N0001922R0044 Q_A RFP Amendment 3.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Attached to
- H-53 Depot Modifications IDIQ Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N0001922R0044
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a federal solicitation for depot level modifications to the CH-53 heavy lift helicopter. The Naval Air Systems Command intends to competitively award an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract to a small business to perform non-recurring and recurring engineering changes, fabrication, assembly, system integration and installation support. Key details include a period of performance of five years, pricing of labor categories and travel costs, use of government furnished property and tools at nine locations, transition plans and phase-in requirements, and experience criteria for prime contractors and joint ventures. The proposal due date was extended to July 11, 2022 to allow time to address questions that impacted pricing and schedule preparation.
View the file
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| General Information | |
| Solicitation Number: | N0001922R0044 |
| Question(s) for Draft or Final: | Final |
| # | Document | Reference Paragraph | Question/Feedback | Government Response |
| (PWS, Solicitation, Attachment) | ||||
| 1 | Solicitation | Section L, L.2.2.a) VOLUME 2: PREREQUISITES | The stated requirement is "The certification must be in the name of the legal entity identified in Block 15A of the Offeror’s SF33." The government made provisions in this solicitation for Joint Ventures (JV) to propose and all JVs must be "Unpopulated". Question: Will the USG amend this requirement to "at least one JV Member must be AS9100D or AS9110C certified? | The solicitation does not require that JVs be "unpopulated." Paragraph L2.2a) of the solicitation is being revised to accept the certification from the prime or one of the the members of a JV. The AS9100D or AS9110C standard must still be met for the entirety of contract performance in accordance with FAR clause 52.246-11. |
| 2 | Solicitation | Section L, L.2.4.1 PRICE VOLUME CONTENT | Will the USG specify if these three labor categories (Aircraft Mechanic I, Electronics Technician II, and Quality Manager) are to be priced without deviation as opposed to propsing an Aircraft Mechanic II or Electronics Tech III? | The RFP has been updated to include all applicable labor categories for CPFF CLINs. The Offerors should price the labor categories without deviation. FFP CLINs are to be proposed in accordance with the Offeror's understanding of the technical requirement. |
| 3 | SOW | SOW paragraph 3.12.6.1 | Will the USG clarify if all common hand tools included in Enclosure 3-GFP are available at all nine locations specified in the SOW and specify if there are any tools the Contractor is expected to provide? | All common hand tools will be provided as GFP. Tools will be shipped to the locations specified in the SOW by the USG on a Delivery Order basis as needed. |
| 4 | SOW | SOW paragraph 3.12.6.1 | Will the USG specify where the GFP is physically located? | See question #3 above. There is not an expectation for the Offeror to conduct an inventory of all GFP. Transition will occur on a delivery order basis. The tool boxes listed are to be shipped and shared for installations at each site. The GFP is currently located at MCAS Miramar, MCAS New River, and NAS Norfolk. |
| 5 | SOW | SOW paragraph 3.12.6.1 | If the government's response is the GFP addressed in Enclosure 3 is located at all nine locations, does the government have the expectation that the Contractor will travel to all nine locations during the Transition period to conduct GFP inventories? | See Question #3. There is not an expectation for the Offeror to travel to all locations during the transition period. Transition will occur on a delivery order basis. |
| 6 | Solicitation | NA | Will the USG clarify if this is new work or if there is an incumbent contractor? | See Industry Day #2 slide #15 for incumbent contract |
| 7 | Solicitation | NA | If there is an incumbent contractor, will the USG clarify if there are any CBAs in place? | There are no CBAs in place. |
| 8 | Solicitation | SOW paragraph 8.0 Travel and Incidental Materials | Since most of these installs are to be priced as FFP, will the USG cover OCONUS quarantine requirements as ODC? | All approved travel requirements including any potential OCONUS quarantine requirements will be Cost Reimbursable under CLIN 0028 in preparation for the modification, subject to the availability of funds. If quarantine is required upon returning CONUS, the USG will not pay associated costs. Offerors shall not include travel costs in any unit prices, either FFP or CPFF. |
| 9 | NA | NA | Will the USG specify if TD kits, tools, etc. required for OCONUS installations will be shipped by the government to the destination installation to expedite host-nation Customs delays or will that be for the Contractor to resolve and include in istallation planning? | Yes, government will ship kits and tools to all locations, including OCONUS |
