QA Govt Reponses (042121).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00019-20-RFPREQ-PMA-207-0367
About this file
This draft request for proposal package seeks comments and questions from industry regarding depot-level engine repair and buildup services for KC-130J Quick Engine Change Assemblies. The Naval Air Systems Command intends to issue a solicitation for Rolls-Royce AE2100D3 turboprop engine repair, Radiological Control exposed engine survey and repair, engine storage, and project management. A technical library with additional information is available to potential offerors who submit request forms by March 17th. Industry is requested to provide any comments on the draft package by this same date. The agency will also hold one-on-one pre-solicitation sessions on March 22nd for interested parties to discuss the requirement; requests for these sessions must be submitted by March 17th. No award date or pricing information is included in this draft document.
View the file
Other files
Show all 27
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A Responses (033121)
| Solicitation | |
| Section | Solicitation |
Section:
Part-Paragraph Att.
App.
CDRL PWS Question/Comment Government Response
Sec. L L: B-3 Tech If the contractor elects to propose a reduced MGT, will that reduced MGT value be viewed as a goal or will that reduced MGT become the requirement (replacing 1366⁰F)? It is the Government's intent that if a MGT were reduced that the PWS requirements would be updated with the reduced MGT value if the potential Offeror elected to propose a reduced MGT and deemed attainable and beneficial to the Government.
Potential Offerors are reminded of the following in the solicitation:
Per Section L, Part A General, "The Offeror shall not alter or rearrange the solicitation. Offerors are advised that the Government may incorporate into the final contract any part of the Offeror’s proposal deemed beneficial to the Government."
Section M States: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s reduced QECA repair TAT, reduced RADCON survey TAT, and AE2100D3 Engine Performance with reduced measured gas temperature (MGT) temperature value (if proposed) to determine whether the Offeror’s approach is attainable based on the information provided in the Offeror’s proposal.
| Sec. C | Clause | C-TXT-ECMRA REQUIRED ENTERPRISE-WIDE CONTRACTOR MANPOWER REPORTING APPLICATION (ECMRA) INFORMATION (OCT 2020) | |
| Manpower Reporting in the level of detail requested under this clause is beyond the scope of what is provided under a typical commercial services contract. Manpower Reporting cluases are basedon requirements 10 U.S.C. 235 and 2330a. Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2330a, estimates of the number of contractor employees and direct labor hours are acceptable with the data is not available for the purpose of inventory. As a FAR 12 commercial contract, Contractor will not be providing the data requested under this clause.The US Government can provide estimates to meet it's requirements for annual inventories. | Potential Offeror's are reminded of the following, per section M, Part A, A. Evaluation Process, "Non-compliance with the terms, conditions, or requirements set forth in the solicitation may be considered a deficiency. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency." | ||
| Sec. C | Clause | C-TXT-PDNT Protection of Department of Navy Trademarks (DEC 2020) |
Contractor cannot accept the inclusion of this clause in the draft contract or the Performance Work Statement. Industry groups have already notified the Department of the Navy reqarding it's concerns with this clause. Specifically, it is viewed as a circumvention of the process set forth in United States Trademark Law regarding cancellation of a trademark registration and statutory protections for trademarks orders under Title 15 U.S.C. 1051(a) by preventing a Contractor from applying for protection of any trademarks without prior notification to the Contracting Officer.Additionally, this requirement seems perpetual and applicable beyond the contract term itself.
