Questions_and_Answers.docx

Questions and Answers:

1. The RFP states that mission avionics is not included. Will the contractor perform any type of mission avionics repairs?

a. The P-8A program does not currently have a requirement for repair of mission avionics line replaceable units. However, there are requirements to install mission avionics system modifications IAW approved Technical Directives.

2. The RFP states the contractor will be responsible for engineering all required repairs and that NAVAIR will need to approve all engineering. Does NAVAIR require an 8110-3 to be attached to all engineering prior to NAVAIR submittal?

a. Form 8110-3 or an equivalent is not currently a requirement.

3. In regards to sending an AOG team to OCONUS locations, does the 145 repair station have to obtain 145 Authority from those countries in order to buy off repairs?

a. No, the 145 repair station does not have to obtain 145 authority.

4. Will documents be completed and tracked on NALCOMIS? If so will the contractor be given NALCOMIS access?

a. No, the documents will not be completed and tracked on NALCOMIS.

5. The RFP states to issue FAA 337 for repairs. The 337 is used for major repairs and alterations. Would a 337 be required for the Depot maintenance without any major repairs required?

a. No, an FAA 337 would not be required for depot maintenance that does not include major repairs.

6. The RFP states the Contractor must have the capability of fabricating kits for technical directives. What type of documentation is acceptable to NAVAIR for the parts fabricated?

a. Kit fabrication for technical directive was removed from the draft RFP SOW. This requirement no longer exists.

7. The RFP states that the contractor obtain an OEM proprietary data license agreement for use of 737 unique proprietary data in support of the P-8A aircraft. Will the Government inform Boeing to give permission to the contractor to access such data and obtain the license?

a. This requirement was updated and is currently reflected in the draft RFP.

8. How many unscheduled events have you had or do you anticipate? What were the findings?

a. Over the past three years: Airframe = 9/Engines = 1. The causes for Airframe were mostly bird/lightning strikes with the engine being a performance issue. The Government cannot determine future unscheduled events.

9. Can you provide a list of component failures due to corrosion?

a. There has been accelerated corrosion build-up throughout, concentrated in cold section as well as aggressive booster abradable delamination and corrosion buildup in high pressure compressor stator case.

10. How many spare engines does the P-8A program have?

a. We currently have four (4) spare engines and will continue to add engines in future years.

11. Will the contractor supply all components for engine events or go through TYCOM?

a. The contractor shall provide all major “core” engine parts and components for depot repairs. Any item that is not part of the core engine, such as Engine Build-up Quick Engine Change Assembly, “Q gear”, will be provided by the TYCOM.

12. Per the SOW the Government intends to deliver the aircraft in an unclassified condition; however, there may be instances in which the contractor performs work on an aircraft in a classified condition. Is the Government referring to when we support a field team effort, or are there times the Government intends to deliver the aircraft to the contractors facility in a classified condition (such as for an AOG activity)? Will this be required for just an emergent/AOG basis (i.e. 24-48 hours) or will this be required for the entire facility anytime an aircraft is in for maintenance/modification?

a. An aircrew will deliver the aircraft and remove any classified equipment for the AEPD event. The contractor is required to have classified storage. For AOG events in the field, the squadron will be responsible for the security requirements of that station.

13. Per the Depot Spec, Disturbed Systems checks are required on any system where LRU’s have been removed as part of the depot effort. In addition, operational testing of the mission systems is required. While limited disturbed system checks can be performed without the classified equipment, how is the contractor to perform operational testing with classified material dekeyed/removed? Who is going to provide procedures, or is it the Government’s intent to perform the operational testing after the aircraft has been returned to the fleet and the equipment installed?

a. The contractor will not be required to perform disturbed system check out. The Government intends to perform pre and post operational checks.

14. What is NAVAIRs perception as to why a MAC is the best method to award? How are MACs going to incentivize contractors to compete or provide long term value?

a. Per FAR 16.504, no IDIQ contract in an amount estimated to exceed $112 million (including all options) may be awarded to a single source unless the requirement is waived by the head of the agency.

15. What level of return to service check will be required for components (including mission systems components) removed during scheduled DEPOT and emergent/AOG visits? Will the check list found in the applicable AMM procedures be adequate?

a. Yes. However, the Government intends to perform pre and post operational checks.

16. Per SOW, the Government’s intent is to deliver the aircraft in an unclassified condition. However, per the Depot Spec, Disturbed Systems checks are required on any system where LRU’s have been removed as part of the depot effort. In addition Operational testing of the mission systems are required. While limited Disturbed system checks can be performed without the classified equipment, how is the contractor to perform operational testing with classified material dekeyed/removed? Who is going to provide procedures? Or is it the Government’s intent to perform the operational testing after the aircraft has been returned to the fleet and the equipment installed

a. The contractor will be required to assemble the aircraft to pre-induction configuration. Gov’t aircrew will perform operation checks of missions systems prior to FCF and inform the contractor of any discrepancies.

17. "Reference: Airframe SOW 8.18, Disturbed Mission Systems: Government will work with Contractor to install and test the systems IAW the AMM or Government provided Ground Test Procedures.

Question(s):

A. What is meant by the phrase ""Government will work with Contractors to install and test systems...""?

B. Is the Government going to provide mechanics and/or operators to help install and/or Test the equipment?"

A) The paragraph will be revised in the final RFP.

B) The contractor will be required to assemble the aircraft to pre-induction configuration. Gov’t aircrew will perform operation checks of missions systems prior to FCF and inform the contractor of any discrepancies.

18. Is “At Cost Pricing” representing the OEM Catalog List Price or the official Acquisition Price?

a. This language has been removed from the RFP.

19. Has all of the Intellectual Property required for depot maintenance been identified?

a. Yes, the Gov’t believes that it has the data to perform Depot requirements under OMIT.

20. Will work performed on commercial aircraft that demonstrates capabilities applicable to this Statement of Work be considered as highly relevant Past Performance?

a. Section L of the solicitation will provide the definitions of relevancy

21. As the Government is the primary source of all parts – for discrepancies found that will require parts, how will the Government ensure parts are provided to the MRO without delaying aircraft delivery? Will a separate contractual authorization to purchase parts or repair components be required if the Government is not able to provide parts in time? How will these separate contracts/funding be coordinated to ensure no delays in aircraft delivery?

a. Aviation Depot repairable item will be ordered via Navy Supply System. For Items that are not available in the Navy Supply system the Government may authorize the repair facility to repair the component if capabilities exist within the MRO. The Government may authorize the MRO to Cannibalize from an Aircraft in flow. The contract provides a process to document and determine responsibility for any incurred delays.

22. Since the Government is running a competition to award this effort and most of the scheduled/ known work CLIN items are either Firm Fixed Price or Fixed Price Incentive. Why are the contractors (and their sub-contractors) required to report actual maintenance and labor costs on a monthly basis (see Attachment 1, para 14.14.1 and Attachment 14). The competition should be sufficient to determine if the prices are fair and reasonable. How is a commercial entity, either as a prime or a subcontractor, who is not CAS compliant expected to fill out this form?

a. The updated RFP eliminates the CAS concern.

23. What is the paint inspection criteria for acceptance? Standard Commercial practice is typically inspected from 25 feet away?

a. Restoration of exterior paint system shall be IAW P-8A AMM, Chapter 51, and Task Card 51-ZVD-01-01 for painting. The final painted aircraft shall meet the requirements of Task Card 51-ZVD-01-01 , MIL-STD-7179 and LPS/JX 650B, paragraph 10.14.

24. It appears that AGE Exploration tasks will not be performed on all depot aircraft, instead they will be accomplished on a “Sample” basis. Is the Government going to identify which aircraft they want the AGE Exploration tasks to be accomplished? If not, has the Government considered a separate FFP CLIN for AGE exploration?

a. This will be addressed in the final RFP.

25. Per draft RFP, all fuel tanks are to be fueled to capacity to check for leaks. How long is the Government expecting the aircraft to remain at max capacity to validate/identify any fuel leaks (i.e. 6 hrs., 8 hrs., et.)?

a. No requirement to fuel to max capacity. Procedures for fuel tank leak inspection / detection are found in AMM Part II, Section 28-11-00. If the procedures are followed for the various tanks the aircraft should be leak free.

26. Per the draft RFP, the Government will only pay for one de-fueling and one refueling of the aircraft, unless a discrepancy not related to the Depot event is discovered or otherwise exists. If the Fuel System Test is performed more than one de-fueling and refueling will be required every time this test is performed. How will the Government approve/reimburse the second defueling/refueling effort to perform this test?

a. Procedures for fuel tank leak inspection / detection are found in AMM Part II, Section 28-11-00.

27. How does the Government intend to handle additions/deletions/revisions to the basic task cards listed in appendix 5 that will likely change over the course of the contract. Will the contractor be expected to develop a credit/debit proposal for each aircraft visit? Will the effort be covered under the Over and above CLINS (CLIN X003) or an adjustment to the basic CLIN (CLIN X001, X002)

a. During the annual or quarterly competitions the contractor will be expected to develop delta pricing to existing CLINs if there are any scope changes in accordance with Section H.

28. How will the Government mitigate the risk of contractors not meeting the proposed Turn Around Times? What will incentivize contractors to deliver Airframes and Engines as soon as possible after they have not delivered as proposed?

a. There are no incentives for early completion. TAT will be established on each delivery order for each induction. Poor performance will be reflected in the evaluation of the subsequent option periods’ competitions.

29. Will the Government release draft versions of specific “Instructions to Offerors” in Section L and specific “Evaluation Criteria” in Section M?

a. Yes, draft versions of specific “Instructions to Offerors” in Section L and specific “Evaluation Criteria” in Section M have been posted on FBO.

30. How do you envision accepting an “Integrated Airframe Engine Depot” proposal and evaluating it?

a. This has been addressed in section M of the Draft RFP which has been posted to fedbizopps.

31. Regarding the over and above – after the completion of engines, you indicate you will negotiate the final invoice. If this was an agreed to Firm Fixed Price, why would there be a need for further negotiation at the completion?

a. O&A is now T&M. All O&A work shall be processed in accordance with the O&A work procedures outlined in the RFP.

32. What data/IP did the Navy receive that would help Contractors develop non-standard repairs?

a. Contactor shall coordinate all non-standard repairs with the FST.

33. Has the Navy thought of setting up a library of what they currently have available and will that be flowed into the data library?

a. The FST has an established Data library and will flow data into the library based on local policies and procedures.

34. If drawings are not available for aircraft parts, we assume we will be able to reverse engineer the parts based on SRM and aircraft data?

a. Reverse engineering will only be allowed after the FST has authorized it.

35. What do we need to obtain under license from Boeing, if anything?

a. This requirement has been removed in the Draft RFP.

36. The Draft RFP states an Integrated Baseline Review will be conducted 30 days after contract award. Since no significant actuals will have been incurred in the first 30 days and the post award conference is scheduled at the same time, would NAVAIR consider moving the IBR to 90 days following CA?

a. This has been updated in the Draft RFP.

37. Due to significant counterfeit parts concerns with components procured using E-Mall, will NAVAIR issue a waiver to the winning contractor waiving counterfeit parts liability for parts procured via E-Mall?"

a. When a contractor purchases parts from DLA through EMALL under FAR Part 51, title to the parts remains with the Government. DLA is responsible when any part purchased from DLA by a contractor through EMALL is subsequently found to be counterfeit. DLA shall take all steps necessary to eliminate those parts from the supply chain, including requiring the contractor to return the parts to DLA for disposal. The contractor that purchased the counterfeit parts from DLA is not responsible for the counterfeit nature of the parts. Where a contractor suspects parts purchased from DLA are counterfeit, the Contractor shall immediately notify DLA. DLA and the contractor shall mutually agree on the manner and means to dispose of and replace the counterfeit parts. When available all parts used for the repair shall be new with part number(s) assigned to each part.

38. The draft RFP states FST engineering requires a minimum of 30 days to approve a package prior to using on an aircraft; however, 30 days is a significant impact to the aircraft schedule. Will NAVAIR provide relief for this delay using the DN process, or can FST review and approve the package in a shorter time frame?

a. Yes. The schedule will be adjusted as necessary. The FST will provide feedback as quickly as possible in an effort to approve the package in the shortest time possible.

39. Each exhibit (each year CLIN) requires a Quality Assurance Plan, Configuration Management Plan, and an Operational Security Plan. Normally the Government only requires these plans in the first year of execution, not each year of execution. Question: Would the Government consider reducing the number of CDRL submission for these three plans to only once during the initial year of the contract?

a. The plan will be required the first year with updates as required in subsequent years.

40. Is it the intention of the Government to issue a contract modification as the inspection requirements change on the FFP inspection CLINs to cover additional required inspection task and schedule? What contractual vehicle would be used to award an increase of scope?

a. Yes, see section H. Gov’t will issue an RFP to reflect any changes in scope prior to the annual/quarterly competitions.

41. To support rapid response times by the contractor and improve aircraft availability vise waiting on international shipment of tooling, does the Government intend to allow use of tooling and equipment at the MOBs and FOBs to support engine and flight control replacements by the contractor?

a. The contractor will be able to use organizational level tools that are at the site, if the AOG is at the squadron’s home base. No depot level tooling will be available.

42. Since the IMC/P Site coordinator position is to be staffed by up to three people, is it the intent by the Government to support multiple shifts with these coordinators that would also be a part of the Over and Above approval process?

a. The IMC/P Site Coordinators will work a normal shift, and will work along with the contractor to ensure coverage.

43. Would the Government be open to other methods than the ones established in the Draft RFP to establish the contracted delivery date as result of the additional O&A?

a. No, Government procedures are established in the RFP.

44. Can clarification be provided on the CDRL (A008) references in Attachment 9, should the reference be CDRL (A00Q)?

a. Attachment 9 ‘O&A procedures’ was removed in its entirety.

45. Will the Government provide the delivery order prior to the 90 day IRR to allow for proper planning and preparation for the IRR meeting?

a. No. The IRR is considered basic to the AEPD event.

46. Does the Government plan to modify the preservation requirements of the NA 15-01-500 manual based on any limitations of the aircraft configuration undergoing an AEPD inspection?

a. The Government does not intend to update the preservation requirements.

47. Could one CLIN be used for all TDs such as AFCs, AFBs and ADs?

a. Two CLINs will be used for Airframe TDs, one FFP CLIN and one T&M CLIN. See updated draft RFP and SOW.

48. The list of tooling listed doesn't have quantities listed. This would be needed in review of the tooling requirements needed to support the number of aircraft listed in the aircraft induction schedule. Will the Government provide specific quantities for each item listed? Is it the Government's intent to provide platform specific tooling?"

a. The Government provided specific quantities of required tooling in the draft RFP.

49. The RFP states the aircraft will be protected by a staffed secure perimeter. Is the intent to enclose the aircraft within a secure perimeter separate from the currently existing fenced perimeter? Also, is the intent to have a 24/7 guard for the aircraft.

a. The aircraft must be protected by a secure perimeter to ensure that there is one control point for all entry and exit around the aircraft.

50. Are both the Daily and Turnaround Inspections required prior to first flight of the day?

a. Yes. A Daily and Turnaround Inspection is required prior to first flight of the day.

51. Earned Value is mentioned in the Draft RFP, but the CDRLs are not clear. What formats are expected, and is an IMS required?"

a. There is no EV requirement.

52. CDRLs C003, J003, M003, and J00V are missing. Will the Government provide?

a. This has been corrected in the revised Draft RFP posted on FBO.

53. Many references in RFP of deliverables from Contractor to the Government are to be in Microsoft format. Would it be acceptable to add Adobe pdf format as an acceptable format if no changes by the Government are needed?"

a. Delivery will be as called out in the CDRL.

54. Per RFP, Data is to be delivered to the Government's AMRDEC website along with a CD ROM to the MPRA Library. If AMRDEC is not available, the CD shall be sent via overnight mail. If a file is small enough to e-mail, could an e-mail be an acceptable delivery format in lieu of a CD?

a. No, a CD is required.

55. Per the RFP, after completion of all aircraft repairs the Contractor shall provide appropriate documentation entries into the aircraft/engine logs, as required. The contractor shall provide the ferry crew a completed FAA Form 337 (or succeeding FAA Form), NBNC List, Weight and Balance Chart A (DD Form 365-1) if applicable, at completion of each Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) visit. One copy of each will be retained in the aircraft or engine logs and one copy will be retained by the Contractor. A final Repair Report shall be provided per (CDRL A009/C009/F009/J009/M009/Q009/R009/S009/T009/U009).

Upon completion of the Depot visit, a FAA A&P or Avionics Mechanic with Inspector Authorization (Part 145 Certified) shall sign an entry for the USN aircraft logbook documentation, certifying inspection completion and configuration status of the aircraft. Would the Government clarify if the contractor is required to comply with Return to Service requirements for both Military and FAA (337)?

a. Yes.

56. Will the Government provide a safety of flight inspection list for the P-8?

a. Yes.

57. The Government’s list of Critical Safety Items (CSIs) for repairs/replacements is listed in Attachment 6. It states the Contractor shall establish, execute and maintain for the life of the contract, a CSI Management Plan that is in compliance with NAVAIRINST 4200.56 and in accordance with CDRL A00K/C00K/F00K/J00K/M00K. How will changes to this list be implemented throughout the course of this program?

a. NAVAIR will update the CSI list as required through a contract action.

58. Per the RFP, the Contractor shall provide a complete breakdown of the defects discovered during the investigations for the above reports via CDRL A00H/C00H/F00H/J00H/M00H/Q00H/R00H/S00H/T00H/U00H and post to the Joint Deficiency Reporting System website (http://www.jdrs.mil.) Will the Government provide licenses or will the contractor have to purchase?

a. This system requires a CAC for the contractor to access – The COR will establish the process for accessing JDRS.

59. Making the proposal 100% FAR Part 15 does not align with commercial type contracting nor does it allow for utilization of commercial best practices in cost control, reliability, and operational readiness. Has NAVAIR considered other contracting types to account for this?

a. Yes, NAVAIR considered all applicable contracting strategies for the subject effort. NAVAIR is utilizing FAR Part 15.

60. (1)NMCARS 5252.217-9509—This clause should be removed from the draft terms and conditions as well. As above, this clause also directly conflicts with DFARS 252.228-7001 and FAR 52.245-1, both of which are properly included in the draft terms and conditions. Pursuant to DFARS 252.228-7001, the Government self-insures for the risk of loss or destruction of aircraft provided the contractor is in compliance with NAVAIR Instruction 3710.1 (Series). Under 52.245-1 contractor liability for Government Property is capped, provided adequate systems and procedures are in place to protect such property. To compound the problem, NMCARS 5252.217-9509 appears to require contractors to acquire insurance that simply is not available on the open market. Indeed, that fact underpins the Government’s decision to apply both DFARS 252.228-7001 and FAR 52.245- 1 in these circumstances. Additionally, and as above, NMCARS 5252.217-9509, is not publicly available, does not have a published prescription clause, and has never been subject to public comment. Thus, it should be deleted based on the applicable DFARS and FAR.

(2)NAVAIR Special Provision 5252.217-9509 places liability on the Contractor, as an insurer, for loss or damage to Government Property. FAR part 45.104 would normally waive liability of the Contractor for Cost Reimbursement, Time and Material and Labor-Hour scopes of work. We take the NAVAIR clause to mean that the normal risk of loss now goes to the Contractor regardless of effort type and DFARS 252.228-7001 would still limit Contractor liability to $100k under the current regulations. Further, we interpret the conflicts within these clauses to mean under the NAVAIR special provision the Contractor will now be liable for all damage up to the Ground and Flight risk limits, unless G & FR would not apply. For Contractors to bid accordingly, would the Government please confirm or clarify?

a. NAVAIR Clause 5252.217-9509 has been removed from Draft RFP.

61. (1) Recommend NAVAIR Clause 5252.215-9512, Savings Clause is removed from this solicitation. The competition itself provides the proper mechanism for the Government to obtain and establish a fair and reasonable price. This clause will limit the flexibility industry needs to offer a balanced price across the entire work package. Including non-market based controls will distort the benefits of the competition.

(2)The NAVAIR savings clause is intended for use in "competitive solicitations and competitive contracts above the Simplified Acquisition Purchase (SAP) threshold for services where a Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), or Cost Plus Award Fee type contract is contemplated. “The most recent RFP removed all CPFF CLINs. Should Contractors assume this clause is no longer applicable, due to the new CLIN structure?

a. NAVAIR Clause 5252.215-9512 will be removed in RFP.

62. (1)The Contract includes FAR 52.211-11 Liquidated Damages - Supplies, Services, or Research and Development, but does not identify the daily penalty associated with this clause. For Contractors to bid accordingly, would the Government please identify the value of this risk?

(2)The Contract includes FAR 52.216-16 Incentive Price Revision - Firm Target, however, there currently is no definition in full text of the associated over/under-run share percentages or the ceiling. Additionally, the contract includes clause 52.211-11 Liquidated damages. Would the Government please clarify the cost incentives and would you also consider including a delivery incentive provision for Contractor early delivery incentive, as well.

a. FAR 52.211-11 and 52.216-16 have been deleted from Draft RFP.

b. PMA – Are you considering early delivery incentive? NO

63. NMCARS 5252.204-9504—This clause should also be removed from the draft terms and conditions and substituted with the relevant DFARS clause. NMCARS 5252.204-9504 could be interpreted to preclude release of any unclassified information within the Government itself absent written approval, which creates an administrative burden for both the contractor and the Government that is unnecessary. In addition, this clause is not publicly available, does not have a published prescription clause, and has never been subject to public comment. Indeed, the draft terms and conditions already includes the vetted provisions of DFARS 252.204-7000. For the reasons stated herein, the Government should rely upon the requirements of the DFARS and restrict the preclusion to a defined universe of “sensitive and inappropriate information,” as prescribed by the relevant implementation instruction found at DFARS 204.404-70(a).

a. NAVAIR Clause 5252.204-9504 will be removed from RFP.

b. DFAR Clause 252.204-7000 will be added to RFP.

64. Recommend NAVAIR Clause 5252.232-9509, Travel Approval and Reimbursement Procedures be removed from the solicitation. Requiring contractors to obtain pre-approval for any travel under this contract impairs the ability of the contractor to perform the required statement of work in a responsive manner. Requiring pre-approval of all travel is administratively burdensome for both the Government and the contractor. Prior experience has shown that it is challenging to meet the 30 day advance notice requirement as travel frequently is not planned that far in advance and that the Government has struggled to approve requests in the enough time to allow the contractor to book travel at the advance rates forcing contractors to purchase last minute travel at higher costs. Can a pre-determined number of trips be pre-authorized to allow for needed flexibility in execution of the work statement? Additionally, in this clause under Subparagraph (c)(4), (where the clause requires the contractor to submit receipts for actual costs), will the Government modify the language to add, “the contractor needs only to comply with its standard disclosed accounting practice.

a. NAVAIR Clause 5252.232-9509 will be removed from RFP.

65. NMCARS 5252.232-9529 – To the extent this clause is intended to require the winning bidder to flow its requirements down to subcontractors supplying commercial items or services, it should be removed from the draft terms and conditions. The draft terms and conditions appropriately include both FAR 52.244-6 Subcontracts for Commercial Items, and DFARS 252.244-7000 Subcontracts for Commercial items, which together guide the winning bidder’s acquisition of commercial items at any tier. NMCARS 5252.232-9529 conflicts with these provisions, as it purports to require potential subcontractors to track costs and to make disclosures in ways not permitted for commercial item subcontracts. Presumably, commercial contractors do not even possess an approved accounting system, much less track costs at the level of detail required by NCMARS 525.232-9529. Insistence on application of this clause to commercial item subcontractors will likely narrow the universe of available subcontractors inappropriately, which in turn will likely limit the pool of bidders for this Solicitation in an inappropriate manner. In this circumstance, NMCARS 5252.232-9529 must give way to FAR 52.244-6 and DFARS 252.244-7000. Unlike the FAR and DFARS clauses referenced above, NMCARS 5252.232-9529 is not publicly available, does not have a published prescription clause, and has never been subject to public comment. See Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, Pub. L. No. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237, Chapter 324, Sec. 4. Moreover, Boeing could find no published evidence that this clause was processed in accordance with FAR 1.4 or DFARS 201.4, or even DFARS 201.304 and NMCARS 5201.304(4)(B)(b), as would appear to be required by NAVAIR CCI 4275.1C.7(d).1 Thus, NMCARS 5252.232-9529 does not have the full force of law and is therefore not appropriate for inclusion in this solicitation.

a. NAVAIR Clause 5252.232-9529 has been removed from Draft RFP.

66. DFARS 252.225-7006 Acquisition of the American Flag This solicitation is not for the procurement of the American Flag. Request that this clause be removed.

a. NAVAIR Clause 252.225-7006 will be removed from RFP.

67. DFARS 252.225-7008 Restriction on Acquisition of Specialty Metals Due to the nature of the work to be performed under this Solicitation, this clause should not apply. Request that this clause be removed.

a. DFARS Clause 252.225-7008 will be removed from RFP.

68. NMCARS 5252.227-9507—Paragraph (c) of this clause inappropriately shifts liability to the contractor for any unauthorized use or release of export-controlled information, technical data, or specifications contained in the contract where such unauthorized use or release is made by the Government. A contractor should not be made to bear such liability for Government action. We recommend that the Government alter paragraph (c) to clarify, instead, that the Government does not accept liability for the contractor’s unauthorized use or release of export-controlled information, technical data or specifications contained in the contract which is appropriately marked with restrictions in accordance with DFARS 252.227-2052. Because this clause is not publicly available, does not have a published prescription clause, and has never been subject to public comment, the Government should not hesitate to alter the content to better reflect an appropriate distribution of risk.

a. NAVAIR Clause 5252.227-9507 will be removed from RFP.

b. DFARS Clause 252.225-7048 will be added to RFP.

69. FAR 52.215-21 Requirements for Certified Cost or Pricing Data and Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data – Modifications. The services to be procured under this Solicitation are commercial in nature and the competition being run by the Government will determine the market price for such work. Request that this clause be amended to Alternate IV to support the evaluation. If this is not amenable, request that Alternate I be used as the format requirements of this clause are very specific and provide very little latitude to accommodate either the requirements or limitations of contractor estimating systems, or even the Government preferences with respect to proposal format.

a. FAR 52.215-21 will remain in RFP without Alternate.

70. Will this contract require a DD254?

a. Yes.

71. Can the engines contract be placed under FAR Part 12 (Commercial Items)

a. Both the Airframe and Engine will be procured using FAR Part 15.

72. Can our Singapore facility bid directly for just the engine part as a foreign company?

a. Yes. There is nothing prohibiting a foreign company to bid on the engine contract.

73. If Singapore cannot bid directly can our US company bid and subcontract the engine work to Singapore a) if we are only awarded the engine work or b) if we are awarded both engine and airframe work?

a. There is nothing prohibiting a US company from subcontracting to a foreign subsidiary as long as the subsidiary is within FAR requirements.

74. Is a permanent security barrier required between commercial areas and the area where this work is performed? Or can temporary security measures be put in place for a part of the facility during the time that these aircraft are in the facility?

a. The aircraft must be protected by a secure perimeter to ensure that there is one control point for all entry and exit around the aircraft. The secure perimeter can be temporary.

75. For instances where cleared employees are required can the clearances be provided by a sister company that already issues security clearances, or must the bidding company hold the facility clearance.

a. NISPOM Paragraphs state: 2-108. Multiple Facility Organizations (MFOs). The home office facility must have an FCL at the same, or higher, level of any cleared facility within the MFO. The CSA shall determine the necessity for branch offices to be cleared.

2-109. Parent-Subsidiary Relationships. When a parent-subsidiary relationship exists, the parent and the subsidiary will be processed separately for an FCL. As a general rule, the parent must have an FCL at the same, or higher, level as the subsidiary. However, the CSA will determine the necessity for the parent to be cleared or excluded from access to classified information. The CSA will advise the companies as to what action is necessary for processing the FCL. When a parent or its cleared subsidiaries are collocated, a formal written agreement to use common security services may be executed by the two firms, subject to the approval of the CSA.

76. Can this contract be performed without use of CAS Accounting Standards or under modified CAS standards (i.e. only 401, 402, 405 and 406).

a. CAS is not required for T&M contract type. Updated RFP no longer contains COST-type CLINs.

77. Please clarify whether US-persons can be involved in this contract or is it restricted to US Citizens only. Can foreign nationals be involved in the management of the company provided they do not have access to the aircraft or sensitive/classified information related to this contract? What are the required internal administrative controls to ensure compliance with DDTC/ ITAR, please provide guidelines if any.

a. US persons are allowed access to controlled unclassified information (CUI), provided there is no contract restriction and access is related to DoD mission or contract performance. Concerning foreign management of a company, the company would have to contact DSS to explain their structure as it applies to Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI).

78. Will the prime be able to delegate AOG support upon Contract and Depot MIX?

a. Yes, the prime will be able to delegate AOG support.

79. Is there a Depot Mix area of preference i.e. Jax, Whidbey?

a. The Gov’t has no preference. AEPD will be performed at the contractor’s facility.

80. Is paint required every Depot?

a. Paint is required on the first depot induction and then every other thereafter as specified in the AEPD spec.

81. Prior to Depot level Mix visit would prime have access to last year of operational discrepancies and trend monitoring?

a. Yes, the prime will have access to the prior year’s operational discrepancies and trend monitoring.

82. Will Depot level work scope and Task cards be available 90 day prior to input?

a. Yes they are available.

83. [Are] Airframe & engine recorded parameters during normal sortie profile start to finish[?]

a. Yes

84. The Draft solicitation documents were removed from the FedBizOpps website. Will they be reposted?

a. Yes, the draft, including L and M is posted on FBO..

85. What is the Navy's current Engine maintenance program for the P-8A?

a. Organizational to Depot

86. What information and engine data will the Navy provide with the RFP Time cycles, SB/AD status?

a. The RFP will provide the predicted induction schedule. SB/AD are engine serial number specific and will be addressed at each engine induction/work scope planning meeting.

87. What is the Navy's perceived benefit or objective in combining the Airframe and Engine contracts?

a. The Navy has no preference in whether offerors propose combined or separate proposals.

88. Does the Navy have access to the P-8A drawing package? If so, will it be provided?

a. NAVAIR will respond to this question on FedBizOpps.Gov at a later date.

89. How long does it take for Navy engineering to provide approval for non-standard structural repairs? Will the time require to get approval stop the TAT clock? What is the desired TAT for the P-8?

a. It will take a maximum of 30 days. If a repair is on the critical path for the established TAT it can be adjusted using the Delay Notification Form. Delays attributed to the Government will not be charged to the Contractor. The Government’s estimated TAT is 120 days.

90. Does the Navy believe the data they have provided is sufficient for this competition?

a. Yes, the Gov’t believes the data to be provided for this competition is sufficient.

91. How does the Navy define the best value?

a. The evaluation criteria for this requirement will be identified in Section L and M.

92. Who is the airworthiness authority for the Aircraft?

a. NAVAIR is the airworthiness authority.

93. What site is the location for Depot Maintenance?

a. The contractor’s facility.

94. How is the Government going to determine Depot level requirements as cycles decrease from original OEM specs?

a. The Government’s current requirement is based on 6k cycles.

95. What are the Small Business Plan requirements?

a. The requirements are identified in Sections L and M of the Draft RFP.

96. Is the Navy looking to do the airframe and engine maintenance in a Navy Depot such as the one located at Cherry Point, NC, a commercial depot certified by the FAA, or some combination of both depots?

a. The Navy intends for the airframe and engine maintenance to be completed in a commercial depot.

97. Does your definition of the P-8A airframe include both aircraft accessories and components?

a. Please see the task cards under the attachment (5) Depot SPEC for a comprehensive understanding of the workscope.

98. Is there a schedule indicating when the various airframe and engine maintenance repair manual documentation will become available?

a. These documents are available as part of the Draft RFP package.

99. When is it expected that the publication of similar sources sought for on board mission equipment maintenance become available?

a. Mission equipment maintenance is not a part of this requirement.

100. How will the Navy make a determination to approve non-OEM repairs? What information data will be required?

a. SOW paragraph 5.3 and 5.4 identify the required information need for approval.

101. Since the Navy cannot utilize commercial repairables, will the Navy purchase their own dedicated repairables to meet 60 day TAT?

a. No, the Navy will not be providing/purchasing commercial repairables. All core engine parts will be purchased by the contractor. EBU/QEC components will be provided by the Government.

102. How will this effort be funded?

a. The Government doesn’t understand the question.

103. What are the IUID requirements for this contract?

a. At present, we are not utilizing IUID on this contract.

104. How will LRUs from the aircraft be handled? Will they enter the Navy supply system?

a. Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) will be ordered by the squadron using AVDLR funds and retrograde will be returned to the squadron.

105. Material will be the driver for engine maintenance cost, making supplies the primary purpose, does this preclude inclusion under the Service Contract Act?

a. This effort is not under the Service Contract Act.

106. Will engine overhauls be accomplished in accordance with the CFM shop manual?

a. Yes, engine overhauls shall be accomplished in accordance with the CFM shop manual.

107. What Technical data does NAVAIR own? Will it be provided as part of the RFP? What will be provided after award?

a. NAVAIR will respond to this question on FedBizOpps.Gov at a later date.

108. Please clarify whether airframe parts/mission system components are provided or purchased through Navy Supply System?

a. All airframe parts will be procured through the Navy supply system. Aviation Depot Level Repairable (AVDLRs) are not part of the depot spec.

109. "Will any Government facilities be made available? If not, does the Government intend to stipulate location/proximity, security, or other contractor facility features?

a. No, Contractor facilities for all depot events. AOG will be at location. The Statement of Work defines all facility requirements for the contractor.

110. If Critical Safety Items are not final until after the RFP, how will contractors be able to price them?

a. CSIs are defined in section “J” attachments 6 and 9; however, they are subject to minor changes

111. To what degree will airframe prime be held accountable for cost or schedule issues that result from delays or issues with GFM or Engine delays?

a. If the Government is responsible for the delay, adjustments will be made.

112. In Attachment (1), Section A, Paragraph 3.3, defects found and classified as critical or major will be repaired using the over and above Procedures. How are Minor defects to be corrected? Are they considered Over & above?

a. If authorized by site IMC coordinator, minor defects/repairs will be considered O&A.

113. In Attachment (1), Section B Paragraph 3.5.2, a minimum of 30°C Hot Day Engine Gas Temperature Margin (HDEGTM) shall be required for Core performance (40°C HDEGTM if it includes the LPT and Fan Module). Improving performance enhancement typically requires a mix or Repairing airfoils and replacing those airfoils that are non-repairable. Is the replacement of material (such as the airfoils) to improve HDEGTM to be charged to the basis FPI CLIN (i.e. CLINs X063, X065, X067) or should it be charged to the Engine Material Cost CLINs (CLINs X073, X078).

a. Revised RFP resolves this question/issue.

114. In Attachment (1), section B Paragraph 3.5 Engine Repair at Maintenance repair and Overhaul, under Engine scheduled maintenance FPI 6K cycles (CLIN X065) & 12K cycles (CLIN X055) is the requirement to replace Life Limited parts (LLP). Are the LLP to be purchased under the scheduled maintenance CLINS or should it be charged to the engine material Cost (CLINs X073, X078)? If they are to be purchased under the scheduled maintenance CLINs, will the Government provide what LLPs are to be replaced under each CLIN?

a. The term Scheduled and Unscheduled was replaced with Performance Restoration and Performance Restoration with LLPs (6 & 12K). The LLPs will be ordered under the Performance Restoration with LLPs. Yes, the Government will identify what LLPs are to be replaced under each CLIN.

115. Attachment (1) Section B Paragraph 3.5 – Engine Unscheduled Repair Minor (CLIN X064), this CLIN is listed as a FPI but there is no SOW describing what makes a “minor repair”. Recommend that you clarify what tasks are to be accomplished under this CLIN. If the tasks are likely to vary between visits (such as bird strike) recommend that this CLIN be made a CPFF labor CLIN instead of a FPI to better address the uncertainty in the work scope.

a. Updated SOW describes minor repairs.

116. Attachment (1) Section B Paragraph 3.5 - Module Refurbishment CLINS (X067, X068, X069, X070, X071, X072). These CLINS are listed under this paragraph but are not defined. Recommend that you further define the level of Refurbishment expected. For instance, do these CLINs only cover the “refurbishment” of the module or does the contractor also have to include other depot tasks (i.e. incoming inspection of the engine, breaking the engine into modules, reassembly and test of the engine after module refurbishment)?

a. Government intent is to order a core restoration or a core restoration with LLP’s. If on incoming inspection, for components that are not covered in the core restoration scope, refurbishment will be ordered by modification of the Task Order.

117. Attachment (1) Section B Paragraph 3.5 does not provide a SOW for the following task description CLINS (even though they are listed): Unscheduled Engine Maintenance assessment (CLIN X083), & special Test & Engine Investigation (CLIN X108). Recommend a task description be published for each of these CLINs.

a. Updates will be in the final RFP.

118. Attachment (1) Section A, Paragraph 14 – Recommend an annual FFP program management CLIN to cover the cost of the required program Management Tasks and MMA-810P-2016-0358 associated CDRLs be included in the solicitation. Including such a CLIN provides you and the supplier a reliable method to monitor and execute necessary tasks. Additionally, following up on the briefing from Industry Day: We respectfully request an update on the Government’s acquisition schedule. We would also appreciate the opportunity to see the draft sections L and M. When do you anticipate publishing your responses to questions raised during Industry Day?

a. Government will consider adding a CLIN in the final RFP.

119. Reference 1 Aug 16 RFP amendment: NAVAIR anticipates releasing the RFP for this requirement September 2016 with a 65 due date for proposals. (week days). Is 65 week days equivalent to 13 weeks? (65 week days/5 working weeks a week= 13 weeks) This would put proposal due in December.

a. This is correct

120. For Part B Engines: What is the term of the Base Period in months?

a. Current Base term is 2 months

121. Reference Minimum Engine Guarantees in Section H: Is there a guaranteed minimum work scope? Are they all performance restoration?

a. Yes

122. "2.2.5 SOW Part B, Para 1.3.1.5.3, Depot Maintenance

Paragraph 1.3.1 states that that “When inducted into the MRO facility the engine will arrive as a complete demountable power plant”. This has generated three questions:

1. Please confirm that the US Navy plans to purchase an Inlet Cowl and Integrated Drive Generator (IDG) for each spare engine. These components are very expensive and the IDG is unique to the P-8. As noted in the SOW, this practice deviates significantly from commercial experience.

a. Yes, The Government has purchased the Cowl and IDG with each spare engine

2. Is it the US Navy’s intent that components assigned to the QECK (quick engine change kit) are part of the engine work scope; and how will these components be supported when removed at the flight line?

a. ALL 7R COG items will be supported by NAVSUP

3. Can the US Navy provide the bidders a copy of the P-8A Power Plant Build Up Manual and P-8 Air Frame Manuals?

a. Yes, we will provide the manual

In regards to Security and part segregation, once the engine is disassembled in an area segregated from other engines. Is it acceptable to perform work on the Government engine components in the same area as commercial engine components as long as the Government engine components are not intermingled?

a. Yes, it is acceptable as long as parts do not intermingle

123. In regards to engine lease assets. If lease assets are required, how many lease engines must be available?

a. there are no leased asset requirements.

124. All repairs requiring NAVAIR engineering approval must allow 30 days for response. Is the 30 day response time deducted from the 60 day required TAT?

a. Gov't will extend TAT to allow for NAVAIR engineering approval

125. Section H-1 of Draft RFP, displays the anticipated and guarantee qty for primary and secondary awardee. Do these numbers include any RAAF aircraft?

a. Yes, Section H-1 projects engine induction quantities for both US and RAAF

126. In regards to Attachment 5, Appendix B thru E. Will there be any additional inspection tasks added to the SMP?

a. Changes to the SMP that may drive spec changes will be outlined in the RFP for the option period competitions.

127. Since the US Navy has determined the CFM56-7B engine to be commercial (not military) and will accept FAA Part 145 certification for engine MRO source approval is there any further consideration being given to allowing CFR 121 Operators Certification for engine spares management? This will greatly affect pricing of engine spare parts.

a. The contractor will not be managing the spare engines.

128. Will the US Navy consider separately competing the engine MRO requirements using FAR Part 12 contract award procedures (as is currently being done by the USAF for KC-10 CF6-50 depot engine support)? Use of FAR Part 12 procedures allows for increased competition whereas using FAR Part 15 contracting procedures will likely preclude some engine MROs from bidding P-8A engine MRO requirements.

a. No

129. Will the US Navy be open to review and approval of overhaul commercial Used Serviceable Material (USM) to reduce engine MRO costs? LMCES-Montreal is under currently under contract (FA8122-16-D-0005) with the USAF to supply overhauled commercial CFM56 USM to replace scrapped F108 HPT Outer Nozzle Supports (ONS). This contract has demonstrated that there is no performance difference between overhauled commercial USM and new OEM.