| 10 | Enclosure 2 SOW - TD Alignment | Sheet 1 | CLIN 004 references paragraphs 3.9.1.3 and 3.9.1.2 for AFC 519 Part 3 and the SOW refers to paragraphs 3.9.1.3 and 3.9.2.2 for AFC 519 Part 3, while Section B, CLIN 0003 refers to AFC 519 Part 3. There seems to be several disparities between Enclosure 2, Section B CLINs and the SOW referenced paragraphs. Question: Will the USG correct Enclosure 2 and add the missing CLINs/TDs (e.g. AFC-576 / CLIN 0011, AFC-572 / CLIN 0012, AFC-586 / CLIN 0013, AFC-589 / CLIN 0016, etc.) assuming there is value-added for this Enclosure? | Enclosure 2 is deleted. |
| 11 | SOW | 3.11 Aircraft Retrofit Kits | Currently, this paragraph only addresses CLIN 0023 vice CLINs 0022 and 0023. Will the USG clarify if CLIN 0022 should be referenced in this paragraph as well since CLIN is not referenced anywhere in the SOW? | The SOW is revised to add CLIN 0022 to paragraph 3.11. |
| 12 | SOW | 7.3 | Will the USG provide cranials and Fall Protection Harnesses at each of the nine locations? | Harnesses and Cranials are to be coordinated with the TPOC/PCO and procured via CLIN 0029 if not available. SOW has been revised accordingly. |
| 13 | SOW | General | The SOW has a watermark that indicates it is a "DRAFT". Question: Will the USG be sending an updated SOW without "DRAFT" | SOW has been revised to remove 'DRAFT' watermark. |
| 14 | RFP | L.1.1.2.1.b | The USG states the due date and time can be found in Blk 9 of the SF33 and although the due date and time can be found at "https://piee.eb.mil/sol/xhtml/unauth/search/oppMgmtLink.xhtml?solNo=N0001922R0044", the due date and time is not in blk 9 of the SF33. Question: Will the USG issue a new SF33 to correct this? | The time and date have been added to the SF 33. This aligns to the PIEE dates, which will be used to determine whether a proposal is considered late. |
| 15 | RFP | Table L-2 Offeror Electronic File Naming Convention and Table L-3 Proposal Structure | Table L-2 lists Vol 1 Title as "Cover Letter" and Table L-3 list Vol 1 Title as "Executive Summary". Will the USG reconcile the differences in table L-2 and L-3 Titles? | Volume 1 title has been changed to "Executive Summary." |
| 16 | SOW | 3.12.1.4 Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) | The USG states "As additional system definition is accomplished, the Contractor shall update the CWBS and CWBS dictionary and submit copies to the Government in accordance with CDRL A002." Should the reference to a CDRL in this sentence actually be a reference to CDRL A003 Contractor Work Breakdown Structure? | CWBS updates will affect A003 and then A002. SOW has been revised accordingly. |
| 17 | RFP | General | Will the USG state the Period of Performance? | It is stated in Clause 5252.211-9507 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (NAVAIR)(SEP 2013)-- it says "The contract shall commence on contract award and shall continue for a period of 60 months." |
| 18 | Enclosure_3_GfpAttachment | General | Only one Tab has GFP data (Non-Serially Managed Items). All these items show only QTY of one(1). Is it the USG intention that these items are to be shared among all contractor maintenance personnel at all sites, on simultaneous installations? Are the listed Non-serially Manged Items located in one location (centrallized)? If so, where are they located? | Yes, the tool boxes listed are to be shipped and shared for installations at each site. The GFP is currently located at MCAS Miramar, MCAS New River and NAS Norfolk. |
| 19 | AFC 586 | General | Will the Contractor be responsible for removing engines to facilitate the incorporation of AFC 586? | Installation of AFC-586 does not require the #1 & #3 engines to be removed from the aircraft. See copy of AFC-586 in technical library |
| 20 | SOW | 3.12.6.1 Transition Phase-in | With reference to government's statement "This includes site familiarization", does the USG have the expectation that the Contractor will travel to all nine CONUS and OCONUS sites for familiarization during the 30 day transition Phase-in period? | No, transition Phase-In activities will be required within each DO, not as part of the initial IDIQ award. The SOW has been revised accordingly. |
| 21 | Solicitation | L.2.3.1.b | Under Corporate Experience Criterion 1, it states that the offeror must be a prime contractor on an aircraft modification contract. Which is different from the draft PWS which called out to simply be a prime contractor with 1 year of expereince. Can the Government define "aircraft modification contract"? | 1. See N0001922R0044 RFP Para L.2.2 (b) Recent Corporate Experience: The Offeror (including JV or JV Members) shall provide evidence that it has performed as a Prime Contractor on an aircraft modification contract for at least one year, within three years of the RFP release date. |
| 2. The SOW (not a PWS) issued with the RFP does not contain any references to Corporate Experience. | ||||
| 3. Aircraft Modification contracts consist of the installation of modifications, upgrades and/or conversions to aircraft systems/subsystems/components. | ||||
| 22 | Solicitation | L.2.3.1.c | Contract Reference Substantiation says that the Govt. will "consider offeror's own experience as a prime or subcontrator". Does this apply to all criterion? | Offeror's performance as a Prime or a subcontractor will be considered for all L.2.3.1. criteria except for Criterion #1. Substantiating documentation must clearly demonstrates how the contract reference meets the criteria. |
| 23 | SOW | Transition Para 3.12.6 | Is it the USG's intent to issue the first Delivery Order on the date of Contract Award? If so, is it the USG's intent to delay 30 days (the duration of the Transition Period) before the Contractor commenses performance on the issued Delivery Order? | The USG intends to award the first delivery order (DO) as soon after the IDIQ contract award as possible. The first DO will fund some Program Management efforts (CLIN 0024), including the Transition Phase-In Plan (CDRL A006). It is anticipated that the initial site-specific Transition Phase-In activities will occur at a combination of the three locations specified in Question #4 above. |
| 24 | SOW | Transition Para 3.12.6 | WRT SOW statement "The Contractor shall be required to perform orders under this contract while the incumbent contractor is completing contractual requirements under the previous contract." Will the USG clarify if this requirement is post Transition or during the 30-Day Transition period? | It is anticipated that it will be post-Transition at the sites identified in the initial DO, but there is the possiblity that the incumbent will be completing work on in-process mods during the 30-day transition period at other sites. |
| 25 | SOW | Transition Phase-in Para 3.12.6.1 | Will the USG clarify there is NO need to include Transition Plan information in the Offeror's response per Section L? | Offeror is not required to address Transition Phase-in activies for Section L Scenario Responses and Management Approach. |
| 26 | SOW | Transition Phase-in Para 3.12.6.1 | Will the USG clarify the statement "Transition Phase-In will not be required upon initial award of the IDIQ" specifically does this mean the Contract award date or Delivery Order issued date? | Transition Phase-In activities will be as specified on a Delivery Order basis. It will not be required upon initial award of the IDIQ contract. |
| 27 | SOW | Transition Phase-in Para 3.12.6.1 | This para states "The Transition Phase-in period begins on the period of performance start date and shall last for a period of 30 calendar days." This statement seems ambiguous with the USG's response to Question #17, which stated "the contract shall commence on contract award". Will the USG clarify if the performance start date and contract award date are the same or different? | These are different dates. Question #17 references the IDIQ Period of Performance, which is the total IDIQ contract ordering period. Performance under this contract is tied to individual deliver orders (DOs) and commences upon the award of the initial delivery order (see question # 23). |
| 28 | SOW | Transition Phase-in Para 3.12.6.1 | If the Performance Start Date is the same date when the first Delivery Order is issued, which would be the beginning of the 30-Day Transition Period, how long does the Contractor have to submit CDRLs A006 and A00A, (Transition Plan, QCP and GOPs) as it is not stated in the SOW or the respective CDRLs? | Per CDRL A006, Block 12, the Transition Phase-In plan is due 10 days after award of the initial DO. |
Per CDRL A00A, The Quality Assurance Program Plan is due 30 days after [IDIQ] contract award; however, site specific GOPS will be required 10 days after award of a DO requiring work at a new site. Therefore, CDRL A00A will be revised before contract award to specify the requirment for a site-specific GOPS after award of a DO requiring work at a new site.
29 Section L According to RFP section L.2.3.1 in order to meet the requisite corporate experience requirements there appears to be a bias against Prime/Sub teaming arrangements vs. JV arrangements even when both entities being proposed are “similarly situated entities”, i.e. small businesses. Specifically, would like to confirm the intent is to only accept GOPs and L.2.3.1 b) Criterion #1-#5 that can be met by Prime contractor only or JV/JV members and that no experience from a Subcontractor (even when performed as a Prime) can be used to meet these requirements? In other words, the Offeror is only to be considered the Prime or JV/JV Member and Subcontractor experience cannot contribute to corporate/Offeror experience? o If the interpretation above is correct, would the Gov’t consider extension of the proposal due date IOT allow for negotiation of JV arrangements that would meet this criteria and best meet the interests of the Government? The intent of RFP Section L.2.3.1 is to ensure the Prime or JV parties, who are responsible for contract oversight, have the requisite experience for execution of this contract. A subcontractor should not be responsible for core management functions.
Refer to section L.1.1.g) for JV submission requirements, that includes a provision for "...JV agreement submissions not yet approved." The Government is extending the proposal submission date to 11 July 2022.
| 30 | SOW | SOW Paragraph 3.12.1 “Program Plans and Controls” subparagraph 3.12.1.2 states “The contractor shall establish, maintain, and use in the performance of this contract an integrated management system that is in compliance with the Industry Guidelines for Earned Value Management Systems (EVMS) EIA-748, as determined by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).” However, the corresponding DFARS 252.234-7002 is not included in the RFP clauses. Additionally, the only Contractor Business System status requested in Attachment L-9 is for the Accounting System required by DFARS 252.242-7006. Please confirm that a DCMA approved or audited EVMS is not required for this contract. | EVMS is not required. The RFP will be updated accordingly. | ||
| 31 | RFP Amd 1 | L.1.1.2.1.2a) | Virus Free Electronic Submission, states to “certify, in their proposal cover letters that all electronic proposal information delivered throughout the evaluation (e.g., original proposal submission, responses to evaluation notices, Final Proposal Revisions) has been checked for viruses…” | ||
| Question: By “Cover Letter”, does the Government mean the contracts letter submitted with the overall proposal; or, does the Government mean for the offeror to include this information within the Executive Summary volume? | In accordance with Table L-2 "Offeror Electronic File Naming Convention" the Offeror should include the information within the Executive Summary Volume under Cover Letter. | ||||
| 32 | RFP Amd 1 | L.1.1.2.2b) | States “Any pages in excess of the maximum page count listed will not be evaluated.” | ||
| Question: will cover pages and tables of contents count toward the page limitation for each volume? | The USG will allow the Offeror one page each for the cover page and table of contents of each volume, these pages will not count towards the page limitation for each volume. | ||||
| 33 | RFP Amd 1 | L.2.1b) | States “The Offeror shall complete Table T-1 Offeror Summary provided in Attachment L2.” | ||
| Question: Will completed Attachment L2 count against the offeror’s page count for Volume 1 Executive Summary? | Attachment L2 will count against the offeror's page count for Volume 1 Executive Summary. | ||||
| 34 | RFP Amd 1 | L.2.1a) | States that Volume 1 Executive Summary shall include “a concise abstract of the Offeror’s approach for each of the evaluation criteria contained in the solicitation.” | ||
| Question: By “evaluation criteria” does the Government mean the criteria stated in Section M.2 “Specific Information”, which breaks out evaluation criteria by “Prerequisites”, “Technical Factor”, “Price”, and “Contract Summary”? | The Executive Summary shall address the technical evaluation criteria in RFP section M.2.2. The RFP will be updated accordingly. | ||||
| 35 | RFP Amd 1 | L.2.2b) | States “The Offeror (including JV or JV Members) shall provide evidence that it has performed as a Prime Contractor on an aircraft modification contract for at least one year, within three years of the RFP release date. The Offeror shall complete Attachment L-3, Contract Reference Experience Information according to the instructions within the attachment, and submitted in Annex A, Supporting Documentation for Volume 2 Prerequisites.” | ||
| Question: There is far more criteria for corporate experience in the technical volume (sections L.2.3.1.b and L.2.3.1.c), which also requires completion of Attachment L-3. Should the offeror reference the same corporate experience contract(s) in both Volumes 2 and 3 and on Attachment L-3? | Yes. The Offeror should reference the same corporate experience contract(s) in both Volume 2 and Volume 3 and on Attachment L-3. | ||||
| 36 | RFP Amd 1 | L.2.3.2a) | States “The Offeror should not assume that the Government evaluators possess any knowledge or familiarity with its company or approach in its proposal. The Offeror shall therefore fully explain any proposed schedules, processes, or procedures which are relevant to demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding and proposed approach.” This is followed by instructions to respond to the 3 scenarios. | ||
| Question: Should the offeror provide their approach for performing the entire IDIQ within the “Understanding the Work” proposal section, or only provide their approach to the specific scenarios? | The Offeror should provide their approaches to each specific scenarios cited L.2.3.2.1.1, L.2.3.2.1.2, and L.2.3.2.1.3. | ||||
| 37 | RFP Amd 1 | L.2.3.3a) | Question: To avoid redundancies, is the offeror permitted to cross-reference between the management approach and DO level management plans for the scenario responses? | The Offeror is not permitted to cross-reference between the management approach and the DO level management plans for the scenario responses. | |
| 38 | RFP Amd 1 | L.2.4.1d)5. | States, "Other Entity - If the Prime proposes to utilize Team Members' pricing as part of the CPFF CLINs, the Team Member must fulfill the requirements for any particular labor category proposed bu location. A labor category under a CPFF CLIN cannot be a mixture of both prime and subcontractor pricing for a given location. | ||
| Question: Will the USG consider allowing both the Prime Contractor and its Subcontractor to propose their CPFF rates for each required PLC and location in order for the USG to evaluate the proposed rates and indirect cost of each entity? As currently written, this section indicates a need to identify work-share over a 5-year period for an undefined scope of work related to emergent modification installations by stating, "Team Member must fulfill the requirements for any particular labor category proposed by location." As part of the value-added proposition of a teaming arrangement, each entity would like to plan the execution of work at the task order level as those requirements become more defined throughout the period of performance for this IDIQ. | The Offeror is responsible for determining which entity's rate to use for the proposal, but the proposed rate will be used in contract execution, regardless of the entity that ultimately performs the work. | ||||
| 39 | RFP Amd 1 | L.2.4.1d)5. | Question: The change in definition of work share changes the proposal development, and to create a quality submission will require sufficient time to re-evaluate and plan. Will the Government extend the submission date to July 15, to accommodate for the two holidays of Juneteenth and 4th of July? | The USG will extend the proposal due date to Monday, 11 July 2022. | |
| 40 | Attachment_L5_Other_Entity_Cost_Summary_Amendment_1 | Instructions Tab. Cells C2 and C3 (instructions on row 10) | Row 10 instructions state, "The Other Entity shall provide its name and Point of Contract in cells C2 and C3 above." Should the instructions reference Cells C1 and C2 rather than C2 and C3? Also, cells C1 and C2 are locked and cannot be completed as instructed. | This has been corrected in the Attachment L5 Amd 2 File | |
| 41 | Enclosure__1__H53_Depot_Mod_FY_Schedule_and_Locations & Attachment_L4_CostPrice_Summary_Table_Amendment_1 | Enclosure 1 CLIN 0013 (both documents) | For FY’23, CLIN 0013 (AFC-586) in Enclosure 1_H53_Depot_Mod_FY_Schedule shows zero requirements for all locations but Attachment L4, Est Qty Worksheet, reflects one requirement in NAS Norfolk, Vafor AFC-586. Will the government clarify which document is correct and update the respective document? | Enclosure 1 is a notional schedule for planning purposes. Attachment L4 is to be used for cost and pricing, and is to be populated as it stands. Neither document will be revised as part of the RFP. | |
| 42 | Enclosure__1__H53_Depot_Mod_FY_Schedule_and_Locations & Attachment_L4_CostPrice_Summary_Table_Amendment_1 | Enclosure 1 CLIN 0002 (both documents) | For FY’23, CLIN 0002 (AFC-601), Enclosure 1_H53_Depot_Mod_FY_Schedule and Attachment L4, Est Qty Worksheet shows zero requirements in column "F", but Attachment L4, Est Qty Worksheet has an “X” in the Miramar location in column "J". Will the government clarify which document is correct and update the respective document? | See question #41. | |
| 43 | Enclosure__1__H53_Depot_Mod_FY_Schedule_and_Locations & Attachment_L4_CostPrice_Summary_Table_Amendment_1 | Enclosure 1 CLIN 0002 (both documents) | For FY27, CLIN 0002 (AFC-601), Enclosure 1_H53_Depot_Mod_FY_Schedule shows five requirements and the Miramar location has an “X.” In Attachment L4, Est Qty Worksheet, there are five requirements in column "AT" but column "AX" of Attachment 4, Tentative Schedule Worksheet, shows five requirements but only four at the Miramar location. Will the government clarify which document is correct and update the respective document? | See question #41. | |
| 44 | Enclosure__1__H53_Depot_Mod_FY_Schedule_and_Locations & Attachment_L4_CostPrice_Summary_Table_Amendment_1 | Enclosure 1 CLIN 0020 (both documents) | For FY24, CLIN 0020 (AFC-546) Enclosure 1_H53_Depot_Mod_FY_Schedule shows zero requirements for all locations but Attachment L4, Est Qty Worksheet, column "P" shows two requi rements without providing a location. Will the government clarify which document is correct and update the respective document? | See question #41. | |
| 45 | Enclosure__1__H53_Depot_Mod_FY_Schedule_and_Locations & Attachment_L4_CostPrice_Summary_Table_Amendment_1 | Enclosure 1 CLINs 0022 and 0023 (both documents) | For FY23 – FY27 CLINs 0022 and 0023 (Retrofit Kits) in Attachment L4, Est Qty Worksheet (Row 30), shows 20 requirements and 6 requirements respectively, but there is no correlating file or tab that shows the location for these requirements. Will the government provide the locations for CLINs 0022 and 0023? | See question #41. | |
| 46 | SF-33 | Paragraph 9 | Will the government provide a two week extension for the submission date due to the impact these questions have on pricing and schedule preparation? | See question #39. | |
| 47 | Attachment_L4_CostPrice_Summary_Table_Amendment_1; Attachment_L6_Section_B_CLINs_and_Prices.docx; N0001922R0044_Final_RFP_Amendment_2_Conformed | "Total By CLIN" Worksheet CLIN 0013; Section B CLIN 0013; RFP Paragraph L.2.4.1 c) 1. | RFP Paragraph L.2.4.1 c) 1. states "the estimated schedule is an estimate only, and price proposals must account for the total quantity identified per CLIN in Section B of the solicitation, assuming an ordering period of five (5) years. The total value of the CLIN is calculated as the proposed unit price multiplied by the quantity in Section B of the respective CLIN." Section B CLIN 0013 specifies a quantity of 18, however, the Attachment_L4_CostPrice_Summary_Table_Amendment_1, "Total By CLIN" worksheet calculates the Estimated Amount for CLIN 0013 at quantity of 1. Which quantity is correct? Will the Government make the correction on the appropriate document. | The correct quantity for CLIN 0013 is two (2). Enclosure 1, Section B, and Attachment L4 will be revised accordingly. | |
| 48 | Attachment_L4_CostPrice_Summary_Table_Amendment_1 | Travel Worksheets | When Travel costs (Airfare, Lodging, Car Rental and Per Diem) are input for NAS Patuxent River, MD, the "Travel Per Trip" tab calculates the cost for MD but also puts the amount for CLIN 0025 in all locations. Then the "Travel Per CLIN" worksheet puts the Travel Cost in NC and CA and not in MD. Because the Travel per CLIN appears to be driven off of the "Tentative Schedule", this suggests a formula error. There appears to be several formula errors in the worksheet. It is impossible to verify the errors because the spreadsheets are protected and the formulas cannot be viewed. Will the Government correct the spreadsheets and allow offerors to view the formulas? | These formulas in attachment L4 have been corrected in Amendment 3. | |
| 49 | Attachment L-4 | Tab: Tentative Schedule, Row 23 Column P | FY24 shows two occurences of AFC-546, but no location is identified for the install. Can the Government please provide the applicable location for proper pricing? | These locations ahve been added in L4 Amendment 3. | |
| 50 | Technical Library | GFI for N0001922R0044, Document H-53-AFC-482-RA | TD AFC-482 RA was included in the documents of the Technical Library, but there is no CLIN associated with this TD or apparent relationship to another TD. Can the Government clarify the reason for including TD AFC-482 RA in the solicitation package? | There was a potential requirement for AFC-482 RA that was not realized. AFC-482 RA will be deleted from the Tech Library. | |
| 51 | Amendment 2 | ||||
| pg. 85 | L.2.4.1, e.2 | The solicitation states that the offeror is required to propose travel costs for all travel required over the 5-year ordering period. The offeror has no definitive way to escalate the cost of airfare, lodging, car rental, or Government determined per diem rates for the requisite out years. Depending on the amount of necessary travel commensurate with the overall technical approach, over escalation of these numbers could pose a non-competitive price to the USG and impact the determined value of the offeror's proposal submission. Will the USG advise the specific escalation rates to use in order to consistently price 5-year travel requirements? | The offeror shall bid travel in current FY22 rates, with 3% year over year escalation. |
https://piee.eb.mil/sol/xhtml/unauth/search/oppMgmtLink.xhtml?solNo=N0001922R0044
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .