Govt Responses to Industry Questions 1.pdf

Set # 1 (Draft RFP) 12 December 2024

Government Responses to Industry Questions N0001925R0003 Enclosure (1)

Industry Feedback Worksheet

No. Question/Comment Government Response

Paragraph 1.2 states that Performance Based CLS is inclusive of "all support actions" required for the operating and maintaining the aircraft, subsystems, appliances and support equipment. That suggest that engines and flight simulators are in scope. PWS paragraph provides a more narrow and specific list of what is included in CLS. Please clarify what the government means by "all support actions".

All Support Actions are more specifically described in PWS Paragraph 1.3.

Engines are aircraft components and therefore subject to the PWS requirements. This includes providing support material as well as performing on-wing O-level maintenance and Depot-level maintenance and minor repairs at the aircraft depot facility or by a field team.

Off-wing engine repair and overhaul will be performed under a different contract. Simulators are not included in the scope of this contract.

Paragraphs 1.1 and 1.4 state that aircraft are maintained an operated under the FAA Type Certification. Type Certification is related to the design of the aircraft, not how it is operated and maintained. Suggest clarifying that the aircraft is maintained per 14 CFR Part 43 and operated as a public use aircraft that strives to operate under 14 CFR Part 121.

PWS Paragraph 1.1 has been updated to read, "C-40A aircraft... are operated as a commercial derivative aircraft under 14 CFR Part 121".

PWS Pargraph 1.4 has been updated to add "Aircraft are maintained per 14 CFR Part 43", removing "operated under the FAA Type Certification".

Paragraphs 1.5.1 & 1.5.2 list the basic configuration differences between the USN & USMC aircraft. Are there other configuration differences that should be disclosed to bidders?

The different configurations do not affect the ability to participate in a Commercial Parts Pool and will not be provided to Offerors. Offerors shall bid to 737-700C, to encompass any configuration of the aircraft. There are configuration differences from USN aircraft to USN aircraft and between USN and USMC C-40A from the time of production. Following contract award, the Boeing IPC will list the configurations for each aircraft's effectivity.

Para 2.2 lists Technical Documents. If there are substantive changes to technical documents that impact the number of hours or materials required to perform maintenance tasks, is there a mechanism for the contractor to provide an update BOE/Cost for such tasks or material? If yes, can the government define what would be a "substantive change"?

There will not be a mechanism for impacts from changes to the technical documents listed in PWS Paragraph 2.2, as the Contractor is required to "comply with the most recent versions of the applicable maintenance technical data during contract performance".

NAVAIRINST 3750.5D CH-1 (Aviation Safety Management System) cannot be found online. Please confirm it is a valid number and provide link if possible. This document will be provided in the technical library.

6 Where government lists FAA 14 CFR Part 25.1529, you may want to consider changing the reference to 14 CFR Part 25 Appendix H PWS Paragraph 2.1 has been updated to remove "1529" and PWS Paragraph 3.3 has been updated to reference "Appendix H to 14 CFR Part 25".

OPNAVINST 2221.5D speaks to the provision of COMSEC Material to Contractors. It does not appear from the PWS that this instruction is needed? At CLM sites, the Contractor is required to handle Unclassified COMSEC. PWS paragraph 3.7.1 has been updated to clarify and reference to OPNAVINST 2221.5D has been removed from PWS Section

2.1.

8 NAVAIRINST 13650.1 is listed as a reference but not cited in the PWS. Please explain how the reference relate to the work scope. This reference has been removed from the PWS.

9 ISO 17025:2017 is listed under applicable documents but not referenced in the PWS. Please clarify contractor responsibility in this area. PWS Paragraph 8.4 has been updated to state "The Contractor shall use testing and calibration laboratories that comply with ISO 17025:2017."

FAA Memorandum AIR-100-11-100-002. Since Naval C-40A are public use aircraft and not registered with the FAA, the FAA has limited ability to enforce its policies. Given the FAA's opinion, is the OEM able to give the Government access to provide copies of ICA to the contractor?

PWS Section 29.0 states, "... It is the sole responsibility of the Contractor to request and obtain all necessary access to data necessary to meet the requirements...". This requirement will remain in place. FAA policies apply to the C-40A and as such, must be complied with.

In accordance with the cited memo: "For those maintenance providers that have the necessary FAA rating, FAA Order 8110.54A, chapter 6 paragraph 4.a, states that the DAH would be required to make the ICA and any subsequent revisions available directly to the maintenance provider upon its request." The memo continues, "it is not acceptable for a DAH to limit the distribution of ICA through restrictive access or use agreements, or by adding restrictive language that would control the use of ICA by an owner/operator with respect to the maintenance of its product."

Therefore, data access need not go through the Government.

11 32 CFR Part 117 is not FAA related, recommend dropping FAA from Publication Number. The PWS has been updated to remove "FAA" from "32 CFR Part 117" in Paragraph 2.1.

DoDM 8140.03 speaks to Cyberspace Workforce Qualification and Management. Please identify which contractor positions will be performing "cyberspace work" per para 1.1.b. of the instruction.

PWS Paragraph 3.8 has been updated to specify that "the Contractor shall designate a Systems Security Engineer or Cybersecurity engineer to perform cybersecurity work, in accordance with DoDM 8140.03".

When DoD endorsed NAS 411 it developed two data items:

1. DI-MISC-81398 Hazardous Material Management Program Plan and

2. DI-MISC-81397 Hazardous Materials Management Program Report, which are not listed as being required in PWS. Are either of those items required deliverables.

DI-MISC-81398 and -81397 are not required deliverables. However, the Contractor must comply with both DI-MISC-81398 and -81397 as part of DoD requirements.

DoD 5400.7 should be DoDD 5400.07. Further this directive is not called out anywhere in PWS. Is there a relevant work scope that offerors should be aware of?

The reference has been updated from DoD 5400.7 to DoDM 5400.07 in Paragraph 2.1 of the PWS. This regulation is to be cited in this PWS in the event that there is a FOIA request.

15 Should Para 3.9.5 reference DODINST 4160.21-M read DoDM 4160.21? The reference has been updated to "DoDM 4160.21" in PWS Paragraph 3.9.5.

Paragraph 3.9.4 states that mishaps should be reported per OPNAVINST 3750.6. OPNAV 3750.6 states that mishaps at the depot should be reported per OPNAVINST 5102.1D (now OPNAV M-5102.1). Please confirm correct guidance.

Please use the OPNAVINST 3750.6 as directed by PWS Paragraph 3.9.4 and follow the guidance within the instruction.

Paragraph 3.1 states "Accordingly, with the exception of those listed in 14 CFR Parts 121.371 and 121.378, the Contractor shall comply with FAA 14 CFR Part 43 to keep the aircraft within FAA Type Design by meeting the intent of 14 CFR Part 121 Sections L and V for maintenance, preventative maintenance, alterations, and associated aircraft and engine records." Does the government require the contractor to comply with all of 14 CFR Part 121 section L or just subparts 371 & 378? Please clarify this requirement.

The Contractor shall comply with all of 14 CFR Part 121, Subpart L, with the exception of 14 CFR 121.371 and 14 CFR Part 121.378.

PWS Paragraph 2.1 has been updated to remove 14 CFR 121.371 and 14 CFR 121.378.

PWS states that contractor shall use "C-40A Maintenance Program" as described in Section 2. Can the government please identify which document describes the C-40A Maintenance Program?

Offerors shall use Boeing D741-70000-1, Maintenance Management Plan, which describes the C-40A Maintenance Program.

PWS Paragraph 3.4 has been updated to further clarify.

PWS states that contractor shall follow FAA directives related to ETOPS, however Section 2 does not list the applicable reference, 14 CFR 121 Appendix P.

Can the government please advise?

PWS Paragraph 2.1 and PWS Paragraph 3.4 has been updated to include the reference to 14 CFR Part 121, Appendix P.

PWS states that ULSS cohesively merges FAA and Government maintenance requirements. Does that include requirements outlined in paragraph 3.1 and 3.2? If there is a conflict, which document takes precedence?

All requirements in the PWS are included. The language in PWS paragraph 3.4 has been updated to state that the ULSS is used to "bridge the gap between commercial and Navy maintenance practices" rather than "cohesively merge the Government maintenance requirements with commercial FAA directives".

In the case of disparities between Navy maintenance and contractual documents, the contract shall take precedence.

Para 3.11.1 refers to DoD 5200.2. Does the government mean DoDM 5200.02 as listed in Applicable References? Additionally Para 3.11.1 refers to SECNAV M-5510-30. Does the government intend to refer to SECNAVINST 5510.30C as noted in applicable references?

PWS Paragraph 3.11.1 has been updated to reference DoDM 5200.02 and SECNAVINST 5510.30C.

Paragraph 3.4.1 calls for immediate replacement of all parts, however para 3.4.1.2 outlines different requirements. It appears the statement in 3.4.1 conflicts with the performance metrics as listed in Appendix I. Which takes precedence?

"Immediate" has been removed from PWS paragraph 3.4.1.

The Contractor shall meet the Appendix (I) time frame requirements as referenced in PWS Paragraphs 3.4.1.1. and 3.4.1.2.

PWS Paragraph 3.4.1 states , "The contractor shall participate in a commercial parts pool in order to provide a one for one exchange of commercial 737NG Series parts with other commercial vendors to maximize removed from the aircraft or from the GP inventory with interchangeable/authorized FAA listed in Section 2.2 of this PWS at the time of exchange. Commercial Parts Pool access shall include all repairable in support of the C-40A program with the exception of HVAs and Military Unique Parts". Please clarify what the government considers “participation”.

In accordance with solicitiation Section L, 3.1.2 and 5.2.2, the Offeror shall submit a LOI or LOA substantiating the ability to comply with the PWS requirements, such as PWS Paragraph 3.4.1.

Participation is defined as the commercial parts pool definition in the PWS.

PWS Paragraph 3.4.1. How should offerors deal with government parts requirements that are not carried in commercial parts pools, such as COMBI components or interior components unique to the Navy and Marine C-40A configurations (Microwave Ovens, Seats, pallet components, Stowage Bins and Stowage Bin Parts, Fire retardant overhead liners, Cargo Doors, Tire and Wheel Assemblies, galleys, lavatories)?

In the event the Government concurs that parts are unavailable, the parts will then become part of the DMSMS pipeline. If the Government determines that the part is available, then it shall be obtained in accordance with the PWS.

25 PWS Paragraph 3.4.1 Can the government provide a listing of ETOPS approved part numbers relevant to the C-40A maintenance program These parts are listed under OEM 737 Configuration, Maintenance, and Procedures (CMP) publication, found within MyBoeingFleet, and therefore cannot be provided at this time.

PWS 3.4.2 Export Licenses. Are contractors required to provide parts to non-detachment international sites? If so, will the Government provide a list of these locations or include language in the metrics for non-detachment international sites?

The Contractor shall have export licenses for permanant detachment sites and handle non-detachment sites as authorizations to comply with PWS Paragraph 3.16. The ULSS states, "Movement of parts or material to support aircraft away from home base is accomplished by the fastest means available including Government and/or commercial transportation unless otherwise directed by the C-40A APML, the TYCOM, or CFLSW." The mission and aircraft flight operations are unknown, therefore there is not an existing list to provide.

Paragraph 3.7.1 asks offerors to develop a OPSEC program in accordance with NSDD 298. DoDM 5205.02 is listed as an applicable reference, but not cited in this PWS Paragraph. Recommend the requirement be restated "offerors shall develop an OPSEC program compliant with the squadron OPSEC plan and DoDM 5205.02."

The language in PWS Paragraph 3.7.1 has been updated.

Paragraph 3.9.2 requests contractor submit a Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss form to the KO within five days of discovery of loss. Is there an associated CDRL for this requirement?

There is not a CDRL associated with this requirement. PWS Paragraph 3.9.3 has been updated to state, "The Contractor… shall submit an equivalent Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss DD Form 200 to the KO..."

Paragraph 3.9.5 states that contractor is responsible for turning in surveyed GP to DLA Disposition Services. Under what CLIN will the cost related to shipping be charged? Would it be acceptable to the government for surveyed GFP scrapped on-site at the repair vendor and provide a scrap certificate as a certification of disposal?

Please refer to DoDM 4160.21 for disposal of GFP end items. CLIN 0038, Government Directed Shipping, will be utlized for the shipment of the GP end items listed in PWS Appendices (B)-(F). For items scrapped on site during repair, a certificate will suffice as certification of disposal.

Government Responses to Industry Questions N0001925R0003 Enclosure (1)

Industry Feedback Worksheet

Paragraph 3.10 states that the government is responsible for building and ground maintenance. In the event the government is unable to do so, can the contractor be reimbursed expenses needed to make spaces habitable (portable air conditioning, portable sanitary facilities, temporary wide area connections, etc.)? If yes, under what CLIN?

No, the Contractor shall not make any repairs or otherwise modify Government facilities. These costs are not allowable under this contract.

Paragraph 3.10 does not say the government will provide OOMA terminals or access to OOMA. Please clarify if they will be provided, the number provided per site, will the terminals be hard wired or Wi-Fi capable? Will the government provide portable OOMA terminals for CLM sites?

OOMA access is provided in accordance with PWS Paragraph 6.4.1. The Government provides internet services for OOMA but not WiFi. Terminals are currently hard wired. OOMA terminals and access will be provided to CLM sites. Furthermore, OOMA terminals and access are not provided as GFP under this contract but are provided and maintained by the Fleet, therefore, the number provided per site is unknown.

Paragraph 3.10 does not say if government will provide Portable Maintenance Aids (PMA) for CLM squadrons. Please advise if PMAs will be provided and if not, are offerors required to provide them?

The Government will not provide Portable Electronic Maintenance Aids (PEMAs) to CLM squadrons due to software licensing restrictions. The Contractor is responsible for obtaining all technical data access necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS.

In paragraph 3.3 recommend the government change FAA 14 CFR Part 25.1529 to FAA 14 CFR Part 25 Appendix H PWS Paragraph 3.3 has been updated to reference "Appendix H to 14 CFR Part 25."

Paragraph 3.7 and 3.11 have some duplication of requirements. Recommend combining those paragraphs and eliminating duplicative statements (comply with base traffic laws etc.)

No changes will be made to PWS Paragraphs 3.7 and 3.11.

Paragraph 3.12 Key Personnel: CLM Aircraft Maintenance Lead. Can the Navy please clarify which personnel they are referring to? i.e. lead mechanic or senior maintenance person (Maintenance Manager).

PWS Paragraph 3.12 has been revised to replace "CLM Aircraft Maintenance Lead" with "CLM Aircraft Maintenance Manager". Please refer to final RFP for changes.

36 Paragraph 3.13.1.2 discusses Call Back Contacts. Are there call points established in the contract? Please define Call Back Services. PWS Paragraph 3.13.1.2 has been updated to remove the reference to Call Back Services. No, there are not call points established in the contract.

Paragraph 3.15 requires offerors to provide access to the WIS via NMCI and MCEN. We have noted that frequent updates to the government IT systems often break the links to the WIS. Can the government provide POC info for NMCI and MCEN so that we may resolve those issues quickly when they arise?

The Government will provide a POC and instruction, if required, on a case by case basis, once contract is awarded.

Paragraph 3.16 states that contractor will be responsible for all shipping costs world-wide regardless of destination. Will the contractor be allowed to recoup customs fees and duties paid to sites not located at the three detachment sites?

All shipping costs described in PWS Paragraph 3.16.2 (Cost of Any Transfer for Use) are included in the FFP of the Contract. PWS requirements at PWS Paragraphs 9.0 and 10.0 include the cost of shipping. Additional costs are not allowable.

Paragraph 3.16.1 states that shipping will be negotiated to an FFP under CLIN 0038 or when appropriate, set to a NTE value to be definitized later based on actuals. What factors would the government consider in determining either course of action?

Shipping costs will be negotiated at the task order level when not included in a pre-priced FFP CLIN. NTE pricing will be utilized on a case-by-case basis when, for example, items to be shipped are not specifically identifiable or package dimensions or weight are unknown at the time of task order award.

Table 4.7 lists ITAR controlled items. The following observations are provided: 1) KIV-77 and IFF Crypto Applique have the same part number listed. Are they the same part? 2) IFF/TCAS DCP and the DCP Personality Module are not on the current ITAR Controlled list. Are they new adds? 3) There are 3 part numbers listed for the IFF/TCAS DCP. Are all three part numbers currently installed in Navy or USMC Aircraft?

1) KIV-77 and IFF Crypto Applique are the same part. Table 4.7 has been updated in the PWS.

2) The PWS reflects the scope of the current/future requirement.

3) All three DCP part numbers can potentially be used for the DCP. Currently the DCP is installed in the USN C-40As; USMC do NOT have Mode 5 IFF at this time.

Paragraph 6.2..1 states that SECNAVINST 5200.44 requires a semi-annual material inventory. A review of SECNAVINST 5200.44 ch-1 indicates that a cyclic inventory is acceptable as long as 100% of the inventory is checked manually. Would it be acceptable for the language to state "All OM&S shall be inventoried annually using either wall-to-wall or cyclic methods that result in 100 percent of OM&S to be physically sighted each year and shall maintain at least 98 percent accuracy."?

PWS Paragraph 6.2.1 has been updated to state, "The Contractor shall perform an annual inventory of all GP in accordance with SECNAVINST 5200.44 and CDRL A002, Material Utilization and Forecasting Report."

CDRL A002 has been updated to change the frequency from semi-annually to annually.

Paragraph 6.2.2 tasks the contractor with informing the KO of any inadequacies or non-availability of items along with a recommended plan for obtaining them. Can the government please clarify what the contractor must provide as there seems to be a disconnect between this paragraph, CDRL A00C, and DI- MISC-81107A? Can the government provide further clarity and context to this statement in 6.2.2 "The KO will promptly determine the validity and extent of the requirement and the manner in which any deficiencies will be remedied"?

CDRL A00C has been updated to cite DID DI-MGMT-80441D, tailored to remove paragraph 3 sub-bullets:

C. Contractor Asset Identification Number F. Manufacturer Model Number K. Unit Acquisition Cost L. Unique Item Identifier P. Classification of Gov't Property

In paragraph 6.2.3, the government states that the contractor shall not be required to meet delivery time requirements for parts that have been deemed BER and considered DMSMS by the government. Please advise government criteria for calling an item BER and criteria for considering an item DMSMS.

The term "BER" has been removed from PWS Paragraph 6.2.3. When the Contractor cannot fulfill a requisition due to suspected DMSMS, the Government will evaluate utilizing market reserach to make a determination.

Paragraph 6.4.1 indicates that the government will provide OOMA equipment, but that is not reflected in Paragraph 3.10. Please clarify if OOMA equipment, and configuration of that equipment will be provided, and in what quantities at both CLS and CLM sites

OOMA access is provided in accordance with PWS Paragraph 6.4.1. The Government provides internet services for OOMA but not WiFi. Terminals are currently hard wired. OOMA terminals and access will be provided to CLM sites. Furthermore, OOMA terminals and access are not provided as GFP under this contract but are provided and maintained by the Fleet, therefore, the number provided per site is unknown.

Paragraph 6.5 covers transportation and paragraph 3.16 covers shipping. Is there a difference between these two paragraphs or could they be combined into one location for ease of understanding and compliance. Questions previously asked regarding 3.16 and 3.16.1 apply to 6.5.1 and 6.5 respectively.

PWS Paragraph 3.16 applies to multiple CLINs, whereas PWS Section 6.0 applies only to MOB support and transportation requirements and specifies the Contractor's responsibilities under those CLINs.

46 Paragraph 6.5.2 repeats requirements outlined in paragraph 6.3 PWS Paragraph 6.3 refers to the procurement and use of HAZMAT for maintenance and PWS Paragraph 6.5.2 refers to the transportation of HAZMAT.

PWS Para 6.3.1 requires offerors to establish a HAZMAT program that meets the requirements of NAS 411. NAS 411 applies to all acquisition phases from Concept Exploration through Disposal. For example, NAS 411 asks the contractor to provide a plan to eliminate or minimize HAZMAT. Those decisions can only be made by and engineering activity, such as the Design Approval Authority and will require significant engineering effort. Is the intent that the CLS contractor will provide HAZMAT or decide what HAZMAT is necessary. Could the government please indicate what specific effort will be required of the CLS contractor by reviewing NAS 411 and calling out specific paragraphs relevant to the CLS contract?

In accordance with PWS Paragraph 6.3.1, the Contractor is responsible for procuring the HAZMAT necessary to perform aircraft maintenance and providing it to line maintenance personnel at the MOB sites.

PWS Paragraph 6.3.1 has been updated to clarify that, "The Government will provide HAZMAT storage lockers at VR-51 and VMR-1 for use by the CLM personnel in accordance with the local Base instructions. At all other MOB sites, Government personnel will handle, store, and dispose of HAZMAT"

PWS Paragraph 6.3.1 has been updated to remove "The Contractor shall maintain a HAZMAT Handling and Reduction Program that meet the requirements of the National Aerospace Standard 411."

The question has been overcome by the removal of the NAS 411 requirement.

Additionally, PWS Section 7.0 has been updated to add "The Government will provide HAZMAT storage lockers at VR-51 and VMR-1 for use by the CLM personnel in accordance with the local Base instructions. CLM personnel shall handle, store, and dispose of all HAZMAT required for aircraft and SE maintenance and operations and shall comply with all federal, state, local, and DoD laws, regulations, directives, and instructions pertaining to training, control, use, handling, storage, and disposition of HAZMAT and hazardous waste".

Paragraph 6.6 indicates that the contractor will be notified no less than 5 days in advance of any scheduled detachment requiring a DSK and that offerors will provide a DSK 24 hour in advance of mission departure. What CLIN will cover shipment for DSKs?

The requirement for DSK parts is included under pre-priced CLINs. In accordance with PWS Paragraph 3.16, "Shipping costs shall be included in all pre-priced CLINs for the requirements described therein..."

Para 6.7 says "the contractor shall submit any of the following associated reports against defective items" Can the Government please confirm if this will be collaborative effort with Contractors providing support and the government generating the final report?

This is a collabrotive effort. The Contractor shall provide information from which the Government will generate the final report.

Paragraph 6.7 states that contractor will assist PMA 207 with deficiency investigations. What CLIN would those investigations be charged to and does the government have an estimate of how many they will need per year? What level of engineering support is being requested or is this limited to packaging and shipping exhibits?

The cost for the deficiency investigations falls under PWS Section 6.0 and will be associated with the MOB Site CLIN(s) support. The Government anticipates 2 Engineering Investigations per year of the contract. The level of CLS support for Enigneering Investigations is anticpated to be packaging and shipping of exhibits to the OEM.

For planning purposes, the Government anticipates a total of 10 deficiency reports per year of the contract.

Paragraph 7.0 says that contractor shall access OEM documentation per paragraph 28 (which is O&A procedures). This appears to be an incorrect reference.

PWS Section 7.0 has been updated to reference PWS Section 29.0 for OEM data.

Paragraph 7.6 states that OPNAVINST 3710.7V contains aircraft handling and taxi procedures. A review of the instruction suggests they have been moved to CNAF M-3710.7

PWS Paragraphs 2.1 and 7.6 have been updated to cite CNAF M-3710.7.

Paragraph 7.0 states that VR-51 may use NAS Hickam (Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam) or Barbers Point (Kaleloa Airport). Recommend expanding title of location and noting this is a regular requirement as MCBH Hawaii is closed on the weekends.

PWS Section 7.0 has been revised to reference Joint Base Pearl Harbor - Hickam and NAS Barbers Point (Kalaeloa Airport).

The location requirement is flight scedule dependant and operating hours are subject to change.

Paragraph 7.1 states The Contractor shall have a flexible work schedule for supporting flight operations as determined by the supported squadron. Each site’s TPOC will provide a flight schedule to the Contractor the day before operations or 8 hours prior to an unscheduled operation. Recommend this be changed to a minimum of 16 hours notice to allow the contractor to best manage workforce.

The Government will maintain the 8 hour notification to account for unscheduled operations.

Paragraph 7.1 suggests that Military Engine Run training is available, however paragraph 3.10 does not identify it as a Government provide Service.

Please confirm whether or not the government will provide engine run training.

Services described in PWS Paragraph 3.10 are not intended to include training. Squadron NATOPS will provide Military Engine Run training and certification in accordance with NAVAIRINST 3710.1H. However, the Contractor is able to obtain training independently.

Paragraph 7.1 states 25% of mechanics may be employed as an Aircraft Mechanic Helper (SCA 23040) and work under the direct supervision of a certified A&P mechanic. Recommend removal as Aircraft Mechanic Helpers present an unnecessary management burden on the CLM sites as they must be supervised and cannot sign off their own work thus have limited utility for supporting detachments.

The 25% of Aircraft Mechanic Helper is a discretionary option for the Offeror and therefore will not be changed.

Paragraph 7.3 states that Phase 1 SE Training will be provided by remote FRCs/MALS. Please clarify what is meant by remote. Is the training not available at each FRC/MALS? Also note that this training is not identified in Paragraph 3.10 as a government supplied service.

PWS Paragraph 7.3 has been revised to remove the word "remote".

The training is available at each FRC/MALS.

Services described in PWS Paragraph 3.10 are not intended to include training.

Paragraph 7.3 states that contractor may use CFLSW provided training and testing elements to ensure consistency. Please describe what these elements are.

CFLSW has established training and testing for Phase II requirements deliniated in COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2D, Section 10.16.

These training requirements apply to any base-supported Common Support Equipment that the Contractor would require licensing for in performance of this contract.

Government Responses to Industry Questions N0001925R0003 Enclosure (1)

Industry Feedback Worksheet

Paragraph 7.4 requires the contractor to conduct Host Base training after initial cadre is trained. Will the government provide instructional material for that training, to ensure new employees are properly trained?

The Government will not provide instructional material. Any materials provided will be at the discretion of local commands.

Paragraph 7.5 requires contractor to transport survival radios to/from supporting IMA for scheduled maintenance. Will the government furnish transportation vehicles, or is the contractor expected to provide?

Due to the proximity of the supporting FRC or MALS, transportation vehicles are not necessary to transport survival radios. However, vehicles listed in the GFP Attachment may be used by the Contractor for this requirement.

Appendix I states the AOG Aircraft CONUS NMCM non-deployed rate must be less than or equal to 8% for satisfactory performance and 12% for marginal performance. CLM sites are required place the aircraft in NMCM status during A-checks. Will aircraft in A-Check be exempt from the metric?

The note in PWS Paragraph 7.7 has been updated to clarify that "NMCM Aircraft in A-Check will be exempt from the non-deployed rate identified in Appendix (I), Performance Metrics".

Paragraph 8.0 states that the contractor will be responsible for shipping costs associated with transfer of GP for use. How will costs be covered if the government directs the transfer of SE to a non CLM squadron?

In accordance with PWS Paragraph 3.16.2, ALL GP transferred for use is covered under CLIN 0013 as PWS Paragraph 3.16.2 applies to items listed in Appendices (B) through (G). PSE and CSE are listed in Appendices (D) and (E) and are therefore subject to this requirement.

Please Note -

(1) Appendix (D) has been updated to reflect PSE located at all 7 sites; and

(2) The first paragraph of Section 8.0 has been updated to clarify this.

Paragraph 8.1 requires contractor to notify QA so that an investigation can be conducted if misuse/abuse is suspected. If QA determines that there was misuse, are the repair costs billable to the government and what CLIN would apply?

The Contractor would submit a work request utilizing the BFWT CLIN 0036 for Government approval.

Paragraph 8.1 states that the contractor shall coordinate all SE mods or configuration changes with PMA 207 to ensure SE is updated and maintained to latest NAVAIR specified configuration. Could NAVAIR please provide the current specified configuration for all SE at the CLM sites?

The current configurations are reflected by the part numbers listed in Appendices (D) and (E).

Paragraph 8.3 states that SE will be calibrated to the OEM's spec or DON requirement, whichever is more stringent. Can the government provide its current specifications to ensure that vendors are aware that a different limit may apply?

The Government is not providing calibration specifications as part of this requirement. The Contractor shall use calibration labratories that are capable of performing this requirement.

Note: Due to PWS revisions, this paragraph is now 8.4.

Paragraph 9.1 speaks to a category of parts called O-level consumables and states that the contractor shall provide all consumables to support O-level repairs everywhere. Should the takeaway be that is O-Level Maintenance Personnel are performing maintenance at the depot, all consumable/expendable material shall be provided under CLIN 0013, however if D Level Maintenance Personnel are performing the maintenance the part should be charged to either the C check FFP (CLIN 0018-0028) or the O&A Mat'l CLIN 0049? Will the offeror be required to provide consumable material to the engine repair vendor since this will be a separate contract?

The level of maintenance (type of maintenance) refers to the skill required to perform the maintenance, not the level of skill of the personnel actually performing the maintenance.

However, all O-Level and scheduled maintenance material is covered under CLINs 0013 or 0014.

Per PWS Paragraph 9.1 (CLIN 0013), "The Contractor shall provide to all MOBs, detachment sites, and depot facilities FAA and ETOPS compliant and approved consumable and expendable parts and material required for the performance of O-Level Maintenance tasks, regardless of where those tasks are being performed (delivery destination), the party performing the maintenance, or the circumstances under which the replacement is required."

The Contractor will not be required to provide any material to any vendor performing under another contract.

Paragraph 9.2 states that contractor will be required to replace all non-GP repairable including LLP found to be non-serviceable during any maintenance at any location. Does this include engine components as this will be under a separate contract? Can they Navy provide a current detailed report of the life remaining status of all LLPS that the contractor may be required to provide under the FFP CLIN.

PWS Paragraph 9.2 has been revised to exclude LLPs for the engine as follows:

"The Contractor shall replace all non-GP repairables (including life-limited parts unrelated to the CFM56-7B engine)."

The PMIC lists LLPs and the Government will provide a listing of all aircraft and APU cycles in the Technical Library to assist in evaluating the approximate remaining life of LLPs.

Relating to Paragraph 9.2, first paragraph, what specific performance metric is being referred to? PWS Appendix (I) Metrics apply where relevant throughout the PWS based on context.

For example, the last paragraph of PWS Paragraph 9.2 relating to a BFWT issue states, "The reason for the replacement shall not delay delivery or alleviate the Contractor of its performance duties outlined in the Appendix (I), Performance Metrics." Any performance metric that relates to the item in question is applicable depending on the situation and classification of the item.

In this case, applicable metrics may include (but are not limited to) "Government Property Delivery", "PSE and CSE Maintenance", "Consumable and Expendable Parts and Material Level", "Management of Detachment Support Kits", "Supply Support Material", etc. regardless of Metrics reference.

Note that the last paragraph of PWS Paragraph 9.2 has been updated to also reference CLIN 0014, Government Property Replenishment.

Paragraph states that if contractor believes that a component requires replacement due to BFWT circumstances, they are to immediately provide replacement but will only be reimbursed for repair cost of damaged unit. If the damaged unit is not repairable, will the contractor be reimbursed for the cost of acquiring a new unit?

If the Government concurs that the definition of BFWT has been met, and the Government concurs that the item is BER, the Government would be responsible for the replacement cost.

PWS Section 9.0 has been updated to state, "If the Government concurs that the definition of BFWT has been met, and the item is determined BER by the Government, the Contractor may submit a Work Request Form for the replacement cost."

Para 9.3 states that all parts, assemblies or components and material shall comply with PMIC and IPC specifications at the time of exchange, regardless of the reason for replacement. Please clarify this paragraph. As written it suggests that the government can change components whether or not they have failed and the contractor is required to fulfill the requirement under an FFP CLIN? Will the operator be allowed to replace a component for any reason?

PWS Paragraph 9.2 specifies that, "The Contractor shall replace all non-GP repairables (including life-limited parts unrelated to the CFM56-7B engine) found to be non-serviceable or requiring replacement in accordance with maintenance document requirements...".

PWS Paragraph 9.2, stating, "The Government will procure initial parts required for discretionary upgrades, new capabilities, increased quantities, or unforced changes utilizing either CLIN 0044, Service Action Material, or CLIN 0037, Spare Parts Procurement, but the Contractor shall subsequently replace those items under this CLIN 0013, Support Material Replacement requirement."

PWS Paragraph 9.3 refers to management of parts whether covered under the FFP or procured in accordance with PWS Paragraph 9.2.

Should the Government request an elective upgrade or change be made without failure of the current part or requirement to change, the cost of the material required shall be negotiated at the task order level in accordance with PWS Paragraph

9.2 and the parts managed in accordance with PWS Paragraph 9.3.

71 Para 9.3 speaks to incidental locations. Please clarify that term. "Incidental Location" refers to any location incidental to aircraft operations when an aircraft is not at a permanent MOB, detachment, or depot site.

Paragraph 9.2 states that contractor shall provide compliant replacement parts, regardless of the part number removed from the aircraft. Commercial Parts Pools require a one for one exchange and will not accept obsolete equipment in exchange for a serviceable unit. When the item removed is not on the government's preferred parts list or the same part number listed in the IPC, is the contractor expected to absorb any additional cost under the applicable FFP CLIN?

PWS Paragraph 3.4.1 states, "The Contractor shall participate in a commercial parts pool in order to provide a one-for-one-exchange of commercial 737NG series parts with other commercial vendors to maximize worldwide availability replacement of an unserviceable part removed from the aircraft or from the GP inventory with an interchangeable/authorized FAA certified and ETOPS compliant part".

As used in this PWS, the term "one-for-one exchange" does not refer to part number. The Contractor is required to provide one serviceable item in exchange for one non-serviceable or otherwise required part.

The Contractor is responsible for replacement when the part is removed from the aircraft or from the GP inventory if the part is no longer available in the CPP or not listed in the IPC. The Contractor shall account for any additional costs in its FFP based on its experience in the industry.

PWS Paragraph 9.4 implies that Government will reimburse contractor to provide a part that is on the preferred parts list, if the turn in item is the non-preferred PN. Is that correct?

This paragraph makes no such assertion. PWS Section 9.0 describes requirements included in the FFP of CLIN 0013. Specifically, PWS Paragraph 9.4 states, "If a Non-Preferred Part Number needs to be replaced and the Preferred Part Number is available, then the Contractor shall replace the Non-Preferred Part Number with the Preferred Part Number in accordance with Appendix (J), Preferred Parts List (PPL)." This is included in the FFP and the Government will not provide additional funding.

Paragraph 10.1 speaks to Appendix I performance metrics, but no metric is listed in Appendix I for PWS 10.1 PWS Appendix (I), Performance Metrics, refers to PWS Paragraph 10.1 under AOG and Mission-Degraded Requisition requirements.

Additionaly, PWS Appendix (I), Performance Metrics, has been updated to include in the "Management of Detachment Support Kits" metric to reference PWS paragraph 10.1.

Paragraph 11.3 states government will use GSA daily lodging rates. GSA does not set lodging rates for overseas locations. Will the government accept Department of State approved Lodging and M&IE rates?

Due to PWS Section numbering changes, the released draft Appendix (I) referenced some incorrect paragraphs.

PWS Paragraph 11.3 has been updated to include Department of State Foreign Per Diem rates.

Paragraphs 12.1, 12.2, 12.8, and 12.10 speak to Appendix I performance metrics, but no metric is listed in Appendix I for these sections Request clarify this item.

Due to PWS Section numbering changes, the released draft Appendix (I) referenced some incorrect paragraphs. The document has been updated to change the incorrect Section 11.0 references to properly reference Section 12.0.

Paragraph 12.1 states that the contractor shall comply with the approved maintenance program, and later in the same paragraph says to comply with the 14 CFR 121 Certificate Holders Maintenance Program. Be advised that the certificate holders maintenance program is customized for their fleet. Does the government want the 121 Certificate Holder to develop a program beyond the one provided by the OEM?

No, the Government does not require the 14 CFR Part 121 Certificate Holder to develop a maintenance plan beyond the established C-40A maintenance program. The 14 CFR Part 145 repair station is required to be an approved maintenance facility for 14 CFR Part 121 operations.

PWS Paragraph 12.1 has been updated to remove "Certificate Holder's Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program" and has been revised as follows:

"The Depot-Level Maintenance Provider shall perform aircraft maintenance in accordance with the C-40A OEM developed maintenance plan consistent with 14 CFR 121 and 14 CFR 43 requirements. Depot-Level maintenance shall be performed inside a hangar at a 14 CFR Part 145 Repair Station. The Depot-Level Maintenance Provider shall comply with 14 CFR 121, completing all Depot inspection and maintenance requirements in accordance with 14 CFR Part 43 and the Depot-Level C-Check Task Order work specification."

Government Responses to Industry Questions N0001925R0003 Enclosure (1)

Industry Feedback Worksheet

Paragraph 12.1, 12.6, 12.7, and 12.8 refer to contractor compliance with the Depot Level C check work specification. Is that a specific document or a summary of the work outlined in the Task Order Work Scope? Request the government clarify this requirement.

PWS Paragraphs 12.1, 12.6, 12.7 and 12.8 have been updated to add "Task Order" to clarify that is where the work specification is contained.

Paragraph 12.2 states that the contractor shall allow DCMA representation during RTS phase IAW the ULSS. The ULSS does not speak to DCMA role in the RTS event. Request clarification on what DCMA role is.

PWS Paragraph 12.2 has been revised to state, "The Contractor shall allow Government representation during the Return to Service (RTS) phase of the Depot visit performed in accordance with the

ULSS."

The ULSS pertains to performance and does not address parties on site.

Paragraph 12.8 states that O&A defects found, and classified as critical or major shall be negotiated in accordance with O&A above procedures. Please advise if Contractors should include minor defects as part of FFP? If not, will minor defects be accounted for oat the task order level, or listed as NBNC.

As an example, cosmetic defects (window crazing, carpet wear, seat fabric condition would be considered minor defects)

PWS Paragraph 12.8 has been updated to remove the statement, "Over-and-Above defects found and classified as critical or major shall be negotiated in accordance with Appendix (K), Over-and- Above (O&A) Procedures, and a task order modification issued utilizing CLIN 0048, Over-and-Above Labor. See Appendix (I), Performance Metrics" based on the following:

C-Check FFPs shall include all labor for the required TAT and O&A labor is warranted only if the Government determines a PoP extension to be appropriate.

Accordingly, the note in PWS Paragraph 12.12.1 has been updated to stipulate that, in order for an OAWR to be approved, the Government must determine a PoP extension is warranted.

With the exception of BFWT circumstances and Service Action Material, all material is covered under CLINs 0013 and 0014 and an O&A for material is not warranted. Accordingly, the note in PWS Paragraph 12.12.2 has been updated to stipulate that, in order for an OAWR to be approved, the Government must determine that the definition of BFWT has been met.

Paragraph 12.10 states that the contractor will perform O level maintenance to prepare the aircraft for FCF. Per the definitions provided, you seem to be describing line maintenance, not O level maintenance. Is this correct?

O-Level maintenance refers to the level of skill required and covers all locations. Line maintenance (a specific type of O-Level maintenance) refers to O-level maintenance performed in the field (as opposed to at the depot facility). PWS Paragraph 12.10 applies to DEPOT maintenance. Furthermore, line maintenance is defined, in part, as "O-Level Maintenance tasks able to be performed in the field". Therefore, the term O-Level is correct as this is not being performed in the field.

Paragraph 12.10 states that the OSGR will determine whether or not a failed FCF is attributable to a non-conformance with a depot task card, and goes on to state that the contractor will correct the deficiency regardless. If issue is not related to a task card, and involves a significant maintenance effort, what CLINs apply?

The Government will determine on a case-by-case basis whether or not a PoP extension beyond the C-Check TAT is warranted and if so, the O&A process would be followed for out of scope work.

Paragraph 12.11 states that the IDIQ FFP includes the Baseline C-check task cards, any additional task cards and O level maintenance tasks required. Will the government provide the additional task cards and specify the O level maintenance tasks required?

Task Cards and maintenance tasks are C-Check-specific and vary between aircraft and over time. Existing depot task cards will be provided in the technical library. Subsequent revisions will not warrant a price change. O-Level maintenance tasks will not be provided as part of the formal RFP.

C-Checks shall be pre-priced all-inclusively and not negotiated on a task-specific basis at the time of task order award. Further, the Period of Performance will not be negotiated at the task order level based on the final task card package provided ahead of a scheduled C-Check.

However, should the Government request an elective major modification to systems be performed during a C-Check, and the Government determines additional time to be required as a result, that effort and additional time required shall be negotiated at the task order level utilizing the Depot-Level Maintenance/Modification/Repair labor, and either the Service Action Material CLIN or the BFWT Material and Government directed shipping CLINs.

The below historical data is based on 18 recent C-Checks and is being provided for planning and pricing purposes only.

Task Card Changes – A final C-Check package has ranged from 116 fewer Task Cards to 254 more Task Cards than the baseline Task Card Package.

Mean: 35 more Task Cards Median: 3 more Task Cards Mode: 13 fewer Task Cards Service Actions – The number of Service Actions performed during a C-Check has ranged from 16 to 40 Service Actions.

Mean: 30 Service Actions Median: 32 Service Actions Mode: 32 Service Actions O-Level Actions – The number of O-Level Actions performed during a C-Check has ranged from 0 to 137 O-Level Actions.

Mean: 23 O-Level Actions Median: 3 O-Level Actions Mode: 0 O-Level Actions

Task Cards are subject to periodic revision by the OEM which can change the scope and work requirements of that card. How will those changes be accommodated in this contract?

C-Checks shall be pre-priced all-inclusively and not negotiated on a task-specific basis at the time of task order award. Further, the Period of Performance will not be negotiated at the task order level based on the final task card package provided ahead of a scheduled C-Check.

However, should the Government request an elective major modification to systems be performed during a C-Check, and the Government determines additional time to be required as a result, that effort and additional time required shall be negotiated at the task order level utilizing the Depot-Level Maintenance/Modification/Repair labor, and either the Service Action Material CLIN or the BFWT Material and Government directed shipping CLINs.

As Field Service Representatives are no longer provided under the CLS contract, what authority will the CLS provider have to direct and be reimbursed for FSR travel under the O&A CLIN?

The Contractor does not have authority from the Government to direct personnel not employed by the Contractor. Additionally, the term FSR is no longer included in the PWS.

PWS Paragraph 28.3 has been updated to state, "At the Government’s direction, the Contractor shall dispatch Contractor personnel to support the correction of a discrepancy discovered during performance of an awarded task order that is not within the scope of an existing CLIN on that task order".

States that government directed shipping outside of an FFP CLIN shall be proposed under CLIN 0038. For example, would CLIN 0038 be used to ship material in response to an aircraft incident or mishap or would it be included within O&A Material CLIN. Please provide examples of when this CLIN might be utilized.

If the incident meets the BFWT definition, shipping shall be proposed under CLIN 0038.