to earn any fee on the parts, given the H-14 language on “interdivisional work authorizations” (IWAs).

Question: Will the Navy change CLIN 0X20 from Cost-Plus-No-Fee, to Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee?

The material CLINs on prior and existing contracts have been procured on a cost-reimbursable or Cost-Plus-No-Fee basis. It is the Navy’s intent to continue using this type structure. In accordance with FAR 31.205-26, allowance for materials that are sold or transferred between any division or affiliate of the contractor under a common control shall be on the basis of cost incurred.

3 April 2013 T45CLS Official Solicitation N00019-12-R-0001