Industry_Questions_15Dec14.docx

Section L, Pargraph 5.2.1, Section 1 – Price/Cost Summaries states:

“The Offeror shall include Section B with the proposed pricing for this solicitation. Price/Cost information shall be submitted in Then Year dollars (TY$) based on the Government’s fiscal year (1 October through 30 September). The Offeror shall provide a summary level of the Price Proposal in Then Year dollars by Fiscal Year by CLIN.”

Under section F of the RFP, the periods of performance for each year begins on “01-Dec 201X to 30 Nov 201Y” (Where X is the starting year and Y is following year of each option).

1. Is it the Government’s intent to for the offeror to provide pricing based on the contract year of 1 December through 30 November is Price/Cost Summary reference in Section L, Paragraph 5.2.1, Section 1? Yes 1a. If not, does the Government want to display the contract year amounts (Tied to the Section B CLINS) based on the Government Fiscal Years included in the contract year period of performance: i.e. Base Year CLIN (PoP of 1 December 2015 – 30 November 2016) includes 10 Months of GFY16 and 2 Months of GFY17?

The government fiscal year (FY) runs 01 October thru 30 September (12 months). Contract Period of Performance (PoP) often crosses fiscal years for a one-year PoP. In the case of this contract, the PoP will run 01 December thru 30 November (12 months). When providing a Then Year (TY) dollar for a PoP crossing two FYs and it has been requested in the RFP to provide dollar values by FY, the offeror would provide two FY values for the one year PoP that add up to the 12 months. In the case of this RFP, the Base Year consists of 10 months in FY16 and two months in FY17. The first 10 months will be valued to represent FY16 inflation and the last two months will be valued to represent FY17 inflation. The sum of these two values will be the Then Year value/offer for the Base Year. Each Option Year would be calculated using the same methodology for those FYs that PoP crosses.

2. In addition, on Attachment L-6 “Cost Price” Spreadsheet, should the FY (seeming to imply GFY) listed on row 9 of the spreadsheet be based on the Contract Period of performance as provided in Section F of the RFP, since the language in the instructions of the spreadsheet states “The ‘Total-Offeror Proposed Estimated Amount’ shall be used to populate Section B of the Model Contract in the Appropriate CLINs?

[Suggestions: Change the language in Section L, Paragraph 5.2.1 to be based on the base year and option periods (1 December – 30 November), and change the Attachment L-6 spreadsheet to stated Base year, Option 1, etc. instead of FY.]

See updated RFP Amendment 2, Section L Attachment L-6

3. Will the Government please provide a copy of the current CBA or confirm that the one provided in the Draft RFP, as Attachment 9, is still applicable?

That CBA is current. It is also posted under additional information on the FBO solicitation page.

4. Will the Government please confirm that per, the Attachment 9 CBA Cover sheets, Appendix A - Wages of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (provided in the Draft RFP) takes precedence over the Rates specified in Attachments 10-14 Wage Determinations, provided with the final RFP, released on 20 November 2014?

Proposals are to be prepared IAW the Service Contract Act requirements. The wage determinations are applicable to any proposed labor categories which are applicable to the Service Contract Act and not covered by the CBA.

5. Do specific BuNo aircraft remain at the same MOB/FOB or do they rotate between sites?

The aircraft rotate between sites.

Is the configuration of each aircraft the same or do some aircraft have different mission requirements/equipment dictating unique sparing needs? (PWS, pg 5, P1.2.1)

Some aircraft have different configurations. It is up to the CLS contractor to ensure sparing is adequate for the MOB and FOBs in regards to aircraft requirements, unless directed by the government.

6. In determining replacement of repairables, how long does the COR have to decide on replacement in lieu of repair? (PWS, pg 8, P1.3.3.2)

Maximum time is 45 days for the Government to provide disposition.

7. Are initial spare procurements using APN-6 funds only the result of approved ECPs or are there other situations that could mandate the need for initial sparing? (PWS, pg 8, P1.3.3.4)

Other situations will dictate the use of APN-6.

8. Are there any specific TAT requirements for high priority items or is the 75-day goal a composite for all components? (PWS, pg 11, P1.4.8)

It is a composite maximum for all components.

9. How will assets lost to ongoing QDRs and EIs be replaced in the inventory? Are there any special procedures that must be followed? (PWS, pg 13, P2.3e & 2.3f)

The EI/PQDR process provides the disposition for assets. Procedures for EI/PQDRs are contained within the COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.

10. Will squadrons be responsible for submitting requisitions into NALCOMIS/OOMA to cover depleted stock in War Reserve Kits or will the contractor inventory the kits and replace the items? (PWS, pg 24, P3.5.1)

It is the contractor’s responsibility to inventory the kits and replace items.

11. PWS states, “The contractor shall implement bar coding to increase productivity and Inventory accuracy consistent with Government material handling applications.” (PWS, pg 28, P5.2)

To what extent is bar coding currently employed at the MOB and FOB’s – are all parts and/or bins bar coded? And are the bar coding units/bar code tags and/or equipment GFP or contractor-owned? How many units are utilized at each of site (i.e., the MOB and FOBs)?

It is an ongoing process, not all bins or parts are bar coded at this time. The equipment is Government property. One unit is used at each site.

Will the Offeror be allowed to install a wireless LAN or network capability, in support of any bar coding or RFID system, at the MOB and FOBs?

Yes.

12. Annex 4 states, “The contractor shall…deploy and support the system, establishing LANs and/or a WAN…” (PWS, Annex 4, pg 1, P3.0)

What infrastructure will be available to the contractor at each FOB and the MOB? For example, will the contractor have access to T-1 communication lines or similar?

There are communication lines available (T1 at all sites).

Are existing PLM terminals and related hardware the responsibility of the contractor or will these be provided as GFP?

It is the contractor’s responsibility to provide terminals beyond that which is provided by the Government as GFP.

13. Annex 4 states, “The contractor shall provide Government personnel, as designated by the APML, on-line, read-only access to the ADP, to include the ability to generate custom on-line reports as required, run required on-line reports detailed in Sections 5-10, and export all data into the current version of Microsoft WORD and Microsoft EXCEL from the on-line interface. In addition, the contractor shall provide authorized Government personnel with training on the ADP.” (PWS, Annex 4, pg 1, P3.0)

Can the Government provide an estimate for the number of Government personnel likely to required on-line read-only access to the proposed ADP and subsequently, for training on this system?

Estimate 25 Government personnel.

14. Annex 4 states, “The contractor shall deliver a complete electronic copy of all non-proprietary data from the ADP to the Government in accordance with CDRL A007”. (PWS, Annex 4, pg 1, P3.0)

Is the current E-6B CLS incumbent required to deliver its PLM data to the Government in electronic form?

Yes.

Specifically, is the data indicated by PWS sections 4 through 12 owned by the Government and will the incumbent CLS contractor be required to provide this data to the incoming CLS contractor in electronic form? This data, provided in electronic form, will significantly reduce transition/operational risks to the program.

Yes, the data is owned by the Government and the data will be provided in electronic form.

15. Per Annex 5, Contractor Meeting Requirements, there may be up to 9 meetings per year (LSM, MAG, CSR and IMRL) that will involve travel by one or more members of the Contractor management team. (PWS, Annex 5)

There is no indication in the RFP that travel is a reimbursable expense under this contract. Will the Government consider adding a clause (e.g., 5252.232-9509 REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL, PER DIEM, AND SPECIAL MATERIAL COSTS (NAVAIR) (OCT 2006)) that allows the contractor to recoup contract-related/required travel costs through one of the existing CLINs, or adding a cost reimbursable Travel CLIN to the contract?

No. Travel is to be accounted for under the fixed price CLS CLIN.

16. Recommend the Government revise part (b) to read: “entities that perform at least 30% of the proposed Firm Fixed Price Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) CLINs (0001, 0101, 0201, 0301, 0401 and 0501). This would accurately align the most likely subcontractor-performed FFP CLIN (xxx1) to be reflective of that entity’s role in the Past Performance and Corporate Experience requirements and remove the Data/CDRLs, Boeing Data License and Phase In CLINs. (Section L, p. 83, P5)

The Government considered the recommendation and decided to retain the RFP language as written.

17. Additionally, will the Government clarify what “at least 30%” is referring to (e.g. CLIN dollar value, FTEs)? (Part A 1.0, Section L, p. 83, P5)

30% refers to the CLIN dollar values.

18. Recommend that the Government consider allowing 8-point font text to be utilized in graphics (i.e., non-chart and non-table) assuming the font size is legible, clear and is consistent with the data presented. (Part A 1.0, Section L, p. 84, P1)

No, the requirement stands.

19. Does the column titled “Suggested Pages” refer to an actual page limitation (i.e., Volume 1 may NOT exceed 10 pages) or are they as the column states, “suggestions” for these sections? (Part A 3.0, pp. 87-88, Table L-2)

There is no page restriction but it is highly encouraged to stay within those limits.

20. Assuming that Table L-2 “Suggested Pages” are in fact, indication of page limitations for each section, recommend the Government increase the page allocation for Annex C, Key Personnel Letters of Intent and Resumes from 8 to 15 pages. This would allow Offerors to present more detailed resumes demonstrating relevant experience and allow for inclusion of the Letters of Intent per RFP Section 4.6 statement that resumes should be limited to 1 to 3 pages. (Part A 3.0, pp. 87-88, Table L-2)

There is no page restriction. Three pages for the resumes (not including Letters of Intent) should be sufficient to provide the information needed to evaluate the qualifications of Key Personnel in accordance with the PWS.

21. Will the Government please clarify the required proposal validity period? It is not specified in Section A – Solicitation/Contract Form. (Part A 4.0, p. 90, P2)

RFP Amendment 2 will make the validity period 180 days.

22. Can the Government clarify if the submittal due date of 12 January 2015 for Volume 1, Table ES-1, Tables ES-2, Volume 3, Table PP-1, and Annex A is a mandatory due date or suggested due date? And please confirm that changes to these Tables/Annexes may be made up and until the final proposal due date? (Part A 4.0, p. 90, P3)

This is a request for early Past Performance information, these dates are not mandatory.

23. Will the Government confirm that “Volume 3 (Past Performance) Table PP-1 (Past Performance Contract Data)” should instead reference Volume 2? (Part A 4.1, p. 90, P3)

It should reference Volume 2.

24. Please clarify intent of Section 2.3, Evaluation, Paragraph 2 which states, “the Offeror shall provide contract data regarding relevancy, past performance information, and demonstrated systemic improvement as described below, organized by contract. Use a separate table for each individual contract, or Delivery Order or Task Order and each of these references should be a separate tab the Excel Spreadsheet.” (Italics are those of the Offeror) (Part B 2.3, p. 96, P2)

Is the reference to the requirement to “…use a separate table for each individual contract, or Delivery Order or Task Order…” an articulation of how the Government wishes the Offeror to organize Attachment L-3 Table PP-1 (Past Performance Contract Data)? Or is this in reference to an additional Table for demonstration of relevancy, past performance information and demonstrated systematic improvement?

Currently, the Government has not provided an Excel template for Section 2.3.

Section L instructs the Offeror to provide contract information on either a separate workbook or a tab (worksheet) in the example L-3 attachment. The demonstration of relevancy, past performance information and demonstrated systematic improvement should be provided in the proposal, organized by contract. Bottom line is that information for only one contract or delivery order should be provided on one L-3 form. Add additional forms for each contract.

25. Regarding the Government’s request for a “comparative analysis”, please confirm that within this Section (3.2) the Government is requesting the following ONLY:

· 2 electronic copies of each reference’s SOW/PWS/SOO (Word and PDF)

· Description of CAGE Code information per Section 3.2 a., (2) The completion of a “comparative analysis” (requested by the Government in paragraph 1 of a. Relevancy) that is to be completed in accordance with instructions set forth in Section 3.2 a. (3) (Part B 2.3a, p. 96, P3)

Within the Past Performance Factor, 2.3(a), provide a comparative analysis to demonstrate that the contract is relevant. In the Corporate Experience Factor, 3.2, provide a comparative analysis to demonstrate the degree of relevancy for each element within the Corporate Experience Factor. Annex A should provide information that can support both comparative analyses.

26. Will the Government consider removing the condition, “Contracts from a different physical location (e.g. with different CAGE code) than the entity proposed in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary)”? This condition/restriction appears to contradict the first sentence of section 2.3.a. (2). Additionally, this condition/restriction may limit an Offeror’s ability to accurately demonstrate its past performance simply due to the referencing of a different CAGE Code (i.e. location) on the contract document. (Part B 2.3a(1)(iv), p. 96, P4)

No, these instructions ensure that only entities that will be performing the future contract will be considered relevant.

27. If large business Offerors submit a final or most recent SF294/ISR, will this report count against the recommended page limitation (40)? Similarly, if the large business Offeror is a participant in the DOD Comprehensive Subcontracting Test Program and will submit copies of DCMA’s most recent SF295, will these reports count against the recommended page limitation (40)? (Part B 2.3b(5), p. 97, P4)

There is no page restriction.

28. This section requests that “The Offeror shall summarize the written proposal by completing Tables CE-1 (Evaluation Area Summary), CE-2 (Corporate Experience Summary), and CE-3 (Contract Comparative Analysis Summary), provided in Attachment L-4 (Corporate Experience Tables).” (Part B 3.0 A, p. 98-99, P6)

Please confirm that these tables, completed, should be included in the Offeror’s narrative response within this volume (and are also submitted separately, electronically)?

