Govt Responses to Industry Questions.xlsx

Combined

Section:

App.

However, from the responsibility aspect for this evaluation, Offerors will be required to have an approved Property Management Business System. Since GP is being provided to the Contractor, and FAR 52.245-1 is included, refer to paragraph (f) for specific guidance on Contractor plans and systems in regards to Government Property. In order to be deemed "responsible" an Offeror will need to have a DCMA approved Property Management Business System.

Sec. C App. F Appendix F: QASP: "Satisfactory Performance - Deliver all requisitioned material within 96 hours to the aircraft at any required OCONUS location. Marginal Performance - Deliver all requisitioned material greater 120 hours to the aircraft at any required OCONUS location."

The Government has not defined how it will classify a 96-120 hour timeframe result. (a) Please provide how the government will classify a 96-120 hour result.

(b) Recommend either 96 hours or 120 hours for both definitions as the performance metric. The Government has updated Appendix F, Enclosure 2 to reflect the following:

Satisfactory Performance = 1 to 96 hours Marginal Performance = 97 hours or above

The Government has clarified the PWS to reflect that the Contractor shall procure the initial inventory of contractor owned DSK parts (in Paragraph 4.3) and that the Contractor is responsible for the replenishment of such items (Section 9.0 ).

1) MOB monthly number of launches and recoveries;

Please clarify what the Government considers a "commercial" quality system." (a) Will a system that complies with ISO 9001, AS9100 or AS9110 be sufficient? (b) Is registration to a specific quality standard required? Section 3.1 of the PWS has been updated from "Commercial Quality System" to "Commercial Quality Management System."

(a)The Government does not evaluate an Offeror's potential proposal response in advance of the solicitation release.

(b) The PWS does not require registration to a specific industry quality management standard.

In App F, there is a requirement to provide evidence that application to the Dept of State for the appropriate export license has been completed within 45 days. In accordance with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR 123.1(a), it states that any person who intends to export or temporarily import a defense article must obtain the approval of Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) unless the export or temporary import qualifies for an exemption under the provisions of this subchapter. Exemption usage require no approval from DDTC, exporters self-certify that the usage of exemptions is applicable.

Is this one of the following documents provided in PWS Section 2.2:

(a) Boeing D741-70000-1,

(b) Boeing D633A101-USN, and/or

(c) and other document(s)?

If other documents, please specify.

Additional information can be found in the DoD Foreign Clearance Guide (FCG) available at https://www.fcg.pentagon.mil/fcg.cfm for NIPRnet and https://www.fcg.pentagon.smil.mil/index.html for SIPRnet.

PWS Section 22.0 has been updated to reflect this and specify that the Contractor utilize the CFM56-7B Workscope Planning Guide.

Sec. C 22.0 22.0 Please define what is considered over and above during engine overhaul Any discrepancies discovered during the course of performance that are outside the scope of the engine overhaul and are approved by the Government will be considered allowable over and above work.

PWS Section 22.0 has been updated to clarify/detail this.

Sec. C 30.0 30.0 Please clarify the thresholds between baseline and over and above C-Check workload. Any work that

1) was not identifiable at the time of task order award;

2) is outside the scope of C-Check inspection/maintenance;

3) was discovered during task order performance; AND

4) is required in order to satisfactorily complete performance (return the aircraft to airworthiness status).

For work beyond that included in the baseline FFP work, but within the scope of a C-Check action, see PWS Paragraph 13.13 (C-Check Task Order Execution). This covers scope unknown at the time of the base IDIQ contract award, but identifiable at the time of task order award.

Please confirm that all JV Team Members that make up a Joint Venture are defined as principal entities. The Government has updated Section L, Part A, Section 1 as follows:

"Throughout these instructions, “Offeror” is defined as the prime contractor with its CAGE code identified in Block 17A on Standard Form (SF) 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items. A “Joint Venture” (JV) is a partnership or teaming arrangement that is formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation when the prime contractor consists of more than one legal entity. “JV Team Members” are the entities that make up a Joint Venture. The term “entity” is used to mean any or all of the following: prime contractor, JV, JV team members, any subcontractor, and corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate (e.g., any contractor with a different CAGE Code/DUNS than the Offeror). The following entities are defined as principal entities and only principal entities will be used in the evaluation of this solicitation: (a) the prime contractor; (b) JV Team Members; and (c) other entities that are proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed total price for the contract; and (d) entities that are proposed to perform a critical function, whether technical or financial, in the performance of the resulting contract. Critical functions include but are not limited to: Commercial Line Maintenance (CLM)/Organizational-Level (O-Level) Maintenance and Main Operating Base (MOB) Site Logistics/Supply Support. The Government reserves the right to determine if an entity proposed performs a critical function. Offerors are advised that in order to demonstrate work commitment, each principal entity shall be identified in Volume 4 (Price) and associated with a commensurate dollar value."

