Final_RFP_Questions_ _Answers.xlsx

Final Solicitation Questions

N00019-15-R-0011 C-40A Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Final RFP Questions and Answers

1. Should the USG’s answer to question 12 have been, “A MINIMUM of 10 pt font SHALL be used for “drawings,” figures, tables, charts, and graphs”?

A. There are no specific PWS sections enumerated in Section L other than in the L-3.0 sample CRM; however, there are referrals to “PWS” found six times in the Section L text.

B. The term “requirements” is found numerous times throughout the Section L and Questions:

1. Based on the USG’s answer to question 12 above, in order to be considered technically responsive to solicitation requirements, bidders only have to address specific PWS elements directly related to those Section L provisions shown above in paragraph (A)?

If our understanding is not correct, what form will be utilized by the Navy to formally transfer possession, control, or custody of the aircraft to the contractor? Contract Clause H-1, Risk of Loss, will be deleted from the RFP. In regards to liability, FAR Clause 52.245-1 Alt 1, Paragraph (h)(1), applies. The clause states, "The Contractor assumes the risk of, and shall be responsible for, any loss of Government property upon its delivery to the Contractor as Government-furnished property. However, the Contractor is not responsible for reasonable wear and tear to Government property or for Government property properly consumed in performing this contract."

Note: A form to signify aircraft custodial responsibility will be provided to the Contractor after contract award during the post award conference. Additionally, custodial responsibility will be added to the PWS definitions.

These changes will be reflected via an RFP amendment.

(i) 52.203-13, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct (Apr 2010),

(ii) 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (Oct 2014)

(iii) 52.222-17, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers (May 2014)

(iv) 52.222-26, Equal Opportunity (Mar 2007)

(v) 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (July 2014)

(vi) 52.222-36, Equal Opportunity for Workers with Disabilities (July 2014)(29 U.S.C. 793).

(vii) 52.222-37, Employment Reports on Veterans (July 2014)(38 U.S.C. 4212).

(viii) 52.222-40, Notification of Employee Rights Under the National Labor Relations Act (Dec 2010)

(ix) 52.222-41, Service Contract Labor Standards (May 2014).

(x) 52.222-50, Combating Trafficking in Persons (Feb 2009), Alternate I (Aug 2007) of 52.222-50 (22 U.S.C. 7104(g)).

(xi) 52.222-51, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain Equipment--Requirements (May 2014)

(xii) 52.222-53, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Certain Services-Requirements (May 2014)

(xiii) 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification (Aug 2013).

(xiv) 52.225-26, Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States (Jul 2013)

(xv) 52.226-6, Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations. (May 2014)

(xvi) 52.247-64, Preference for Privately-Owned U.S. Flag Commercial Vessels (Feb 2006) The following clauses are listed under FAR 52.212-5(e)(I) but have not been flowed to the Prime:

(iii) 52.222-17, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers (May 2014);

(v) 52.222-35, Equal Opportunity for Veterans (July 2014)(38 U.S.C. 4212);

(xi) 52.222-51, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Maintenance, Calibration, or Repair of Certain Equipment--Requirements (May 2014);

(xii) 52.222-53, Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Certain Services-Requirements (May 2014)

(xiii) 52.222-54, Employment Eligibility Verification (Aug 2013).

(xiv) 52.225-26, Contractors Performing Private Security Functions Outside the United States (Jul 2013)

(xv) 52.226-6, Promoting Excess Food Donation to Nonprofit Organizations. (May 2014)

(xvi) 52.247-64, Preference for Privately-Owned U.S. Flag Commercial Vessels (Feb 2006)

These changes will be provided to Industry via an RFP amendment

Please note that Appendix B will be updated and provided via an RFP amendment.

DFARS Clause 252.245-7000 Government-Furnished Mapping, Charting, and Geodesy Property; DFARS Clause 252.245-7001 Tagging, Labeling, and Marking of Government-Furnished Property; DFARS Clause 252.245-7002 Reporting Loss of Government Property; DFARS Clause 252.245-7003 Contractor Property Management System Administration; and DFARS Clause 252.245-7004 Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal will all be included via an RFP Amendment.

PWS Appendix F, Performance Metrics, and QASP Enclosure 2 state: “When MO notifies Contractor with schedule changes, the Contractor shall provide a new schedule within 2 hours”.

The Technical Volume ITO requires “copies of the final or most recent SF 294s/Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) for the most current three relevant contracts,that best demonstrate the Offeror's ability to achieve the proposed subcontracting goals”.

Is it the Governments intent to evaluate the same Past Performance information in the Past Performance and Technical evaluation factors? Please clarify how Past Performance information contained in SF 294s will be evaluated in the Technical Factor. Will this information recieve a relevancy rating in Technical Subfactor 3.5 “Small Business Utilization”? No, the Government will not be evaluating the same Past Performance information in the Past Performance and Technical volumes. RFP Section L 2.0 Vol 2 Para 2.1(e) states the Contractor shall note whether it met or exceeded its small business sub-contracting goals for the contract(s) submitted. In contrast, RFP Section L 3.0 Vol 3 Para 3.5 states the Contractor will demonstrate its ability to achieve the proposed sub-contracting goals.

No, there will not be a separate relevancy rating in Technical Subfactor 3.5 for "Small Business Utilization."

Please see Section M for details regarding how the Government will evaluate this information in both volumes.

The quantities provided for CLIN 0X22-0X29 do not reflect the most current C-40A Maintenance Plan Calendar release as of 03/15/2015. Outdated quantities are highlighted in yellow and current quantities are in red. We provided the corresponding c-check for each quantity.

It also appears there are some Government Owned repairables not included in Tables for appendix B or E. The items omitted from the Appendix E table are the LMLG or RMLG.

Other items not included are the #3 Slat Assembly, #6 Slat Assembly and the R/H inboard Aft Flap Assembly.

45 Appendix F Performance Metric Refer to previous industry question 21: Why did the Government reduce the CONUS and OCONUS PMCS spares delivery times by 24 hours from the delivery times required on the existing CLS contract?

In the previous response to industry questions (question 21) Navy indicated that Appendix F would “be revised to reflect current delivery time requirements”. It appears Appendix F has not been updated to match the Navy's response above.

47 Section H H-1 Risk of Loss Provision The current language seems to be inconsistent with our understanding of what the U.S. Government has historically stated they want Contractors to be responsible for.

Our understanding is that the U.S. Government wants Contractors to be liable for negligence and willful misconduct. With the current language, the Government does not insure assets against things such as Acts of God, but is expecting the Contractor to do so. This adds cost to the proposal which the Government does not wish to pay for.

Additionally, the RFP is silent on post-delivery responsibility which leaves it ‘gray’. All commercial MRO contracts contain commercial disclaimers in order to share the risk of loss and alleviate the need to purchase expensive hull loss insurance. This would leave the Prime Contractors exposed with no protection from the Navy but an industry standard that would prevent us from executing the contract.

Stating the contractor shall bear the entire risk of loss for an aircraft when in possession, control or custody is excessive and costly. By utilizing the language the Government sought feedback on in December 2014 + utilization of FAR 52.246-23, 24 and 25 OR accepting Commercial Disclaimers, this would allow Contractors to submit the best price proposal possibly while distributing risk to each party consistent with historical U.S. Government contracting. Does the Government want Contractors to be responsible for risk beyond negligence and willful misconduct even though these risks are un-insured when in Government possession? Is the Government aware that by being silent on Post Delivery responsibility, it could dramatically increase the price of CLS as the Prime Contractor would need to accept a Commercial Disclaimer from FAR Part 12 providers but not be granted the same protection from the Government? This would lead industry to purchase expensive hull loss insurance policies and pass along the cost. If this is not the intent, recommend utilizing the draft language the Government presented to industry in December 2014 and allow the use of FAR 52.246-23, 24 and 25 or the use of Commercial Disclaimers. Contract Clause H-1, Risk of Loss, will be deleted from the RFP. In regards to liability, FAR Clause 52.245-1 Alt 1, Paragraph (h)(1), applies. The clause states, "The Contractor assumes the risk of, and shall be responsible for, any loss of Government property upon its delivery to the Contractor as Government-furnished property. However, the Contractor is not responsible for reasonable wear and tear to Government property or for Government property properly consumed in performing this contract."

Note: A form to signify aircraft custodial responsibility will be provided to the Contractor after contract award during the post award conference. Additionally, custodial responsibility will be added to the PWS definitions.

These changes will be reflected via an RFP amendment.

FAR Clauses 52.246-23, 24, and 25 will not be included. In accordance with FAR Subpart 46.8 -- Contractor Liability for Loss of or Damage to Property of the Government, this subpart does not apply to commercial items. Additionally, the Government does not intend to allow the use of Commercial Disclaimers.

Does the clause “those entities of the offeror” mean inter-organizational or interdivisional entities that may be transferring materials, supplies or services between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the [Offeror} under a common control as defined in FAR 31.205-26 (e) ["Allowance for all materials, supplies, and services that are sold or transferred between any divisions, subdivisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of the contractor under a common control shall be on the basis of cost incurred in accordance with this subpart. However, allowance may be price when--"]? Restated: If Company X and Y are under common control of Company Z and Company X is bidding as a prime contractor and Company Y is providing products and services to Company X in support of Solicitation ABC, is Company Y defined as a "Critical Team Member"? See Figure 1 below.

**Please note that the APU Fuel Control is not a subassembly of the APU and would not be considered an HVA.

(1) In order for an Offeror’s response to be considered compliant, does the Government require an Offeror to respond to each PWS 20.0 paragraph?

(2) Will the Government clarify where a Offerors can discuss and present how it will meet the requirements of performing depot maintenance? (1) No, the Government does not require the Offeror to respond to each Paragraph within PWS Section 20.0.

(2) The Offeror shall only propose and provide discussion to those elements listed within Section L. The Offeror shall not describe things beyond the elements listed within Section L. In accordance with the PWS requirements, the Contractor shall perform scheduled and unscheduled maintenance for the C-40A aircraft in accordance with its 14 CFR Part 121 and 145 processes. Therefore, a discussion of how the offeror will meet the depot maintenance requirements is not included in Section L.

20.2, 21.2, 22.2, 23.1, 26.4

57 PWS

3.17 Project Management; PWS 4.0 Transition Phase-In; Exhibits (A)(B)(C) –CDRLs Attachment 1, Appendix (F) Performance Metrics 15 April 2015 Attachment 1 Appendix F, Page 1, Performance Metric " Project Management", PWS Para. 3.17

Attachment 1, Appendix (F) Performance Metrics 15 April 2015 Attachment 1 Appendix F, Page 1, Performance Metric " Project Management", PWS Para. 3.17 Satisfactory Performance: "Contractor is in compliance with their approved Project Management Plan 90% of the Time. This includes submission and accuracy of Integrated Management Schedule (IMS), Cost, Schedule and Performance status and information. Marginal Performance: "Contractor is in compliance with their PM Plan 85% to 80.9% of the time. This includes submissions and accuracy, COST, Schedule and Performance status and information."

Those initial DSK items currently owned by the incumbent Contractor will be required to be supplied by the awardee. Repair or replacement costs of those items that have Parts Ownership marked as "Contractor" in Appendix C, will be handled under CLIN 0X09, "Supply Support".