C-12_Responses_to_Questions_from_Industry_BATCH_2.pdf

Question # Question Received from Industry Answer

DPWS Pg 28, para 8.0, PT6A-series engine depot overhauls (CLIN 0X05) FFP. The section is confusing in that the discussion appears to first address scheduled engine depot overhauls, then shifts focus to an Over and Above discussion in 8.4 (is there a

Teardown report requirement for both the scheduled overhaul and over and above work?), and ends with para 8.5 which appears to address Over and Above for SA and

SB work. All of these are subparagraphs under the main heading “Scheduled PT6A-

Series Engine Depot Overhauls”.

a. Recommend there be separate and distinct PWS sections for:

i. Scheduled engine overhaul requirements with a direct link to CLIN 0X05 and applicable CDRLs

ii. Over and Above Engine requirements with a direct link to CLINs 0X07 / 0X08 and applicable CDRLs breaking out

1. Additional repair discovered during the Scheduled Engine Depot Overhaul but is not part of that FFP

2. Additional work required to incorporate technical directives and Service Action

(now covered in 12.3)

3. Additional repair required as a result of unscheduled maintenance (now covering in 12.3)

b. Please specify all cost elements (labor and material) are to be included within the

Engine Depot Overhaul CLIN 0X05 FFP to ensure all bidders price the same effort?

c. Please provide the applicable OEM manual title, number and revision date that is to be utilized for the purpose of the proposal engine overhaul price so that all bidders price the same requirement.

Response to "(is there a Teardown report requirement for both the scheduled overhaul and over and above work?) - Negative; See

PWS 8.4.

a) No question asked;

b) See PWS 8.1 through 8.4 for specific costs releated to CLIN 0X05.

c) Use the information listed in PWS Table 2 to identify C-12 engine OEM and

Type/Model/Series and refer to PWS 2.0 for applicable documents and PWS 8.4.

DPWS Pg 28, para 9.0 Propeller Overhauls. As currently written, the standard overhaul costs are not separated from the costs (labor and materials) for any repairs necessary beyond those done in the standard overhaul.

a. Please clarify that the FFP cost being requested only includes the cost elements of

(shipping & consumables) and items such as a blade or hub replacement would be covered under Over and Above CLIN.

b. Recommend the costs (labor and materials) for any repairs necessary beyond those done in the standard overhaul be captured in CLINs 0X07 and 0X08 just as is currently written for depot and engine repairs.

c. Please provide a list of Government provided spare propellers and the locations where they are stored.

a) FFP includes all costs related to overhaul of each particular type of propeller (PWS

Table 2) cited in PWS 9.1 - 9.4 and delineated by CLINs 0X06AA, 0X06AB and

0X06AC;

b) Clarified in a) response. Also refer to PWS

5.1.4.

c) Spare propellers are included in the PWS

Appendix B (dated 19 Nov 2014) and the

Library CD provided during the Pre-

Solicitation Conference on 24 June 2015. The current location of the spare props will change several times before the contract is awarded.

DPWS Pg 29, para 10.0 Over and Above Labor (CLIN 0X07) FFP.

a. Recommend adding unscheduled Propeller repairs to the list of potential over and above work.

b. Recommend adding separate SLINs for each of the following in order to give the

Government the best pricing in each area. (Blending all the labor rates across all areas may not get the Government the best overall rate. For example, the higher depot rates would result in higher rates for site labor costs.)

i. Depot

ii. Engine

iii. Propeller

iv. Site (sustainment and surge)

a) and b) No changes related to propellers are anticipated for PWS 5.1.4, 9.0 or 10.0.

Competition library file “C-12 Depot Event Hx and Projections 11 May 15.xlsx” Engine

Hx & Forecast tab identifies estimated numbers of engine repairs.

a. Please verify that all engine repairs costs (labor and material) are covered under

CLINs 0X07 and 0X08.

a) Unless engine-related labor and materials are specified within PWS 5.0 under Site-specific FFP CLIN, engine repair costs are captured under CLINs 0X07 and 0X08.

CLINs 0X07 covers multiple labor categories. The DPWS blends multiple labor categories (depot artisans, engine mechanics, propeller mechanics, site level mechanics, and engineering) into a single blended labor rate which is then applied to the Government provide hours per year. Labor rates can vary significantly across the many labor categories. A blended rate across this breadth of wage rates will result in a higher rate for site labor requirements.

a. Recommend this CLIN be sub-divided into different SLINs (depot, engine, propeller, site level, and engineering) to allow the more accurate pricing based on different wage rates.

b. Please provide a more in-depth description of the engineering work so bidders can assess the different levels of engineering skills that might be needed to be priced.

c. Please provide an estimated number of engineering events per year for each of the different engineering level skill sets types of events described by the Government in response to the question above.

a) CLIN 0X07 remians unchanged.

B) Refer to PWS 12.6.

C) Historical data on engineering events is not available.

CLIN 0X09 establishes 120 days for rental engine pricing each year.

a. Please define the period of time (start and finish) that the government deems billable. Start date examples, from beginning shipment date, date engine arrives on site, or date engine is installed on the aircraft. Finish date examples, date engine uninstalled from the aircraft, date engine shipped from site, or date engine received back at the vendor site.

Section 13.0 does not stipulate as "rental" engines. The daily rate for usage of non-GFE engines is desired. See Final RFP.

DRFP Section B, Attachment B-1, Page 55 of 144. Attachment B-1 instructs the offeror to provide the proposed price per site as well as the subtotal for each CLIN.