The Government has updated Section L to reflect the following:

"The Offeror shall demonstrate for each contract reference that the principal entity’s proposed “Roles and Responsibilities with Work Description” identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) is for the same work performed as and identified in Volume 2 (Prerequisite) paragraph 2.1.2.1 (Method 1 - COSC for Prerequisite Paragraph 2.1.2) and paragraph 2.1.2.2 (Method 2 - CDS-P for Prerequisite Paragraph 2.1.2). For this solicitation, the contract reference will not be considered if the principal entity’s proposed “Roles and Responsibilities with Work Description” identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) is not for the same work performed as and identified in Volume 2 (Prerequisite) paragraph 2.1.2.1 (Method 1 - COSC for Prerequisite Paragraph 2.1.2) and paragraph 2.1.2.2 (Method 2 - CDS-P for Prerequisite Paragraph 2.1.2)."

Sec. L L: B-1 1.2.5. "The relevant contracts provided for each principal entity shall be relative to its proposed role and responsibilities identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary)."

Please confirm that teammates who do not meet the Principal Entity metrics are unrestricted to the type of work they perform. It is at the Offeror's discretion with whom it partners and the nature of the work they perform to meet the PWS requirements.

For this evaluation, the Government will only consider an Offeror's principal entities.

"The Offeror shall demonstrate for each contract reference that the principal entity’s proposed “Roles and Responsibilities with Work Description” identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) is for the same work performed as and identified in Volume 2 (Prerequisite) paragraph 2.1.2.1 (Method 1 - COSC for Prerequisite Paragraph 2.1.2) and paragraph 2.1.2.2 (Method 2 - CDS-P for Prerequisite Paragraph 2.1.2). For this solicitation, the contract reference will not be considered if the principal entity’s proposed “Roles and Responsibilities with Work Description” identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) is not for the same work performed as and identified in Volume 2 (Prerequisite) paragraph 2.1.2.1 (Method 1 - COSC for Prerequisite Paragraph 2.1.2) and paragraph 2.1.2.2 (Method 2 - CDS-P for Prerequisite Paragraph 2.1.2)."

Sec. L L: B-2 Section L.B.2.1.2.1 indicates that a certifying official may use their signature to provide alternate verification of a contractor's experience. However, there is no mention of this being a requirement for an electronic signature. Electronic signatures require a digital ID which in turn requires payment to a third party company. Not all certifying officials have a digital signature.

2.1.1: "The Offeror shall demonstrate using authoritative documentation provided in Volume 2 (Prerequisite) that the principal entity team member(s) performing aircraft maintenance ... has a current Title 14, CFR, Part 145 Certification aircraft in the Design group of “C” through “E” as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Classification Group."

Request the Government clarify that in 2.1 the "Offeror" includes their Principal Entities as described in 2.1.1. If so, recommend the Government change the verbiage in 2.1 to "The Offeror and it's Principal Entities shall demonstrate ..." Section L has been updated to the following:

"Throughout these instructions, “Offeror” is defined as the prime contractor with its CAGE code identified in Block 17A on Standard Form (SF) 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items. A “Joint Venture” (JV) is a partnership or teaming arrangement that is formed for the purpose of responding to this solicitation when the prime contractor consists of more than one legal entity. “JV Team Members” are the entities that make up a Joint Venture. The term “entity” is used to mean any or all of the following: prime contractor, JV, JV team members, any subcontractor, and corporate parent, division, subsidiary, or affiliate (e.g., any contractor with a different CAGE Code/DUNS than the Offeror). The following entities are defined as principal entities and only principal entities will be used in the evaluation of this solicitation: (a) the prime contractor; (b) JV Team Members; and (c) other entities that are proposed to perform at least 20% of the proposed total price for the contract; and (d) entities that are proposed to perform a critical function, whether technical or financial, in the performance of the resulting contract. Critical functions include: Commercial Line Maintenance (CLM)/Organizational-Level (O-Level) Maintenance and Main Operating Base (MOB) Site Logistics/Supply Support."

"The Offeror shall provide authoritative documentation in Volume 2 (Prerequisite), demonstrating the proposed principal entity identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) as the aircraft maintenance depot repair station under “Roles and Responsibilities with Work Description” has a current Title 14, CFR, Part 145 Certification for aircraft in the Design group of “C” through “E” as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Classification Group."

Sec. L L: B-2 2.1.2. "For Section L, Part B Volume 2 (Prerequisite), the Offeror shall not submit more than three (3) contract references for each paragraph 2.1.2.a and 2.1.2.b, respectively."

Request the Government confirm that the three contract references can come from different entities (Prime, JV, Principal Entity, or Subcontractor (that meets the criterial of principal entity). Yes. The Offeror's proposed principal entity's “Roles and Responsibilities with Work Description” identified in the Offeror's Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) must be for the same work performed and as identified in the respective contract reference proposed to demonstrate the Prerequisite paragraph 2.1.2 requirements.

The Government has updated Section L as follows:

"The Offeror shall demonstrate for each contract reference that the principal entity’s proposed “Roles and Responsibilities with Work Description” identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) is for the same work performed as and identified in Volume 2 (Prerequisite) paragraph 2.1.2.1 (Method 1 - COSC for Prerequisite Paragraph 2.1.2) and paragraph 2.1.2.2 (Method 2 - CDS-P for Prerequisite Paragraph 2.1.2). For this solicitation, the contract reference will not be considered if the principal entity’s proposed “Roles and Responsibilities with Work Description” identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary) is not for the same work performed as and identified in Volume 2 (Prerequisite) paragraph 2.1.2.1 (Method 1 - COSC for Prerequisite Paragraph 2.1.2) and paragraph 2.1.2.2 (Method 2 - CDS-P for Prerequisite Paragraph 2.1.2)."

Sec. L L: B-2 2.1.2: "The Offeror shall demonstrate ... it has performed the following on aircraft in the Design group of “C” through “E” as defined by the ICAO Classification Group: a. O-Level/Commercial Line Maintenance ..., and b. Supply Support of aircraft parts distribution."

Request the Government confirm that in 2.1.2, the term "Offeror" includes the Offeror Team's Principal Entities. If so, recommend the Government change the verbiage to "The Offeror and it's Principal Entities shall demonstrate ..." The Government has updated Volume 2 (Prerequisite), paragraph 2.1.2 (O-Level maintenance and Supply Support) to the following:

"The Offeror shall provide authoritative documentation in Volume 2 (Prerequisite), demonstrating the proposed contract reference identified in Table ES-2 (Relevant Contract Summary) has within 10 years from the proposal due date, performed a minimum of twelve (12) consecutive months, on aircraft in the Design group of “C” through “E”, as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Classification Group:

a. CLM/ O-Level Maintenance (as defined in the PWS and for which the contract reference’s performance was similar to PWS paragraphs 11 and 12), and

b. MOB Site Logistics/ Supply Support of aircraft parts distribution (as defined in the PWS and for which the contract reference’s performance was similar to PWS paragraphs 8 through 10)."

Sec. L L: B-2 2.1.2: "The Offeror shall demonstrate ... it has performed the following on aircraft in the Design group of “C” through “E” as defined by the ICAO Classification Group:

a. O-Level/Commercial Line Maintenance ..., and

b. Supply Support of aircraft parts distribution."

While Offerors may not combine multiple contract references to satisfy a single evaluation area of 2.1.2, the same contract reference may be used to satisfy both the O-Level Maintenance and the Supply Support evaluation areas for paragraphs 2.1.2.a and 2.1.2b.

Sec. L L: B-3 What are the USG expectation of threshold values for SB concerns? Although no specific goals are established for this individual contract, DoD Small Business Sub-Contracting goals should be adhered to as much as possible. Further information can be found at the following website in regards to DoD goals and performance: https://business.defense.gov/About/Goals-and-Performance/

&"Times New Roman,Regular"&10N00019-20-R-0013 Enclosure (1) Industry Feedback Worksheet