Yes

29. If the Government does elect to request that Offerors provide a physical demonstration of their Automated Database System, please describe the anticipated concept of operations, requirements, location of the demonstration and expected timeline for the System demonstration. (Part B 4.2, p.102, P4)

For concept of operations and requirements see PWS Annex 4. The location for the demonstration will be at Patuxent River NAS. The specific timeline and location will be determined if the demonstration is required.

30. Will the Government please confirm that “Then Year dollars (TY$)” are defined as the estimated cost at time of execution? (Part B 5.2.1, p.107, P5)

Yes, TY$s are defined as the estimated cost at the time of execution. This will account for inflation.

31. 5.2.1 states “Price/Cost information shall be…based on the Government’s fiscal year (1 October through 30 September)” and 5.2.4 (a) states “If providing calendar year rates, include traceability between calendar year rates and Government Fiscal Year (GFY) rates used in developing the proposal.” (Section L 5.0, 5.2.1, & 5.2.4(a), p.107 & 109)

Since the contract period of performance is 1 December through 30 November, did the Government intend for 5.2.1 (a) to read “Price/Cost information shall be submitted…based on the contract year (1 December through 30 November)” and 5.2.4 (a) to read “If providing calendar year rates, include traceability between calendar year rates and contract year rates used in developing the proposal”?

The government fiscal year (FY) runs 01 October thru 30 September (12 months). Contract Period of Performance (PoP) often crosses fiscal years for a one-year PoP. In the case of this contract, the PoP will run 01 December thru 30 November (12 months). When providing a Then Year (TY) dollar for a PoP crossing two FYs and it has been requested in the RFP to provide dollar values by FY, the offeror would provide two FY values for the one year PoP that add up to the 12 months. In the case of this RFP, the Base Year consists of 10 months in FY16 and two months in FY17. The first 10 months will be valued to represent FY16 inflation and the last two months will be valued to represent FY17 inflation. The sum of these two values will be the Then Year value/offer for the Base Year. Each Option Year would be calculated using the same methodology for those FYs that PoP crosses.

32. Will the Government please clarify if Principal Subcontractor rate information should be provided to the Prime via sealed bid, or directly to the Government? Recommend that the prime contractor submit any subcontractor sealed bid packages. (Section L 5.0, p.109, Part B 5.2.4(a), P2)

Rate information should be sent directly to the Government representative, Kerry Harding, with the solicitation number and prime contractor’s information clearly noted.

33. The RFP provides plug numbers for the Cost type CLINS. Therefore, the requested Contractor rate information/detail would be applicable to the FFP CLINS. Why is this level of cost detail required for FFP? Will the Government consider removing this requirement? (Section L 5.0, p.109, Part B 5.2.4(a-e), P2)

No, please refer to Section L, Part B, paragraph 5.2.4 (a).

34. Requires Offeror to provide Model Contract to include “Section F with delivery dates filled in”. Section F of the RFP already appears to specify the Period of Performance start and end dates. Will the Government please clarify what dates it requires the Offeror to fill in? (Section L 6.0, p.110, Part e(4))

The offeror may propose using the dates submitted by the Government or use their own; fully knowing any variation in the proposal to the solicitation may make the proposal non-responsive.

35. Will the Government please clarify the intent of Column A, Lines 10-12, “Corporate Parent, Division, Subsidiary, or Affiliate (where applicable)”? The Instructions Tab for Table ES-2 does not reference these Lines: “Corporate Parent, Division, Subsidiary, or Affiliate (where applicable)”. (Att L-1, Vol 1, Instructions Tab)

Amendment 2 to the RFP revises ES-2 instructions to include C1...Cn for corporate parent, another division, a subsidiary of itself, or affiliate.

36. Should Offerors use this section (lines 10-12 in Table ES-2), if it were to have an affiliate organization that had a different CAGE Code/same physical location as the Prime entity that had been created as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and refer to the same division in the same physical location for where the work is being performed or from where the work is being directed in accordance with the proposed roles and responsibilities? (Att L-1, Vol 1, Instructions Tab)

Yes, if the affiliate is now part of the prime (or a sub to the prime) and will be actively be engaged in performing the work required by this contract, its contract may be submitted for verification as relevant or non-relevant. Remember, it is the Government that makes the final determination of relevancy. It is also important to demonstrate that prices in the Price Proposal relate to this entity.

37. Instructions for Table CE-3 Column C, indicate that Offerors are to “Summarize the comparative analysis provided as narrative in 3.4”. Should this reference be changed to “…as narrative in 3.2”? Section 3.4 only requires Offerors to complete CE-3, while Section 3.2 requires the inclusion of detailed comparative analysis narrative. (Part B, Att L-4, Instructions Tab)

Yes, the instructions should say, “…as narrative in 3.2 Evaluation Areas)…”