| Regarding the specific designation in the clause for this draft solicitation, this term seems unnecessary because the designation noted (KC-130J Super Hercules) is, presumably, a Lockheed Martin trademark and would only be required if this contract is awarded to Lockheed Martin. | The Government has considered the Contractor feedback and does not intend to change this language. | |||
| Sec. L | L: B-5 Price | Contractor cannot grant a blanket right to examine records in support of the proposal. Pursuant to the the Federal Acquisition Regulations, the Contracting Officer does have a right to request such information if needed, but Contractor has no specific requirement to grant the Contracting Officer the right to review such records. Additionally, the Federal Acquisition Regulations include no clause that allows the Contracting Officer to demand access to such records based on the submission of a proposal. Contractor will review each request for data by the Contracting Officer and determine if the data can be provided. The data typically requested is subject to confidentiality terms between Contractor and its non-Government customers. | The Government has considered the Contractor feedback and does not intend to change this language. In the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the Government reserves the right to request additional information including other than certified cost or pricing data from both the Offeror and its proposed subcontractors per FAR 12.209 and DFARS 212.209. |
| Sec. F | N/A | Contractor cannot accept FOB: Origin (Shipping Point). Contractor can accept FOB: Origin (After Loading). | The Government has considered the Contractor feedback and does not intend to change this language. |
| Sec. F | Clause | DFARS 252.211-7003. Many bidders would be unable to comply with the requirements in DFARS 252.211-7003 (Item Identification and Valuation). This is a US Government specific requirement and will likely increase the price because Contractors would need to become compliant with the specifics of DFARS 252.211-7003. Would this apply to all CLINs under the draft contract? Is there an alternative that would allow for compliance without being compliant with the specific of DFARS 252.211-7003 (Item Identification and Valuation), such as compliance with 14 CFR Part 45, IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION MARKING? | The Government has considered the Contractor feedback and does not intend to change this language. This clause applies to CLINs (0003-0010). |
If proposing an exception or deviation, the Offeror shall provide a detailed description for each in this section. Indicate the difficulty with the applicable requirement and the proposed solution. Specifically identify the portion of the solicitation and the Offeror’s proposal, which are affected. Also, identify any proposed H-clauses containing unique contract terms and conditions not covered by clauses in this solicitation and associated with an exception or deviation identified in this section. The Government will review the information and may elect to clarify the requirement via an amendment or clarify the requirement by holding discussions.
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 3.0 | Does inclusion of a document on this list require the US Government to be provided a copy of such document? | These documents (e.g. 3.1 Government Documents, 3.2 Kuwait Air Force Specific Documents, 3.3 Other Documents ) are for reference purposes only. Specific requirements are identified in the applicable PWS sections. |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 4.7 | Paragraph 4.7 - Engine Transaction Reporting - Please provide a summary of any changes between NAVAIRINST 13700.15F and NAVAIRINST 13700.15G. | The Government is able to provide a summary of changes between the documents upon request. The Government is unable to provide copies of both documents upon request. |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 5.4 | 5.4 – No parts are listed in the attachment. Which parts is the US Government referring to? | Agree, there are no parts listed on the Attachment at this time. The Government will consider revising the PWS language to clarify its intent. |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 5.7 | 5.7.3 - Contractor cannot accept the inclusion of this clause in the draft contract or the Performance Work Statement. Industry groups have already notified the Department of the Navy reqarding it's concerns with this clause. Specifically, it is viewed as a circumvention of the process set forth in United States Trademark Law regarding cancellation of a trademark registration and statutory protections for trademarks orders under Title 15 U.S.C. 1051(a) by preventing a Contractor from applying for protection of any trademarks without prior notification to the Contracting Officer.Additionally, this requirement seems perpetual and applicable beyond the contract term itself. |
| Regarding the specific designation in the clause for this draft solicitation, this term seems unnecessary because the designation noted (KC-130J Super Hercules) is, presumably, a Lockheed Martin trademark and would only be required if this contract is awarded to Lockheed Martin. | The Government has considered the Contractor feedback and does not intend to change this language. | |||||
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 6.1 | 6.1.7 - Contractor suggests rephrasing this section to read: | ||
| The Contractor shall replace all life limited components referenced in the KC-130J PMIM with less than 800 cycles (for cylce base LLPs) or 1600 flight hours (for hour-based LLPs) life remaining per the recorded cycles in the Engine Logbook. | The Government will take this into consideration. | |||||
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 6.1 | 6.1.11 - As state above, cannibalization of parts reduces turn-around time and gets a repaired asset back to the warfighter sooner.Additionally, this is a normal part of any maintenance center operation and represents an industry standard operating procedure. The list of CSI parts contained in Attachment 4 includes several items what will increase costs to the US Government due to lack of transfer options or use of a rotable pool of parts. Please provide explanation why the US Government does not wish to participate in the is industry standard operating process for engine maintenance? | The Government's intent is to not exclude cannabalization and instead to capture the cost impact to the Government. | |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 6.1 | 6.1.12 - This term is overly burdensome and will have a significant impact on price and turn-around time. Contractor suggests the inclusion of transfer of title language that will remove any requirement for US Government to provide disposition instructions. Proposed language: |
Title to any Government equipment (i.e. parts, components) replaced by the Contractor during the term of this contract (i.e. Government-owned parts replaced during overhaul or upgrade by the Contractor) shall pass to the Contractor upon replacement. Title to the replacement equipment shall, at the same time, pass to the Government.
| The Government does not intend to update the language. | ||||
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 6.3 | 6.3 QECK Repairs - For clarification purposes, anything beyond minor maintenance (for example, tires or jack stands) on the QEC Dolly will be the Government's responsibility to repair (for example, structural damage or replacement of parts). If a QEC Dolly arrives with significant damage, Contractor will notify NAVAIR and NAVAIR will have to provide any parts needed for repair. |
| The Government will take this into consideration. | |||||
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 6.3 | 6.3 QECK Repairs: There are no QEC hour-based workscope levels specified in this PWS. How will QEC workscope levels be determined? | It is the Contractor's discretion in how they want to meet this requirement. |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 6.3 | 6.3.1 Deviation Requests - Deviation requests are outside the control of the Contractor and Contractor requests any delay caused by a deviation request put a hold on Turn-Around Time days. | The Government will take this into consideration |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 6.5 | 6.5 Propeller Gearbox and Gearbox Mounted Accessory Drive Repair - There are no propeller gearbox and GMAD hour-based workscope levels specified in this PWS. How will propeller gearbox and GMAD workscope levels be determined? | It is the Contractor's discretion in how they want to meet this requirement. |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 6.9 | 6.9 Cost Reporting – This is not an acceptable section of the draft PWS. The US Government is seeking a FFP Commercial contract for these services and insight into labor hours, material costs, and total cost is outside the scope of this agreement. Inherent in a competitive procurement for a FFP Commercial service is that the fixed price is fair and reasonable and that the Contractor takes on any risk on Bill of Material or work scope. | The Government will take this into consideration. |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | App. C | Appendix C. 2.1 - Does "repair documentation" refer to the engine COC? | Yes. Repair documentation does include COC along with other documentation and PWS language will be updated to further clarify. |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | App. D | Appendix D - D.1(d) - Contractor assumes that authorization for induction of the QECA or standalone components is authorized upon issuance of the Delivery Order authorizing such activity. Contractor suggests revisions to this paragraph to reflect that. | The Government will take this into consideration. |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (4) | Why has the CSI list changed from the 2016 solicitation? | The CSI list applicable to this solicitation reflects the Government's current CSI requirements. | |
| Sec. L | L: B-3 Tech | Att. L-3 | Contractor will not be providing a BOM. | Potential Offeror's are reminded of the following, per section M, Part A, A. Evaluation Process, "Non-compliance with the terms, conditions, or requirements set forth in the solicitation may be considered a deficiency. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency." | |
| Sec. J | N/A | CDRL A005 | CDRL A005 (Bill of Material for SCRM) Contractor will not accept this CDRL | Potential Offeror's are reminded of the following, per section M, Part A, A. Evaluation Process, "Non-compliance with the terms, conditions, or requirements set forth in the solicitation may be considered a deficiency. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency." | |
| Sec. J | N/A | Document | Block 14 of ALL CDRLs. There is a requirement for Engine Tracking System (ETS), but this is not setup for efficient CDRL tracking. CDRLs will be submitted via DOD SAFE. Additionally, requiring that the Data Manger send an acknowledgement receipt email for a CDRL to be considered delivered is not acceptable. This may result in late delivery of a CDRL because the US Government Data Managers are out of the office or unable to respond to the delivery of a CDRL. Contractor submission of the CDRL via DOD SAFE and an email to the Government Data Managers notifying of the document drop off is sufficient. | The Government will take this into consideration and will update the CDRLs to further clarify. | |
| Sec. L | L: B-3 Tech | Att. L-4 | Contractor views this document as beyond the scope of the FAR and DFARS rules covering small business usage and plans. As such, it will not be provided. | DFARS 215.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors. |
"(c)(i) In acquisitions that require use of the clause at FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, other than those based on the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process (see FAR 15.101-2), the extent of participation of small businesses to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns in performance of the contract shall be addressed in source selection. The contracting officer shall evaluate the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small business performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor."
As the DFARS states, the extent of the participation shall be addressed in source selection. The Government is simply creating a template for potential Offerors to supply the information regarding participation by providing the companies it plans to subcontract with, as this document is part of contract execution.
Q&A Responses (042121)
| Solicitation | |
| Section | Solicitation |
Section:
Part-Paragraph Att.
App.
CDRL PWS Question/Comment Government Response
| Sec. H | H: H-2 Cann. LD | Cannibalization of parts reduces turn-around time and gets a repaired asset back to the warfighter sooner. Liquidated Damages are typically utilized to cover future breaches or defaults on the contract, no something that provides a benefit to the customer. How was “damage” calculated at $1,880 per request? How does cannibalization of parts fit into a damages section? Is the Contractor charged $1,880 per engine or per part request? And is the charge only when a request is granted? |
| The Liquidated Damages rate is a reasonable forecast of just compensation for the harm that is caused by late delivery or untimely performance of the particluar contract. The calculation is based on the compensation for the harm that would impact the Government. Yes, the charge is per request if granted per PWS paragraph 6.1.11. |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 4.3 | Paragraph 4.3.2 SCRM - This paragraph represents increased US Government insight and review of Contractor supply chain risk management processed. Additionally, a Bill of Material for the AE 2100D3 will not be provided. In order to understand the need for this requirement, Contractor requires additional information. Is this requirement a result of a DOD Instruction or Memo? If so, please provide such information so Contractor can review alignment between the DOD and Contractor processes. This will help determine what level of access the US Government is seeking and what Contractor can provide to assist in DOD SCRM activitiesWhat specific risks does the US Government want identified in this program? | The Government is taking this into consideration. Please see the final solicitation. |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 4.8 | 4.8 – Please provide the Cybersecurity Plan (CSP) that the Contractor Cybersecurity Implementation Plan (CSIP) should be addressing. | The Government is taking this into consideration. Please see the final solicitation. |
| Sec. J | J: Att 1 (PWS) | Att. (1) PWS | 5.7 | 5.7.2 Configuration Control - This paragraph represents increased scope, requiring incorporation of any TDs a QEC has not complied with. For awareness, this will have a significant impact on costs. | The Government will take this into consideration. There are no new anticipated TDs tied to the QECK that the Government is aware of at this time. |
Sec. J N/A Att. (1) PWS 7.0 Can the Government please clarify Cost Reduction Initiatives, paragraph 7.0? The Government has updated Attachment 1 PWS, paragraph 7.0 Cost Reduction Initatives, as follows:
"During contract performance the Contractor shall notify the COR and PCO of potential Cost Reduction Initiatives (CRIs) that will reduce the Contractor’s cost to perform QECK repairs (CLIN 0004), Power Section Repairs (CLIN 0005), and/or Propeller Gearbox and Gearbox Mounted Accessory Drive Repairs (CLIN 0006). The Contractor shall provide a notification of a potential CRI to the COR and copy the PCO via the weekly teleconferences in accordance with paragraph 5.2.2, prior to submitting any CRI proposals to the Government. If proposing a potential CRI, the Contractor shall describe, define, and substantiate the expected costs savings. If the Government decides to implement the CRI, to include negotiating the expected cost savings on the affected CLIN(s), a bilateral contract action may be executed."
Please see the final solicitation.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .