Posted_Q A_4_Sept_14.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- E-6B CLS
- Solicitation number
- N00019-14-R-1007
About this file
Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 58 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
| Date | Question | Answer | Date Posted | ||
| 1 | 8/19/14 | Corporate Experience was described as the collective experience of the offeror together with parent/commonly held companies. Will the USG (United States Government) evaluate C.E. to be inclusive of different corporate CAGE codes despite the assertion that only the offeror’s CAGE is relevant? | Only relevant entities with a role and responsibility will be considered in the Corporate Experience evaluation. Corporate Experience from entities with different CAGE codes from the relevant entity will not be considered in the evaluation, unless it can be shown that the CAGE Code difference is only different for administrative reasons; thereby showing that it is really the same entity at the same physical location as the entity being proposed. | Alan | |
| 2 | Is subcontracting a requirement? | No, subcontracting is not a requirement as long as the requirements of the contract are fully met. However, please see Section L, Part II, paragraph 4.9. | Adam/Steve | Verify with Ken | |
| 3 | Does the USG consider vendor/supply chain management as the same as subcontractor management? | No, Subcontractor Management is relative to developing and implementing a method to track subcontractor performance relative to product quality, responsiveness, costs, repair turnaround time, and working with the subcontractor, as necessary, to enhance overall program performance, and minimize cost to the Government. | Steve | ||
| 4 | Is this KT (contract) subject to SCA (Service Contract Act)? | Yes. | Adam | ||
| 5 | If SCA, will USG provide required WD’s in solicitation? | The current Collective Bargaining Agreement is included as an attachment to the draft solicitation and will also be in the RFP. This will be a successor contract therefore para (f) of 52.222-41 is applicable. | Adam | ||
| 6 | Is there a CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) associated with the WD and/or existing contract? | Yes. | Adam | ||
| 7 | Will USG provide copy of CBA with solicitation? | Yes. The current CBA is included as attachment 9 to the draft solicitation. | Adam | ||
| 8 | Is the Bar Code Inventory System currently used USG/USN owned? If not, will the incumbent provide data to contract winner? | No, the USG does not own the Bar Code Inventory System. The inventory data will be provided. | Steve | ||
| 9 | Has the Government set a small business goal? If so, what is it? | DoD Small business Prime and subcontracting goals can be found at http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/sbProgramGoals.shtml. NAVAIR does not have small business subcontracting goals. NAVAIR Prime small business goals for HQ can be found at http://www.navair.navy.mil/osbp/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.performance | Ken | Adam Answered. Verify with Ken | |
| 10 | Is the Government intending to release data usage on parts? | Not at this time, the usage data is variable, and will be provided to awardee. | Steve | ||
| 11 | When will the Government respond to Industry Day questions? | It depends on the number of questions and level of detail/research required to answer. All questions will be answered at the same time. | Adam | ||
| 12 | Will Government consider extending the RFP release beyond October due to end-of-FY activities, response to industry questions, and allow for more competition? | RFP release will depend on changes that may be initiated from industry questions and obtaining required approvals prior to RFP release. The current intent is to release the solictation in October, however this may be delayed based on the aforementioned issues. | Adam | ||
| 13 | What is the expected time frame to respond to the Government's requirement (e.g. 30; 45; or 60 day turn around) | The anticipated proposal due date is early January; therefore the number of days between RFP release and proposals due is expected to be between 60 to 90 days, depending on when the final RFP can be released. | Adam | ||
| 14 | When will the Government expect to award a Contract? | The anticipated award date is November 2015. | Adam | ||
| 15 | What is the funding level for this program? | The USG does not understand the question. | Steve | ||
| 16 | Maintenance work allocation appears firm in the solicitation. Is there any chance some unit and depot maintenance tasks will become a requirement for the contractor? | Not at this time. | Steve | ||
| 17 | Will the DISA hosting required be level 6 or will level 3-5 be adequate for this project? | DISA hosting is not applicable. | Steve | ||
| 18 | Are NIS rates intended to track “on airfield” or “on ship” rates or does a part anywhere in the logistics tail apply against the rate calculation? | A part anywhere in the logisitcs tail will count if not issued within 1 hour. See PWS para 1.4.4 and 1.4.6 | Steve | ||
| 19 | Which PLM is the government and/or supporting manufacturers/contractors using? Are there licenses available to the winning bidder or will the winning bidder have the option of implementing a consolidating repository? Are there required interfaces to existing PLM’s or other legacy data/systems? | Each bidder is responsible for providing their own PLM. No interfaces are required, it is a stand alone system. | Steve | ||
| 20 | How does the CLS provider receive customer orders/requisitions? | The CLS provider receives orders/requisitions via the NALCOMIS/OOMA requistioning system. | Steve | ||
| 21 | What electronic interfaces does the CLS provider need to establish with government IT systems? | The CLS provider does not need to establish electronic interfaces with the Government IT system. | Steve | ||
| 22 | Will the government provide recommended/directed RoR vendors or does the CLS provider identify own RoR vendors? | See PWS para. 3.2.9 in regards to certification of vendors unless directed by the Government. Data on current providers will be provided at contract award. | Steve | ||
| 23 | Will the government provide sources of supply for consumable and repairable spares or is sourcing completely determined by the CLS provider? | See PWS para. 3.2.9 in regards to certification of vendors unless directed by the Government. Data on current providers will be provided at contract award. | Steve | ||
| 24 | If the CLS provider sources materials, do FAR competition rules (i.e., multiple bids from approved sources) apply? | Yes, FAR competition rules apply. | Steve | ||
| 25 | For any safety of flight materials, how does the CLS provider coordinate First Article Testing? | The CLS provider does not perform any first article testing or engineering. | Steve | ||
| 26 | If not included in the contract price of material, how is the CLS provider reimbursed for transportation (other than local) or are transportation costs included in CLIN 0001? | See section B of the draft contract specifically Item 0010 and Option items 0110, 0210, 0310 and 0410. | Adam | ||
| 27 | How is the CLS provider reimbursed for material purchases? Do the procurements cite government funding or does the CLS provider use own capital and seek reimbursement from the government? | See PWS para 1.3.3 thru 1.3.3.5. | Steve | ||
| 28 | How are the levels for wartime spares computed and/or established? | The level of war time spares are established by the Government, see PWS paragraphs 3.5.1, 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 | Steve | ||
| 29 | What are the MILSTRIP status requirements (if any) when processing customer requisitions? | See PWS para 3.3 | Steve | ||
| 30 | Are any interfaces to Navy ERP required? | No interfaces to ERP are required at this time. | Steve | ||
| 31 | How are the NMCS/PMCS metrics computed and do they represent only requisitions that are not available within the CLS provider's supply system? | They are computed with every requistion that is submitted and is NMCS/PMCS applicable. The Navy provides the data computation via a monthly 3M summary. All requisitions are provided through the CLS provider's system. | Steve | ||
| 32 | Per draft PWS 2.4, is the CLS provider responsible for operating all tool control at the MOB/FOBs or just for own tools for SE maintenance? | The contractor shall comply with the Government tool control program set forth in OPNAVINST 4790.2 (series), as well as applicable local instruction at all sites.in regards to S.E. See PWS para. 2.4. No on-aircraft maintenance is required for this contract. | Steve | ||
| 33 | The FFP CLIN for CLS/ILS appears to be for labor only. Is this correct? | The ILS portion of the contract provides for the manpower and management of the requirements in the PWS. | Steve | ||
| 34 | How does contractor procure/recover cost of consumables used to operate IMRL facility, paint room, welding room, SE repair facility, etc.? Are these materials GFE? | The costs are charged to the ROR account as end use support items ordered via PWS 4.4 | Steve | ||
| 35 | Does all equipment currently in the CLS facilities transfer as GFE to next CLS provider (lockers, tables/chairs, bar code readers, PHST materials, first-aid kits, bulletin boards, microwaves, etc.)? Is the CLS facility a “turn-key” operation where next provider could resume normal operations on Day One, or does incumbent “own” any of the furnishings and equipment that was visible in the SRC and warehouses? | All government property would transfer to the next provider. This GFE is called out in the attachments posted on FBO. There is a one month transition period, CLIN 0011. | Steve | ||
| 36 | The acquisition of data access license puts pass/fail risk in hands of large commercial vendor, who could actually bid this work. Would gov't consider providing or otherwise ensuring this license is available, and absorb this risk from bidders who have essentially no control over this aspect? | The Government requirement stands as is. | Steve | ||
| 37 | What vehicles and material handling equipment are available for use by CLS provider for movement of parts between two storage facilities (at Tinker or other SRCs) and to/from squadron spaces? Same question for each of the operating sites. Does CLS provider need to complete movement of large loads of CLS inventory, or bulky dynamic flight components within each operating site? If so, does it need to provide equipment necessary for this activity? | This GFE is called out in the attachments posted on FBO. See PWS 5.8.2 in regards to vehicles. | Steve | ||
| 38 | Does CLS provider need and use NMCI accounts? Will CLS team use Tinker’s Navy LAN and are CLS contractors in the “global address book” as are the Wing, NAVAIR, and squadron support contractors? | Yes, NMCI accounts are required and provided by the Government. CLS contractors are not in the global address book. | Steve | ||
| 39 | How will inventory turnover audit be completed if/ when CLS provider is changed? Does CLS provider assume responsibility for physical presence/security/indemnification of GFE at start of performance? What assurances does new award-winner have that assumption of responsibility for tens of thousands of parts and equipment at 5 sites, and valued at hundreds of millions of dollars can be successfully completed? | The contractor shall ensure a smooth transition prior to full-scale performance by accomplishing the tasking identified in the contractor provided Transition Plan. Within 30 days of contract award, the contractor, with an authorized Government representative and a CLS predecessor representative shall perform an Inventory of Government owned property provided under the contract. The contractor shall acknowledge receipt and custody of all Government-furnished property / quantities by signing the physical Inventory sheets used to perform the count, see PWS 1.5. | Steve | ||
| 40 | What are recurring req’ts for physical inventory audits of CLS materials at both Tinker warehouses and FOB warehouses? Who is responsible for performing these audits? Same question for War Reserve kits? | See PWS para 3.2.4 | Steve | ||
| 41 | 4-Sep | The 30% of FFP Labor constraint to qualify for Past Perf relevance arbitrarily eliminates using small companies with focused expertise. This can deprive the TACAMO community of world-class service. Would gov’t consider reducing this percentage or eliminating it altogether? | The 30% of the FFP Labor constraint to qualify for Past Performance relevancy does not limit offerors to propose or use subcontractors with less than 30%. The purpose of the 30% criteria is to help the evaluation focus on the major risk areas and is based on a review of past similar procurements. For example, a subcontractor with 1% of the effort who has exceptionally good or bad performance is not likely to impact the over all Past performance Confidence assessment. | Alan | |
| 42 | What is current Level of Effort (part-time and fulltime) at each location? | The contractor shall staff and operate Supply Response Centers (SRCs) at the MOB and each FOB. Through the SRCs, the contractor shall provide supply support to authorized customers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, everyday of the year (including holidays). See PWS para 3.1 | Steve | ||
| 43 | 4-Sep | The past performance relevance requirement for a contract to include supply chain management seems overly restrictive. It severely restricts establishment of a strong team of several key experts, and effectively acts as a barrier to full and open competition. Would gov’t consider eliminating this req’t? | Defining relevant contracts for the Past Performance and Corporate Experience factors as being related to supply chain management support is not considered overly restrictive based on the Government's market research and is not a requirement that would preclude award, although risk would be assessed. Also, it encompasess all the work to be performed under this solicitation as identified in the PWS. An offeror without corporate expereince related to any of the work required by the solicitation is considered very risky towards successful performance. An offeror with no relevant contracts would be assessed as neutral under the Past Performance factor, but would be assessed with significant risk under the Corporate Expereince factor. Additionally, Offerors can address their lack of relevant contracts by teaming with other subcontractors that have relevant contracts. Therefore the government does not plan on changing this criteria. | Alan | |
| 44 | In what form will the government provide mission surge requirements to the contractor? | The PWS does not require mission surge requirments, but a constant state of readiness. PWS para 1.0 and PWS para 1.2.1. | Steve | ||
| 45 | Does the government have a preferred "government approved sparing model" Or is this CLS provided for Consumables and Repairables? | The government has a sparing model, but any sparing model presented must be agreed upon between the COR and the contractor. See PWS para 3.2.5. | Steve | ||
| 46 | Are there defined parameters for the "government approved sparing model" For Repairables and Consumables? | Yes, there are parameters for the current sparing model approved by the Government. | Steve | ||