Attachment B-1 leaves only space for one contract year and does not instruct the offeror whether the base period only of the sum of all option years be provided.

a. Recommend a SLIN be added to each CLIN if the CLIN contains multiple sites.

b. Further recommend Att_L-6_Price_Matrix be updated to reflect the added SLINs.

c. If the government does not want to add SLINs, would the government amend att_L-

6_Price_Matrix to include Attachment B-1 by year?

See the revised Pricing Table B-1 in the Final

RFP.

DRFP Attachment 6, QASP, pg 8, performance standards table.

a. Both the “Aircraft Unresolved Discrepancies” and “Aircraft Unresolved

Discrepancies Lead Time” incentive column refers to reduction in payment per

Section H para H.1 (d). There is no discussion of reduced payment for these areas in

Section H-1.

i. Please clarify the reduced payment penalties if any.

b. Recommend changing the MC requirements Incentive column reference to H.1 (a)

(1).

c. Recommend changing the “Incentive” column title to “Reduced Payment” as there does not to be any incentives.

(a) through (c) See the updated QASP with the

Final RFP.

Recommend the following FAR/DFAR clauses are inserted into the final RFP and subsequent contract award

a. 52.228-3 Workers’ Compensation Insurance (Defense Base Act)

b. 52.245-1 Government Property

c. 52.245-9 Use and Charges

d. 52.246-23 Limitation of Liability

e. 52.246-24 Limitation of Liability—High-Value Items

f. 52.249-14 Excusable Delays

g. 252.228-7000 Reimbursement for War-Hazard Losses

See below for responses to each clause

-FAR 52.228-3: This clause is not applicable to this solicitation.

-FAR 52.245-1: FAR 52.245-1 Alternate I is included in Section I of the solicitation.

-FAR 52.245-9: This clause will be added to

Section I of the solicitation

-FAR 52.246-23: This clause will be added to

Section I of the solicitation.

-FAR 52.246-24: This clause is not applicable to this solicitation.

-FAR 52.249-14: This clause is not applicable to this solicitation.

-DFARS 252.228-7000: This clause is not applicable to this solicitation.

DPWS Pg 41, Appendix D, Performance Metrics states “Discrepancies. The Contractor shall ensure that the number of unresolved discrepancies per aircraft does not exceed 10 at the end of any given workday. At no time shall any unresolved discrepancy exceed 10 days for CONUS-sited aircraft or 20 days for OCONUS-sited aircraft without Government approval.”

i. Please clarify whether the number of unresolved discrepancies per aircraft limits apply to all discrepancies to include corrosion discrepancies.

Yes, all discrepancies apply.

1. Data disk, “C-12 Service Life Events_6May15.xlsx”, Tab CDRL005

a. Please provide the most current data. Cells E3-5 show a date of April 2014 which is over a year old.

b. Please confirm that wing spar labor and material costs will be charged against CLIN

0X07 and 0X08.

The Library Doc CD provided the most current data at the time. The additional doucments will be posted on FEDBIZOPPS.

Section L-B.2.6 - This section requires specific information that has a potentially major impact to an Offeror’s proposal, as either a strength or weakness, information requested is stated as

“The Offeror shall demonstrate the degree to which its previous experience is similar to this solicitation, particularly with respect to performing aircraft maintenance and flight operations on commercial derivative aircraft similar to C12 type aircraft in an OCONUS/CONUS environment at multiple sites. The Offeror shall describe its experience in management of multi-site, Contractor Logistics Support including acting as the prime contractor, providing

Program Management and Subcontractor Management for similar type of work, scope of effort and complexity with respect to the solicitation. Describe any long-term support agreements with proposed principal subcontractors. The Offeror shall only reference the contracts submitted for the Past Performance evaluation to demonstrate its experience.”

QUESTION: With the amount of information required in the Technical Volume of this RFP and the allotted page count, would the Government consider either combining the experience requirements with the past performance requirements into one volume or by designating the

Experience section of the Technical Volume an annex, thus freeing up additional pages for addressing critical technical processes that ensure safety of flight, performance and material condition of the aircraft are addressed at a level of detail needed.

Experience will remain as an evaluation element under the Technical Factor.

The suggested page count is merely a

SUGGESTION, and does not include attachments. A deficiency will not be issued for going over or under the suggested page count. We are merely asking the Contractor to limit proposals to what is absolutely relevant to the Section L instructions and the

PWS requirements. Please see the Final RFP for the updated page counts.

Section H, Clause 5252.217-9509

5252.228-9500

5252.228-9501 - The referenced Clauses address liability, ground and flight risk and liability insurance for Government assets. It is clear from 5252.217-9509 the contractor is fully liable as an insurer for any loss of or damage to Government property delivered to or picked up by the contractor for servicing, repairs, modifications or services while in his custody, care or control.

QUESTION: (a) Is it the Government’s expectation that the Ground and Flight Risk

Clause applies to aircraft, components, equipment and all Government assets while at the Site Locations identified in PWS Appendix A?

(b) Is it the Government’s expectation that the Ground and Flight Risk Clause does not apply to aircraft, components, equipment and all Government assets while at the contractor’s premises identified in Clause 5252.228-9500?

(c) Clause 5252.228-9501 lists mandatory insurance coverage types and amounts, but does not include ground hangarkeepers liability insurance which may cover

Government assets while they are at the facilities identified at Clause 5252.228-9500 if the Ground and Flight Risk Clause is not in effect at those facilities. Is it the

Government’s intent to prescribe this type of coverage and limits or to allow the contractor to assume this liability as it so chooses?

(a) See DFARS 252.228-7001(a)(6) and DFARS

252.228-7001(c).

(b) See DFARS 252.228-7001(a)(3) and DFARS

252.228-7001(c) and DFARS 252.228-7001(L) and See NAVAIR Clause 5252.228-9500 and

5252.217-9509

(c) See NAVAIR Clause 5252.228-9501 for required liability insurance.

Section B and Section C, CLIN Descriptions - QUESTION: It is unclear where the

Government would like to see the cost of component repairs. Should this be priced in the Site Operations CLINs? If so, please provide usage data by site. Also, there is no separate “per occurrence” CLIN for landing gear. Please clarify how landing gear overhaul is to be priced.

It is anticipated that maintenance of landing gear be conducted at the aircraft's home Site, using applicable CLIN 0X13-0X21, and in accordance with OEM manuals, unless service life requirements change or unless ACI results warrant otherwise.

Any component (excluding propeller) repair that is required as a result of unscheduled maintenance (i.e.,: bird strike) shall be proposed under CLIN 0X07 and/or 0X08; see also PWS 12.1.1.

Reference: Solicitation Pg. 120 of 144 Table G-2 Proposal Structure

Discussion: Technical Volume at 30 pages is insufficient to properly assist in a best value procurement.

a. Complex operation to include:

i. Multiple Aircraft types; Multiple engines & propeller types

ii. O&I level Maintenance

iii. Depot Maintenance

iv. Global workforce

v. FAA compliance

Question

Will the government increase the Technical Volume to a minimum of 75 pages, with a clearly defined page limit? The lack of a defined page limit creates concern that the evaluation will not be entirely on the proposal as submitted, rather on intangibles.

This creates the environment for a protest.

The suggested page count is merely a

SUGGESTION, and does not include attachments. A deficiency will not be issued for going over or under the suggested page count. We are merely asking the Contractor to limit proposals to what is absolutely relevant to the Section L instructions and the

PWS requirements. Please see the Final RFP for the updated page counts.

Reference: Solicitation Pg. 134 of 144, 3.3 Evaluation, Relevancy

Discussion: Past Performance relevant evaluation

b. Relevancy Determination very narrow favoring the incumbent

i. As structured does not allow for past performance for discrete functions as required in the PWS

1. ie.. Depot services for C-12 aircraft would not qualify for Very Relevant, as would not accomplish “majority” of requirements.

ii. Requiring >20 Aircraft at a single site is beyond the scope of the PWS post the de-scope in 2017.

Question:

Will the government allow for the following recommendations in Past Performance

Relevancy?

iii. Allowance of multiple company CAGE codes within bid as discrete functions for

Maintenance, MRO, Supply, Engines, and Landing Gear – are typically accomplished through different CAGE codes within a large organization.

iv. Further define the requirement of Very Relevant to be isolated to the role of the prime or Subcontractors function on the bid contract. For example a subcontractor who will perform Depot Services on the contract, can submit past performance that covers depot services and will be deemed Very Relevant.

v. Decreasing requirement to management of >=12 aircraft under a single contract.

The Prime Contractor, who will oversee all aspects of the contract, shall provide its business location (administrative place of performance) and CAGE Code/DUNs # in the first line of Table ES-1. In the roles and responsibility cell, provide a clear description of all work that the Prime will be performing.

See Section L of the Final RFP.

Reference: Attachment 6, QUALITY ASSURANCE SURVEILLANCE PLAN, 2. Purpose:

Discussion: The QASP identifies the performance objectives to be met by the

Contractor and describes and establishes the resources and processes to be used to monitor, assess, and document the Contractor’s performance in meeting those objectives. Maintenance of specific aviation quality standards will improve the quality of performance of the program. These certifications represent an investment in quality standards for aviation maintenance and airworthiness.

Question

Will the government include the requirement for submittal of specific quality certifications to include ISO 9001 and AS9120 at time of proposal submittal?

No. Please see the revised QASP in the final

RFP package.

Reference: Solicitation Pg. 122 of 144, 4.1 Unclassified Data

Discussion: Volume 1 Executive Summary, Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) submitted three (3) weeks prior to the submission date and time specified on SF 33 Block 9. The requirement requires the contractor to finalize pricing far in advance of proposal submittal, and reduces the ability for the contractor to negotiate for better pricing with vendors and subcontractors; and will likely result in higher prices.

Question: Will the government consider table ES 1 due in accordance with SF33 Block

9 to allow the contractor time to pursue the best pricing?

Table ES-1 should be submitted with the Early

Past Performance information IAW Section L.

Please note: the Offeror must submit ES-1 with the official proposal submission (due

IAW the SF33). The Government will evaluate the official proposal submission.

Reference: Solicitation Pg. 2- 58 of 144, Section B and C.

Discussion: CLIN 0x09 Engines, FFP estimated quantity 120 Days

Question:

With the understanding there are 3 different types of engines will the government provide a quantity in number and type of engines or an unburden value (plug number)?

Offerors are to propose one daily composite cost for the temporary replacement of a PT6A-engine (Table 2 of PWS 1.4), vice a daily cost for each engine T/M/S. The RFP estimate of

120 days was designated as a maximum anticipated replacement for that 12 month period of performance.

Is the desire of the Government to lease such engines for a bid period of 120 days?

It is not. Offerors are to propose one daily composite cost for the temporary replacement of a PT6A- engine (Table 2 of

PWS 1.4), vice a daily cost for each engine

T/M/S. The RFP estimate of 120 days was designated as a maximum anticipated replacement period.

How will the Government procure engines if the incident arises to require more than

120 days?

The 120 day quantity is the Government's estimate. If necessary, the Government could exceed the estimate.

Additionally, will the Government provide configuration, status and time intervals for the current on-wing engines?

On-wing engine data (as of 30 June 2015) will be posted to FedBizOpps.

As there are multiple Engine types with different value, will the Government provide separate CLINS for each engine type?

All 3 C-12 PT6A-series engines are combined

(for as a composite value) within CLIN 0X09.

As the DRFP projected fleet de-scope will result in one aircraft with engine type PT6-

60a in CY2018, will the Government provide separate CLINS for each engine type?

The potential divestiture of TC-12B will not result in one aircraft T/M/S, nor one engine

T/M/S. Refer to Table 1 of PWS 1.3 and Table

2 of PWS 1.4.

Reference: Solicitation Pg. 2- 58 of 144, Section B and C.

Discussion: CLIN 0x13 – 0x21 Site Operations

a. FFP by site does not allow for site profile fleet decreases.

i. ie.. When UC12-F aircraft are de-scoped, unless the entire CLIN requirement is cancelled - the FFP pricing remains and sites will potentially be overmanned and full

FFP pricing will remain in force. In essence the Government can be paying for the CLS capacity to maintain far more aircraft than are stationed at the site.

ii. If manpower must be shifted between geographies due to fleet shifts, the wage differentials cannot be accomplished in current FFP structure.

i. This structure can be in conflict with the Service Contract Act, as geographic shifts

(if required) will necessitate different SCA wage rates (determinations) per location.

b. Significant post award changes to the CLIN structure to accommodate Indefinite

Delivery TOs and site changes could constitute a Cardinal Change in the Contract, and resultant (legal) challenges from non-involved companies.

Question: Will the government consider the following items for Site Operation

CLIN’s?

i. Implementation of a PMO CLIN to accommodate the WIS, Quality, Program

Management, and cost saving shared services resources (procurement and various specialist functions).

ii. Requiring personnel wage rates by position CONUS and OCONUS. Indefinite

Delivery requirements can be bid in accordance with the required personnel matrix.

This would allow for complete Indefinite Delivery TO flexibility, and could be utilized to cover longer term surge requirements or fleet shifts.

The CLIN structure will remain unchanged.

Reference: Solicitation Pg. 124 of 144 Section Table ES 1 Offeror Summary and Pg.

133 of 144 Section 3.3 Evaluation

Discussion: The Offeror shall provide a written explanation if multiple CAGE codes/DUNS for the same physical location are provided in Table ES-1 (Offeror

Summary). Past performance of any entity with multiple CAGE codes/DUNS will be considered for the same physical location if each entity has distinct roles and responsibilities identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary), or the current and previous CAGE codes were 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.

Most CLS contracts have multiple work locations and do not have a single physical location.

This structure disallows the utilization of functional interdivisional company entities that possess specific skill sets. For example CLS manpower, landing gear repair, and depot maintenance are functionally different services and are typically managed under separate divisions in large companies.

Further, given the USG requirements to maintain unique CAGE codes for specific sites with classified requirements, it is often impossible to maintain all past performance under a single CAGE code.

Question

Can the government allow for multiple CAGE codes if Common Control can be demonstrated?

The Prime Contractor, who will oversee all aspects of the contract, shall provide its business location (administrative place of performance) and CAGE Code/DUNs # in the first line of Table ES-1. In the roles and responsibility cell, provide a clear description of all work that the Prime will be performing.

See Section L of the Final RFP.

Can the Government better define the term “same physical location” in reference to this contract, as operations will be deployed worldwide?

Section L language has been revised and now states "same administrative place of performance". See the Final RFP.

Reference: Attachment 5, Appendix B C12 SGFP Data

Discussion: Standard Items List

Question:

Can the government confirm if this is the authorized supply list for the current contract, if not will the government provide the Program Level and a more detailed

Site Level authorized supply list?

Question:

Further, can the Government confirm if this is the currently Authorized Stockage List, and if not can the Government please supply the ASL by location?

The Government has no set stocking level requirements or authorized supply list. The most current listing of GFP by location, dated

11 May 2015, will be posted to FEDBIZOPPs.

Reference: Solicitation Pg. 77 of 144, Section H - Special Contract Requirements

Discussion: H.1 REDUCED PAYMENTS, states the Contractor is subject to reduced payments for failure to meet the following metrics

(1) Navy C-12 Mission Capable (MC) Rate. MC shall be maintained at 80% per aircraft in accordance with PWS, Appendix D.

(2) Scheduled C-12 Aircraft Depot Inspections. Aircraft Condition Inspection (ACI) -

The Contractor shall reduce the invoice price for ACI for each day in excess of the number of days established in PWS Section 7.1, herein.

Reference 1: ANNEX D references the following metrics the contractor must satisfy.

Discussion 2: The Contractor shall ensure that the number of unresolved discrepancies per aircraft does not exceed 10 at the end of any given workday. At no time shall any unresolved discrepancy exceed 10 days for CONUS-sited aircraft or 20 days for OCONUS-sited aircraft without Government approval. Government approval requests shall be routed to the C-12 Logistics Lead.

The Contractor shall maintain a minimum Mission Capable (MC) rate of 80% for each aircraft for every month. The Contractor shall document daily flying hours, landings, engine starts and stops; aircraft up or down status and cite whether the aircraft was fully, partially or non-mission capable in accordance with the applicable T/M/S

NATOPS Minimum Equipment List (MEL) or Minimum Equipment (or Essential)

Systems (or Subsystems) Matrix (MESM) and show the resulting MC rate.

C-12 Special Mission Equipment. Special mission equipment (not specified within this

PWS) attached to C-12 aircraft based in Manassas, VA and VXS-1 at Patuxent River, MD shall cause the respective aircraft to be partially mission capable when the special mission equipment is not fully functional.

Please see H-1 Clause in the Final RFP.

Reference: PWS Pg.23 Section 5.6.2 Software Incorporations

Discussion: The Contractor shall purchase and install UL IPT-directed FAA-approved C-

12-related software updates into all avionics system equipment and all Flight

Management System (FMS) training devices per site.

Question

Will the government provide additional information on the updates for Flight

Management System Training devices, Desk Top Trainers, how many are there, sites locations, types, and how often are they updated?

There are currently zero simulators, desk top trainers, or Flight Management System

Training devices associated with this solicitation.

On occasion, software updates for the existing UC-12W Aircraft Survival System

(ASE) are received and will require standard uploading, as directed by an accompanying

Technical Directive.

New software applicable to Aircraft

Modifications will be handled per PWS

Paragraph 12.9.

Reference: PWS Pg. 19 Section 5.1.5 Mission Equipment

Discussion: The Contractor shall remove and replace the C-12 special mission equipment attached to the Manassas, VA aircraft and the VXS-1 Patuxent River, MD aircraft in accordance with 19 OEM manuals. The repair or replacement of special mission equipment shall be addressed as an O&A effort.

Question

Will a DD 254 be assigned to this contract and will it address the special mission equipment?

There is no DD-254 and no requirement for the Contractor to handle classified data.

Reference: PWS Pg. 20 Section 5.1.6 Ammunition and Explosives Certification –

Discussion: The Contractor shall establish and maintain an Ordnance Qualification and Certification program. The program shall include management structure to ensure maintenance technicians are properly trained and certified for safe and secure handling and storage of Ammunition and Explosives (A&E) in accordance with OPNAV

Instruction 8023.24B and US Order (MCO) 8023.3B.

Question

Will the government provide clarification on what sites will need certified personnel for this PWS Section?

PWS 5.1.6 is applicable to all sites.

Reference: PWS Pg. 21 Section 5.1.10.4 Site Operations Aircraft Recovery OCONUS –

Discussion: When required at Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) locations, the Contractor shall remove ITAR regulated items from the aircraft and store them at its home base site while depot level maintenance is performed on the aircraft.

Question

For ITAR equipment removal will the government clarify who will perform this task, U.S. Navy personnel or Expat contractor personnel?

See revised PWS Paragraph 5.1.10.4.

The Ordnance qualified, trained and certified

Contractor (PWS 5.1.6) will perform the removal task described in PWS 5.1.10.4.

Question

Will the Government clarify if referenced ITAR material will be included on the DD254 and if cleared storage capacity will be provided as GFF?

There is no DD-254 and no requirement for the Contractor to handle classified data.

Reference: APPENDIX D – PERFORMANCE METRICS

Discussion: Mission Capable Requirements. The Contractor shall maintain a minimum

Mission Capable (MC) rate of 80% for each aircraft for every month.

Question

Typically there is a relationship between FMC to NMC-M and NMC-S. As the contractor does not have final authority to procure parts, the aircraft could be NMC-S if the TPOC does not authorize funding. Will the government take into account that

NMC-S will impact FMC rates, outside of the contractor’s control?

See PWS Paragraph 5.1. The Government will review Over and Above Work Requests

(O&AWR) in accordance with NAVAIR Clause

5252.217-9507 and Section J Attachment (7) at the time of submittal.

Reference: PWS Pg. 5 Section 1.3 Site Operations

Discussion: OCONUS Site Locations

Question

Will the Government sponsor Work Visas Waivers, Taxation Waivers and SOFA coverage for Contractor personnel?

No, Refer to PWS Paragaphs 3.9.1, 3.10.5, and

3.13.3 however, with regard to SOFA the

Government may provide the Courtesy Navy

Technical Designation letter. See sample posted to FEDBIZOPPs.

Reference: Current Contract Operations

a. The current contract allows for TPOC to sign off on Mx activity under FAA requirements.

i. If current solicitation allows for this as well, it requires a FAA certified A&P TPOC per site available 24/7/365 to accommodate the FMC requirement.

ii. Creates challenge for Contractor to provide annual airworthiness certificate if third party (USG TPOC) is providing FAA required maintenance sign-off on a permanent basis. Places the maintenance quality ownership on the USG rather than the contractor.

Question

Will the USG agree not to provide FAA technical approvals or maintenance log signatures, rather that the TPOC will provide contractual approvals. The contractor will be wholly responsible for FAA compliance.

The TPOC is responsible for documenting the satisfactory completion of the work so that the contractor may invoice. The Contractor will be wholly responsible for FAA compliance.

Reference: PWS Pg. 25 Section 5.10.3 Airworthiness Certification Letter

Discussion: The Contractor shall write an annual Airworthiness Certification Letter that is carried on the aircraft at all times. The letter shall state that the aircraft meets continued airworthiness in accordance with OEM and FAA requirements.

Question

Does the contractor write it’s our own Air Worthiness Certifications, our understanding is the contractor can draft but the ownership of Airworthiness remains with the Government, and as such the Government must sign for the Air Worthiness of the aircraft.

See PWS paragraph 5.10.3 in the Final RFP.

Question

Can the Government clarify who is the Owner of Airworthiness of the aircraft?

See PWS paragraph 5.10.3 in the Final RFP.

Reference: GFF

Question

Can the Government provide full Government Furnished Facility information and detail by site, to include dimensions, location, and climate control information, access to pressurized air, water and potable water.

No. See PWS paragraph 3.9.

In order to choose an appropriate for mission IT system, can the government provide detailed information on data connectivity, reliability statistics and minimum data throughput speeds?

See PWS 3.9.1: "Basic telephone and data transmission lines on Base or home Site." No further data is available.

Will the Government provide multiple IT drops or wireless connectivity in the GFF?

See PWS 3.9.1: "Basic telephone and data transmission lines on Base or home Site." No further data is available.

Reference: PWS 5.1.9

Question

Can the Government reconcile the PWS 5.1.9 language requiring 24/7 operations, with PWS reference 5.1.9.2 – Holiday Scheduling.

Please see PWS section 5.1.9 and 5.1.9.2.

What Holidays are authorized and will PWS section 5.1.9 be revised to accommodate such Holidays.

Please see PWS section 5.1.9 and 5.1.9.2.

Reference: General

Given the mission critical nature of this requirement, will the Government require demonstration of capacity under FAR 9.104-1(a)?

Yes, this will be part of the responsibility determination.

Reference: CLINs

Question

In order to evaluate all vendors on an even and equal basis will the Government exclude all transition costs from the Total Evaluated price, in order to avoid providing the incumbent contractor an advantage?

Our evaluation criteria is as stated in Sections

L &M.

Reference: ANNEX D

Discussion:

C-12 Special Mission Equipment. Special mission equipment (not specified within this

PWS) attached to C-12 aircraft based in Manassas, VA and VXS-1 at Patuxent River, MD shall cause the respective aircraft to be partially mission capable when the special mission equipment is not fully functional.

Question

Can the Government supply a full list, configuration and status of all Special Mission equipment?

Yes. Special Mission equipment for the

Mannassas aircraft will be posted to

FEDBIZOPPs. Currently, no Special Mission

Equipment is attached to the VXS-1 aircraft.

Section L, Part A, Para 3.0 Table G-2, Second paragraph states, “In addition to the electronic copies requested in paragraph, 2.1, “Electronic Submission of Proposals,” each volume, book, and annex of the proposal shall be submitted as an original and additional paper copies as specified in Table G-2 Proposal Structure.” Table G-2 specifies that two hardcopies of Annex A (1 Original/1 Copy) be submitted.

Part B Para 3.3a Paragraph 3.3a specifies that “Annex A should only be provided in electronic format and should not be provided in hard copy.” The guidance contained in these two sections appears to be in conflict. Question: Does the Government intend for Offerors to submit two hardcopies of Annex A, per Table G-2, in addition to the electronic copies or in electronic format only per Section L, Part B, paragraph

3.3.a?

Annex A should only be submitted in electronic format. The Offeror should provide both a .pdf and .docx format if they are available. If not, a .pdf version only is acceptable. See the Final RFP for an updated

Table G-1.

Section L Part B, Para 2.0 The third paragraph states, “A Cross Reference Matrix

(CRM), Table T-1, is included to help the Offeror develop its proposal and to ensure traceability of Section L paragraphs to the requirements. The Offeror’s CRM should be identical to the one provided, but include an additional column for Offeror proposal references.” Are we correct to assume that Offerors are to respond only to those PWS sections specifically called out in Table T-1 as related to the applicable

Section L paragraph?

Yes.

PWS Section 3.4 - ANSI/ASQ ISO 9001-2008 Quality Management System - Is it the

Government’s intent to require ISO 9001-2008 third party registration, or to have a

Quality Management System that meets the intent of the ISO9001-2008 requirements?

See PWS 3.4, "The Contractor is accountable for all subcontractor and vendors[…]"

PWS 5.1.8.2 - The PWS states, “The Contractor shall perform scheduled HSI on the

PT6A engines on–wing.” Should the contractors bid include the cost to replace any defective components discovered during the HSI?

Any defective components found during HSI may consititute an O&A Work request submitted under PWS 12.2.

PWS 5.10.3 - Airworthiness Certification Letter - Is it the Government’s intent to require that the annual airworthiness letter be signed by an FAA certificated mechanic holding a valid Inspection Authorization (IA) certificate?

See PWS paragraph 5.10.3 in the Final RFP.

PWS Section 8.1 The PWS states, “The Contractor shall perform the C-12 PT6A-series engine overhauls in accordance with applicable Pratt & Whitney OEM maintenance instructions…” Is it the Governments intent for the Engine Overhaul facility to be a

Pratt & Whitney authorized Overhaul Facility?

Refer to PWS 1.4 of the Final RFP package.

Section B - Site Operations Line Items – 0X13 through 0X21 - Would the Government consider adding a line item for direct and indirect support functions (program management, QA, data mgmt. etc.)?

Adding a line item for these costs would eliminate the need to allocate cost across all locations and reduce confusion during the price evaluation process. This would also be helpful when relocating aircraft or closing support locations.

No.

Section G - Contract Admin Data - Does the Government intend to amend Section G to include invoicing terms by contract line item? This would include invoice frequency and required supporting documentation for invoice approval.

The Government will handle at the task order level.

Section B - Item number 0X02, OX03, and 0X08 Are the unburden amounts listed under these CLINs representative of the annual volume to be expected for these line items?

Yes.

Section B - Item number 0X02, OX03, and 0X08 If awarded the contract, how will the burden rates proposed for these line items be administered for actions applicable to these line items? Will the proposed burden rates be incorporated into the contract terms?

The evalauted burdened rates will be incorporated into Section B of the contract.

Attachment L-2 - A&P Summary Tab - If an A&P position is shared across locations how should this information be illustrated in attachment L-2?

Enter partial units (A&P Mechanics) using decimal points to the tenth (e.g. 4.5).

PWS 6.1 FAA-Certified Parts - Will the Government provide a list of non-OEM parts currently approved for use on the aircraft?

Refer back to PWS 6.1. Only the PCO or ACO will authorize or direct procurement of non-

OEM parts on a case-by-case basis.

Section B 0X04 Scheduled Depot Inspections Will the Government be adding line items for each model type series or should the price for CLIN 0X04 reflect the same for each model type series aircraft?

No.

Section B 0X05 Scheduled PT6A Engine Depot Overhaul - Will the Government be adding line items for each engine type or should the price for CLIN 0X05 reflect the same for each type engine?

CLIN 0X05 should reflect the price for the

PT6A- model engine overhaul (composite for all series).

Section B - 0X21 - CNATRA SITE Operations - Will any contract line item estimated quantities applicable to the TC-12 series aircraft be reduced to reflect the planned divestiture by 30 September 2017?

The Government has not directed the TC-12B divestiture as of 14 July 2015. See Final RFP for the most current status.

1. Government responses dated 9 Jul 2015 directed bidders to use Schedule B numbers for CLIN 0X05 Engine Overhauls. Schedule B does not break out the specific engine types to be overhauled each year.

a. Please provide the number of engine overhauls by specific engine type for each contract year.

Please see the data provided in the competition library.

2. DRFP Section J, Attachment 5, “C-12 SGFP Data Input Spreadsheet (XLS) 11

May15.xlsx” provides program parts information. However, the spreadsheet does not identify locations for the parts.

a. In order to prepare a realistic transition inventory approach, please add a spreadsheet column identifying the location for each part.

b. Please update the GFP listings to include all FAR required data elements: Site, Location, Manufacturer Part Number, National Stock Number, Serial Number, Description, Model, Unique Item Identifier, Quantity, UOM, Acquisition Cost, Cost is

Actual or Estimate, and Condition code.

a. The GFP by location will be posted to

FEDBIZOPPS.

b. The SGFP meets Government compliance requirements.

3. DPWS pg 28, para 8.3 Engine consumables.

a. In order to ensure all bidders price the same scope of work, please provide a list of materials the Government considers consumables for each engine type.

Please refer to the Pratt and Whitney

Maintenance manuals which can be found in the applicable documents in PWS paragraph

2.0.

4. DPWS pg 19, para 5.1.8.2 HSI. The government response to the question of which

CLIN were the cost of the HSI kit materials to be price was “Applicable FFP CLINs are

0X13-0X21”.

a. Please clarify why the HSI material costs are not included as part of the CLIN material costs like all other material items.

b. Please provide a HSI forecast by engine model and site for each year of the contract.

c. Please provide the time interval between HSIs for each engine model.

a. and c. Please refer to the Pratt and

Whitney Maintenance manuals which can be found in the applicable documents in PWS paragraph 2.0. The available data was provided on the competition library CD.

b. Additional engine data will be posted on

FEDBIZOPPS

5. DPWS Pg 29, para 10 (Over & Above Labor) and para 11 (Over & Above Material).

The PWS breaks out scheduled depot inspections for ACI (para 7.0); Engines (para 8.0;

and Propeller (para 9.0). The PWS then provides for unscheduled maintenance/repair for airframe and engines (CLINs 0X07 and 0X08) but does not address unscheduled maintenance for propellers. The 9 Jul 15 Government response stated “All propeller work is captured under PWS paras 5.1.4 and 9.0.

a. If it is the Government’s intent to have bidders estimate unscheduled propeller maintenance/repair costs and combine those costs with the scheduled maintenance costs in CLIN 0X06, then please provide the Government’s estimates or historic costs for unscheduled propeller maintenance/repair.

b. Should the unscheduled propeller maintenance data not be available, recommend these costs be covered under CLINs 0X07 and 0X08 as is done for the airframes and engines.

The 9 Jul 15 Government response “All propeller work is captured under PWS paras

5.1.4 and 9.0." is applicable.

6. Landing gear maintenance

a. In the event a landing gear overhaul comes due during the course of the contract, please clarify what CLNs the material & labor associated with the depot level overhaul activity is to be charged?

b. Please provide a projection of scheduled landing gear overhaul events for each aircraft.

The landing gear overhaul requirements are cited within the King Air (OEM) B200 and

B300-series and applicable C-12 Supplemental

T/M/S maintenance manuals, as referenced in the PWS Paragraph 2.0. Any defective components found may consititute an O&A

Work request.

Reference: Schedule B

Background: In order to accurately price the effort, we must have the following available for our use in a data library or a distributed.

1) 3 year historical material usage by aircraft serial number

2) 3 year listing of Support Equipment maintenance, including the material consumed for upkeep and maintenance of the GFE Support Equipment

3) Listing of GFE, Spare parts and equipment, by location

4) Historical scrap of material due to Beyond Economical Repair

5) Current DMSMS or obsolescent parts on the aircraft

6) List of incorporated service bulletins / service instruction / Airworthiness

Directives / MED compliance by aircraft tail number, including any outstanding SBs /

SIs / Ads /MEDs

7) Historical list of all Aircraft Condition Inspection discrepancies by aircraft that were corrected, and Noted But Not Correct (NBNC) / Deferred.

8) Listing of open aircraft discrepancies / VIDS/MAFS on each aircraft.

9) 3 year historical NMCM / NMCS / PMCM and PMCS by month for each Aircraft, and the reasons why the aircraft did not make the require FMC Rate?

10) Historical RFT Rate for the TC-12B Aircraft.

11) A listing of technical data packages currently owned by the USG in support of this equipment i.e. Avionics Upgrade STCs, etc.

12) Current list of aircraft configuration, including the current status in hours / calendar time by aircraft for engine overhauls, propeller overhauls, landing gear overhauls, starter generator overhauls, Aircraft engine hose replacements, and any other scheduled overhauls / replacements.

Questions: 1) Will the government make this data available? 2) If so, what format will it be provided? 3) If yes to Question 1 above, when can we expect to have access to this data?

All historical data available has been posted to the competition library or is being added to

FEDBIZOPPS.

CLIN 0X02 calls for modifications to be made to the C-12s, assuming as required. Can you provide a basic overview of the types of modifications to be performed? Will the modifications be performed at the site where the aircraft is stationed or will the Navy fly the aircraft back to a designated Part 145 Repair Station? When an airplane undergoes a modification and it is the only airplane or one of two on site, is another airplane deployed to the site to provide operational coverage?

An example of Aircraft Modification includes

FAA mandated requirements such as

Communications, Navigation, and

Surveillance - Air Traffic Management (CNS-

ATM) being incorporated as the technology matures. Upcoming applicable requirement for the C-12F/M/W aircraft is the Automatic

Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)

Out requirement.

Modifications are predominantly a depot-level event and will be performed IAW requirements as negotiated under the O&A

CLIN 0X02.

Operational deployment and aircraft movement is determined by Fleet

Requirements as directed by the applicable

Type Commander (TYCOM).

Reference: RFP Section. LA-1, Part B, Section 3.0, Paragraph 3.3.a.i

Background: The above reference provides the criteria for a contract to be considered Very Relevant (VR). Although to be considered as Very Relevant, the contractor only has to provide “a majority of the elements listed…”. Here are a listing of some key US Navy Contracts under 488190, and how they related to the number of elements.

• Navy C-12: 6 Elements (7 or 8 if modifications were performed) No Flight

Operations at both CONUS and OCONUS

• Navy Light Lift: 4 Elements (5 if modifications were performed)

• T-34/T-44/T-6 CLS: 4 Elements (5 if modifications were performed)

• C-40A CLS: 3 Elements

• T-45 CLS: 4 Elements

• TH-57 CLS: 4 Elements (5 if modifications were performed)

• C-20/C-36 CLS: 3 (5 if modifications were performed)

Given this, the criteria of having a majority of the elements to be considered Very

Relevant is very restrictive, and will limit competition. Also, please note that the criteria for Aircraft Modifications is vague and could be anything from a small Service

Bulletin, to a large scale Avionics Upgrade Program.

Question: 1) Would the Government consider further defining the terms

“Commercial Derivative Aircraft Modifications”? 2) With 8 defined elements of very relevant, does the Government interpret have 5 or more of the 8 elements under the same contract to be considered “A Majority”, or would 4 elements be considered “A

Majority”. 3) Has the government performed an analysis to the number of contracts that contain a majority of the number of elements? 3) Would the government consider loosening the VR Relevant criteria to allow more offerors than the current incumbent’s C-12 program to be considered “Very Relevant?”

1) Examples of Commercial Derivative Aircraft

Modifications includes, but are not limited to:

FAA mandated requirements such as

Communications, Navigation, and

Surveillance - Air Traffic Management (CNS-

ATM) as the technology matures. Upcoming applicable requirement for the C-12F/M/W aircraft is the Automatic Dependent

Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out requirement. See PWS Paragraph 12.9.

2-4) See the Final RFP

CLIN 0X04 calls for scheduled depot inspections or ACIs. Are these inspections performed at the site where the aircraft is stationed or will the Navy fly the aircraft back to a designated Part 145 Repair Station? When an airplane undergoes a depot inspection and it is the only airplane or one of two on site, is another airplane deployed to the site to provide operational coverage?

The Government will ferry aircraft to and from a depot facility to accomplish an ACI.

Operational deployment and aircraft movement is determined by Fleet

Requirements as directed by the applicable

Type Commander (TYCOM).

CLINs 0X05 and 0X06 address depot engine overhauls and depot propeller overhauls.

The PWS indicates engines and propellers should be returned to the site from which they were shipped. As an alternative, can the overhaul facility send an overhauled asset from its facility to the site when notified an asset is being sent in for overhaul, thereby ensuring sufficient engines and propellers are on site when needed?

See PWS 8.2 and 9.2, both of which ensure that the Contractor is responsible for 2-way shipping. Neither PWS 8.2 or 9.2 preclude the scenario cited.

For CLIN 0X08, do we assume this CLIN is for the parts that are not GFP per Section J, Attachment 5?

Yes.

For CLIN 0X10, is the strip and paint performed on site or at a designated Part 145 repair station?

No C-12 Site (PWS 1.3 Table 1) has the equipment or accomodations to perform the requirements of PWS 14.0. Also, refer to PWS

1.4.

Section F indicates the Period of Performance will begin on 1 October 2016 while

Clause 5252.215-9503 on page 116 indicates the Anticipated Award Date is December

2016. Please clarify.

See the Final RFP.

Clause H.1 – In managing the fleet in an effort to balance flight time and maintenance time across aircraft, who makes the decision as to which aircraft are flown for a particular mission, the Navy or the contractor? What constitutes Non-Reporting

Time? Does Non-Reporting Time include Not Mission Capable Supply time for parts that are not on site or for parts procured under CLIN 0X08?

The Navy specifies mission requirements, the

Contractor prepares the aircraft as "safe for flight".

Refer to the T/M/S NATOPS MESM and CDRL

A003.

See PWS Appendix D for the MC

Computation.

Clause H.1 – For ACI completion, is the 74-day clock stopped if the contractor is waiting on Navy disposition of an engineering request or if the Navy/Government is unable to deliver parts to meet the ACI schedule?

Disposition of any requested waiver to the 74 consecutive day requirement cited in PWS 7.1 would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the PCO.

Clause 52582.245-9500/Section J, Attachment 5 identifies GFP provided under this contract. In the final RFP, will the Navy indicate where the GFP is physically located, particularly in regards…