| 47 | Can the government provide a more detailed explaination of "Unique Repair Documents" as referenced in Draft PWS para 1.4 and 3.4? | A unique repair document lists unique repairs. They are determnined and published by Navy Engineering for the repair of specific parts in the inventory. | Steve | ||
| 48 | Please explain how the performance factors will be applied to kits of various types. How is the status of a kit determined where the kit has a mixture of various parts and each may have different item status' (NMCS, PMCS, RFI etc. ) | Mod Kits will be not be used in the measurment of performance factors. | Steve | ||
| 49 | Will demand/consumption history be provided in an electronic form for transition planning? Will this history include inventory, bills of materials and maintenance work order history electronically? | Yes, the inventory history and data will be provided in electronic form. | Steve | ||
| 50 | Will master data including urgent inventory information (e.g. master data, quantity on hand, condition code, Bills of Materials, kitting etc.) be provided electronically prior to the CLS taking inventory? | Yes, a master data list will be provided during the contract transition period. | Steve | ||
| 51 | As part of material receiving and shipping is the contractor simply responsible to QA count and condition based on information provided by various subcontractors and repair operations or expected to staff a full on-site QA inspeciton capability at each location? | Yes, QA count and condition is based on information provided by various subcontractors and repair operations. | Steve | ||
| 52 | Request a clearer definition of NMCI compliance as referenced in Draft PWS para 2.12. Does this simply refer to the ability to connect IT hardware to the NMCI network such as desktops and laptops or does this refer to interfaces between the contractor systems and government systems that may be running in the NMCI hosted environment or both? | The contractor shall provide and maintain an independent Automated Data Processing (ADP) system, which is open systems architecture compatible allowing government access via NMCI using compatible Microsoft WORD, Microsoft EXCEL, Microsoft PowerPoint and Microsoft Project programs. No data shall be input to the ADP system from NMCI interfaces, yet the ADP system must be accessible by NMCI. | Steve | ||
| 53 | Request a clearer definition of "Open systems architecture" and how that architecture is expected to be utilized. For example is the contractor system expected to be SOA compliant. If so this would imply that there are systems interfaces that would meet the same compliancy inside the governments systems enclave. What are these systems and what specific open components are there that the contractor systems should be "open to" or compliant with. | The requirement is not for SOA compliance. The Government must have access to the ADP system that a contractor would use and must have an open system achitecture that allows access from Government NMCI network. | Steve | ||
| 54 | In the list of additional support services UID tracking is mentioned. Is pRFID (Passive RFID) tagging a requirement as well? | Not at this time. | Steve | ||
| 55 | Is an automated interface to the Boeing Repair Database required? | No. An automated interface is not required. | Steve | ||
| 56 | Does the format for the database referenced in Annex 4 (e.g. "format to be agreed up between the COR and contractor") refer to the type of database to be employed (e.g. Oracle, MS-SQl etc.)? | Yes, it refers to the type of database. | Steve | ||
| 57 | Is contractor format acceptable for all reports in paragraphse 5-12 of Annex 4? | The format will be agreed upon by the Government and Contractor. | Steve | ||
| 58 | Would a current or past prime contractor supporting the PMA-271 E-6B Program Office be precluded from bidding on this effort due to any potential Organizational Conflict(s) of Interest (OCI)? | The Government will ensure compliance with FAR 9.5. | Steve | ||
| 59 | Per PWS para 1.3.3.6 and 1.3.3.7 Spares Analysis: Is a COR approved sparing model provided by the government? | The COR/Government has an approved sparing model that can be provded upon contract award. Sparing models that are proposed must be validated for use and approved by the COR/Government. | Steve | ||
| 60 | Per PWS para 4.6 NAS PAX River FOB SE: Should the references to “AIMD SE shop” and “FRC South East” be uniformly referred to as “FRC Mid-Atlantic Pax River”? | Correct, they should be uniformly referred to as FRC Mid-Atlantic Pax River. | Steve | ||
| 61 | Per PWS para 4.6 NAS PAX River FOB SE: It states that three (3) qualified SE mechanics shall be provided to work at the local Intermediate Level (FRC Mid-Atlantic PAX River, 900 Division), are these personnel embedded in the FRC and are they supervised by FRC government personnel? | See PWS paragraph 4.6 in regards to proivding 3 qualified mechanics for intermediate level service for S.E. | Steve |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .