NTWL_RFP_Industry_Questions_20160301.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Naval Test Wing Atlantic (NTWL) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N00421-15-R-0044
About this file
NTWL_RFP_Industry_Questions_20160301
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Naval Test Wing Atlantic (NTWL) has more files on GovTribe.
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
Q & A Log
| N00421-15-R-0044: RFP INDUSTRY QUESTIONS AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSES | ||||||
| Q# | RFP Document | Section/Para | Discussion / Comment / Issue | QUESTION | ANSWER | RFP Documentation Updated |
| 1 | RFP | Section L, 2.2 Manning Approach, and RFP attachment P-3_Vol2_T-2 Manning | Section L, paragraph 2.2.a requires the offeror report onsite and offsite management personnel on Table T-2 Manning. | Does the Government want these positions incorporated into the provided worksheets, or should we create a worksheet that collects and reports the required information? | All FTEs funded through the contract either onsite or offsite should be incorporated into the provided worksheets in Table T-2 (Manning). | N/A |
| 2 | P-9_Vol_5_Prime_CCS_20150609 | N/A | Treatment of labor premiums for FFP CLINs | The worksheets associated with the CPFF CLINs have a separate line to provide the cost of labor premiums. The FFP CLIN worksheets have no designated lines for cost of labor premiums. There are certain FFP employees that will have labor premiums (e.g. shift premiums). We recommend that lines be inserted on the FFP worksheets similar to those on the CPFF CLIN worksheets to record these costs. | Concur. Attachments P-9 (Vol 5 Prime CCS) and P-10 (Vol 5 NPE CCS) will be updated by inserting similar lines into the FFP worksheets and provided in Amendment 001. | Attachment P-9 Vol 5 Prime CCS |
Attachment P-10 Vol 5 NPE CCS 3 P-_Vol_5_Prime_CCS_20150609, P-3_Vol_2_T-2_Manning_20150610, and RFP L.5, Sec 3 (Page 176) Labor premiums for CPFF CLINs The RFP indicates that “Premium Pay should be transferred directly from Annex A (Manning) to the corresponding CPFF tab on the Prime Contractor Cost Summary in accordance with the instructions in the attachment.” There are a number of issues associated with this instruction: (1) The number of paid hours and associated dollar amount of premiums will not be the same from period to period even if the number of FTE is the same from period to period. This is due to the number of work days being different from period to period. For example, in the base year there are 261 work days, during option year 3 there are 262 work days, and during option year 4 there are 260 work days. (2) The number of FTE from period to period may not be the same. (3)The “Pay Premium” schedules contained on the various squadron worksheets of Table T-2 Manning is a mixture of hours associated with FFP and CPFF CLINs. (4)The “Pay Premium” schedules contained on the various squadron worksheets of Table T-2 Manning are missing shift premiums. (5) Per the CBA the Phase Coordinator premium can be $1.00, $1.25, or $1.50 per hour. For these reasons, we recommend that the paragraph on page 176 of the RFP requiring linkage of the pay premiums of Table T-2 Manning and P-9 Prime Contractor Cost Summary be removed from the RFP. The pricing portion of the Premium Pay worksheet will be removed and the instruction in Section L, Volume 5.3, Section 3, Specific Instructions for CPFF CLINS (page 176 of the current RFP) will be revised to indicate that the offeror should clearly demonstrate how the premium skills proposed in Annex A (Manning) have been priced on attachments P-9 (Vol 5 Prime CCS) / 10 (Vol 5 NPE CCS). Offerors may use any reasonable approach to demonstrate that pricing. Shift premiums shall be accounted for in the direct labor rate proposed on attachments P-9 (Vol 5 Prime CCS) / 10 (Vol 5 NPE CCS). A similar instruction will be included in the Specific Instructions for FFP CLINs section of the RFP. Section L, Volume 5, 5.3, Section 2, Specific Instructions for FFP CLINS Section L, Volume 5, 5.3, Section 3, Specific Instructions for CPFF CLINS Attachment P-3 (T-2 Manning) Attachments P-9 (Vol 5 Prime CCS) and P-10 (Vol 5 NPE CCS)
| 4 | P-11_Vol_5_FB_Labor_Rates and RFP | L.5, Sec 1 (Page 175) and M.2 Sec D (Page 192) | “Tripwire Rates” | RFP section L.5.3.1.d appears to indicate that Attachment P-11 is “For CPFF CLINs ONLY”. However, the tripwire table provided in Section M includes positions, including the On-Site Manager and Squadron Group Managers that would only be chargeable only to the FFP CLINs. Please clarify whether such positions are to be included on Attachment P-11. | NAVAIR tripwires do not apply to services proposed on a fixed price basis. | N/A |
| 5 | P-11_Vol_5_FB_Labor_Rates and RFP | L.5, Sec 1 (Page 175) and Sec 3 (Page 176) | “Tripwire Rates” | Can the provided Tripwire Rates provided in the RFP be escalated by the 2.5% escalation rate provided in the RFP when making comparisons to the escalated fully loaded labor of Exempt and SCA positions? | No, NAVAIR tripwires do not allow for escalation. | N/A |
| 6 | RFP | Sec L; 3.0 Past Performance | Paragraph states “the Offeror shall identify all contracts, or those portions of a contract, whose performance is within three years of the proposal due date and contains efforts similar to those efforts (e.g., service, O-Level aircraft maintenance, type effort, aircraft, contract tasks, contract type, contract dollar value), required by this solicitation for the principal entities identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary). Para 3.3 b. & c. set the requirements for writing to Past Performance Information and Demonstrated Systemic Improvement. The 3.0 and 3.3 requirements could potentially require bidders to write [Redacted] contracts to the full details required by 3.3 b. & c. The additional requirement to provide SOWs for each of the potentially [Redacted] contracts could result in over [Redacted] pages of proposal space. | Please clarify the requirement. We recommend the Government cap the total number of relevant contracts provided to the 3.3 b & c. requirement to the five most relevant programs (within 3 years). Should the Government desire insight to all other relevant bidder program, then we recommend bidders be required to simply provide program titles and contract numbers for relevant programs (within 3 years). | Section L, Volume 3 (Past Performance) will remain the same. |
| Final Versions of Previous SOW/PWSs/supporting solicitation/contract documentation for Past Performance and Corporate Experience is submitted in Annex C. Section L, Part A, Section 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes states "Information submitted as an Annex to a particular proposal volume could include manuals, specifications, plans, procedures, and company policies, as well as other information requested in Part B Specific Instructions and do not count towards the suggested page count." | N/A | ||||||
| 7 | Attachment J-20_QASP, Enclosure (2) | 2.5, VX-23. Table “T/M/S, Systems required for RA Aircraft” | The table does not include the EA-18G | Please define the systems required for RA aircraft. | Attachment J-20, Section 2.5, will be updated in Amendment 001 to include the EA-18G aircraft with the following Systems Required for RA Aircraft: No Downing Discrepancies / Systems as required per test plan. | Attachment J-20_QASP, Enclosure (2) 2.5, VX-23. Table “T/M/S, Systems required for RA Aircraft” | |
| 8 | RFP | Attachment L-7 | VX-20 does not show the additional PRs required for P-8 support. | Please clarify the Government Staffing estimate. | Correct. The two (2) PRs were omitted. The manpower for VX-23, Fighter Shop Powerplant increased by one, VX-20 Tool Room decreased by one, and VX-20 PR Shop increased by two. Attachment L-7 (Government Manpower Estimate) will be updated in Amendment 001. | Att L-7, VX-20 Tab (TPAs and PRs) and VX-23 Tab (Fighter Shop Powerplant) . Changes indicated in bold red. | |
| 9 | RFP | Attachment L-7 | The CBA shows a Sr Production Control Clerks in Logs and Records for TPS, Strike, and Force. Attachment L-7 does not show a Sr Production Control Clerks in Logs and Records for VX-20. | Please clarify there if there is supposed to be a Sr Production Control Clerks in Logs and Records for VX-20. | There is no requirement for a Senior Production Control Clerk in Logs and Records for VX-20. | N/A | |
| 10 | PBSOW | 6.1.6.4, Individual Material Readiness List (IMRL) (page 27) | The second bullet states “Conduct a joint phase-in inventory of all IMRL within 30 days of contract assumption, termination, and completion.” | Can the Government clarify, does “within 30 days of contract assumption” refer to the first 30 days of period of performance, first 30 days after contract award, or first 30 days of transition? | Contract assumption refers to first 30 days of period of performance. | N/A | |
| 11 | PBSOW | 15.2 a) On-Site Manager (Key) , Page 66-67 | The requirement for this position under Experience: Experience that demonstrates the ability to negotiate a CBA and manage a large unionized workforce (e.g., 550+ personnel). | Experience negotiating a CBA and managing a large union workforce (e.g., 550+ personnel) appears to give an unfair advantage to the incumbent contractor and current on-site manager. Would the Government consider changing the requirement to read: Experience that demonstrates the ability to manage a large unionized workforce? | The PBSOW, section 15.2 a) On-Site Manager (Key) , Page 66-67 will remain the same. This question was considered when initially asked as Industry Question #64 to the Draft RFP, and resolved with the revised language posted in the Final RFP on 14 September 2015. Please note, the experience must "... demonstrate the ability..." of the individual to negotiate and manage as required. | N/A | |
| 12 | RFP Section L | L.B.4.0, Volume 4 – Corporate Experience (page 168) and Attachment P-7, Table CE-1, Corporate Experience Cross Reference Matrix, Instructions sheet | Section L, Volume 4 instructions for completing table CE-1 and the Instructions sheet of Attachment P-7, Table CE-1, state: "... the Offeror shall identify the relevant portions of the contract reference's SOW/PWS to clearly identify how corporate experience performing past tasks are similar to evaluation elements 4.1.1 through 4.1.3." In some solicitations, the evaluation elements required are only identified in the RFP, and not specifically identified in the SOW/PWS. If the Offeror is limited to only using SOW/PWS requirements, the Offerors matrix may not include relevant references for the Government to evaluate only because they are in the RFP documents rather than the SOW/PWS documents. | Will the Government consider revising the Table CE-1 instructions to allow the Offeror to cite relevant portions of the contract reference’s RFP as well as SOW/PWS to identify how corporate experience is similar to evaluation elements 4.1.1 through 4.1.3? | Yes. Section L will be updated in Amendment 001. | ||
| 13 | PBSOW | PBSOW paragraph 6.1.13.6 (page 34) | The PBSOW requires the Offeror provide in-flight observers and in-flight mechanics when requested by the Government. | Can the Government identify the aircraft and squadrons that require in-flight observers and in-flight mechanics, and include the estimated annual flight hours required for the observer/mechanic services for each aircraft? | HX-21 and TPS are the only squadrons requiring in-flight mechanics and in-flight observers. The Government estimate includes in-flight duties as collateral duties. During OPY3 (01 August 2014 - 31 July 2015) 51 hours were flown with the Flight Premium charged. | N/A | |
| 14 | PBSOW | PBSOW paragraph 6.1.2.2 (page 23) | The PBSOW requires the Offeror to provide a networked maintenance management information system (MIS) for aircraft that are not covered by OOMA. No timeline is specified to have the system fully functional such as by the end of transition, or the end of the phase-in period, etc. | Will the Government provide a desired time period or deadline for the non-OOMA aircraft MIS to be fully functional? | The non-OOMA aircraft Management Information System (MIS) must be fully functional the first day of contract performance. | N/A | |
| 15 | RFP | Section L.B.2.5, Transition/Phase In Plans (page 158-159) | In Section L.B.2.5.b, Phase in, item (1), the requirement to submit a time phased manning plan and ramp-up to full manning level is normally associated with the 90 day transition period prior to the first day of the period of performance. Also in Section L.B.2.5.b, Phase in, item (1), the analysis associated with ramp up accounting for workload requirements/fluctuations, operational commitments/tempo, work in progress, and other area impacts can only be performed by the incumbent contractor as only they have access to current operational and work in progress information. In Section L.B.2.5.b, Phase in, item (2), program for training key personnel, and item (3), training plan for certification/ licensing, are also items normally associated with the 90 day transition period prior to the first day of the period of performance. | (A.) Can the Government move the Section L.B.2.5.b, phase in requirements (1), (2), and (3) from Section L.B.2.5.b and include them with the other transition requirements in Section L.B. 2.5.a? (B.) If not, can the Government clarify why the Section L.B.2.5.b items (1), (2), and (3), normally associated with the 90-day transition prior to the first day of the period of performance, are associated with the 60-day phase in period beginning on the first day of the period of performance? (C.) Can the Government delete the sentence in Section L.B.2.5.b.(1), “Analysis shall account for workload requirements/fluctuations, operational commitments/tempo, work in progress, and other area impacts,” since this analysis can only be performed by the incumbent contractor prior to contract award. | The Government will move item (1) from Section L.B.2.5.b (Phase-In) to item (4) of Section L.B.2.5.a (Transition); however, items (2) and (3) of Section L.B.2.5.b will remain in Phase-in. The sentence in Section L, Part B, Volume 2 (Technical), Section 2.5.b (Phase In Plan) “Analysis shall account for workload requirements/fluctuations, operational commitments/tempo, work in progress, and other area impacts,” will remain the same. Analysis can be made based on the historical information provided (e.g., planned aircraft flight load, planned aircraft flight hours). | Section L, Volume 2, Phase-in 2.5.b (1) will be moved to Section L, Volume 2, Transition 2.5.a (4). | |
| 16 | RFP | Section L, Part B, Para 2.0 Volume 2, para 2.2.e | This instruction asks for an "overall process description" but it is not clear to us precisely what process we should be describing. It is not clear if the requirement is to (1) Describe our process for developing our man-hours and man-loading or (2) Provide an organizational diagram with FTE summaries and total man-hours for each work center. | Please clarify the process requested by this proposal instruction. | Section L, Part B, Para 2.0 Volume 2, para 2.2.e will be updated to add "for each work center to the end of the first sentence. "The Offeror shall provide a top-level block diagram or flow chart of the overall process showing man-hours and man loading for each work center." | Section L, Part B, Para 2.0 Volume 2, para 2.2.e | |
| 17 | RFP | Section L, Table G-3, Annex D and Section L, Table G-4, Annex D and Section L 4.0, last para | Tables G-3 and G-4 require bidders provide negotiated or renegotiated CBAs. Section L, 4.0 states “In Annex D (Negotiated or Re-Negotiated CBAs), the Offeror shall provide electronic copies of the cover letters of Collective Bargaining Agreements from each of the contract references for which the Prime performed this task.” | Please clarify if bidders are to provide the entire CBAs or just the CBA cover sheets for each past performance/corporate experience example. | Only the cover letters of Collective Bargaining Agreements from each of the contract references for which the Prime performed this task are required. | N/A | |
| 18 | RFP | L.A.3 Table G-4 | Can you confirm that you are requesting only 1 paper copy (in addition to the original) of Volume 4, Corporate Experience? Other volumes have 2 paper copies. | The Corporate Experience Team verifies that only 1 paper copy is needed. | N/A | ||
| 19 | RFP | L.A.3 Catalog Card | Are Catalog Cards required for Annexes A, B and E? | Section L, Part A (General Instructions), Section 3.0 (Proposal content and volumes) requests Catalog Cards for each binder within a Volume (e.g., Volume 2 (Technical). Information submitted as an Annex to a particular proposal volume can either be submitted in the same binder as the volume or as a stand alone binder. If an Annex is submitted as a stand along binder, a catalog card is requested. |
Please be advised that catalog cards are not needed for Annex C (Final Versions of Previous SOW/PWSs/Other Supporting Documentation for Past Performance and Corporate Experience) and Annex D (Negotiated or Renegotiated CBAs) which are requested in electronic format only.
| N/A | ||||
| 20 | RFP | L.B.3.3.a.(1) b) | In Section 3.3 Evaluation, sub paragraph 1 Relevancy, b) Not Relevant; the solicitation states under “ c) Contracts from a different physical location (e.g. with different CAGE code/DUNS) than the entity proposed in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary;” are deemed not relevant however in sub paragraph 3 Past Performance, the solicitation states “Past performance of any entity with multiple CAGE codes/DUNS will be considered for the same physical location if they have distinct roles and responsibilities identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary), or the current and previous CAGE codes were created as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and refer to the same division in the same physical location.” (emphasis added). Please clarify the role of Cage Codes, DUNS numbers, and physical location in the relevancy evaluation. | Volume 3 (Past Performance), paragraph 3.3a.(1)b) states "iii. Contracts from a different physical location (e.g. with different CAGE code/DUNS) than the entity proposed in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary)" will not be relevant. |
Volume 3 (Past Performance), paragraph 3.3a.(3) states "Past performance of any entity with multiple CAGE codes/DUNS will be considered for the same physical location if they have distinct roles and responsibilities identified in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary), or the current and previous CAGE codes were created as a result of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reason and refer to the same division in the same physical location. However, all current CAGE Codes/DUNS must appear in Table ES-1 (Offeror Summary Table) which indicates a commitment of work for those entities. To facilitate the relevancy determination, the Offeror shall provide an explanation of why multiple CAGE codes are proposed; identify all applicable CAGE codes along with their defined roles and responsibilities, and a description of all such changes in the organization of the company within Volume 1 (Executive Summary) if past performance for a previous CAGE code/DUNS is submitted."
In accordance with the RFP references above, the CAGE code/DUNS associated with the contract reference proposed will be considered in the Past Performance relevancy determination. Generally, the CAGE code/DUNS associated with the contract reference proposed should be the same CAGE code as the entity performing the work on this solicitation to be considered relevant in the Past Performance relevancy determination. In the limited circumstances described above, when a company name/CAGE code/DUNS is updated or multiple CAGE codes are provided, it is incumbent upon the offeror to provide sufficient explanation for why the contract reference is relevant.
| N/A | |||||
| 21 | RFP | L.B.2.D | Under Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLIN X030, the solicitation states “The Cost Estimating Relationship (CER) described in RFP Section L, paragraph 5.3, Section 3.c. has been determined by the Government to be realistic for developing proposed costs for CLIN X030. Proposed costs will be evaluated for compliance with the CER. Any deviations from the CER will be evaluated for realism to establish an MPC and shall require substantial justification.” Please provide additional information regarding what constitutes “substantial justification”. | Section L Price Instructions and Section M Evaluation criteria will be revised in Amendment 0002 to indicate that offerors shall propose cost on CLIN X030 in accordance with the CER. | Section L Volume 5 (Cost/Price) and Section M. |
| 22 | Att L-2 Historical Manpower Data 20150909 |
| Att_J-14_CBA_20150909 | Is the Admin Assitant position listed in Attachment L-2 the same as Personnel Assitant 1 listed in the CBA? | Yes, the Admin Assitant position listed in Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) is the same as the Personnel Assitant 1 listed in the CBA. | N/A | ||
| 23 | Att L-2 Historical Manpower Data 20150909 |
| Att_J-14_CBA_20150910 | The Computer Operator position listed in Attacment L-2 has no corresponding position listed in the CBA. There is, however, a Computer Operator III position in the CBA. Is the Computer Operator position listed in L-2 the same as Computer Operator III listed in the CBA? | For NTWL Support the "Computer Operators" will be updated to "Computer Operator IIIs" on Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) and Attachment L-7 (Government Manpower Estimate) in Amendment 0002. | Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) and Attachment L-7 (Government Manpower Estimate) for NTWL Support tab. | ||
| 24 | Att L-2 Historical Manpower Data 20150909 |
| Att_J-14_CBA_20150911 | The Computer Programer position listed in Attacment L-2 has no corresponding position listed in the CBA. There is, however, a Computer Program II position in the CBA. Is the Computer Programer position listed in L-2 the same as Computer Programer II listed in the CBA? | For NTWL Support the "Computer Programmer" will be updated to "Computer Programmer II" on Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) and Attachment L-7 (Government Manpower Estimate) in Amendment 0002. | Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) and Attachment L-7 (Government Manpower Estimate) for NTWL Support tab. | ||
| 25 | Att L-2 Historical Manpower Data 20150909 |
| Att_J-14_CBA_20150912 | Is the Inspector position listed in Attachment L-2 the same as A/C Quality Control Inspector position listed in the CBA? | Yes, the Inspector position listed in Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) is the same as the A/C Quality Control Inspector position listed in the CBA. | N/A | ||
| 26 | Att L-2 Historical Manpower Data 20150909 |
| Att_J-14_CBA_20150913 | Is the Mechanic position listed in Attachment L-2 the same as A/C Mechanic position listed in the CBA? | Yes, the Mechanic position listed in Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data) is the same as the A/C Mechanic position listed in the CBA. | N/A | ||
| 27 | Att L-2 Historical Manpower Data 20150909 |
Att_J-14_CBA_20150914 There are a number of position listed in the CBA that do not appear in Attachment L-2 to include:
Maintenance Test Pilot Senior Production Control Clerk Tech Writer Warehouse Specialist Are these position no longer being used or are they called out as another position title in Attachment L-2? Correct, there are a number of positions listed in the CBA that do not appear in Attachment L-2 (Historical Manpower Data).
a. Historically, the Government has not had Senior Production Control Clerks and Tech Writers.
b. Maintenance Test Pilot cross walks to FCF Pilot;
| c. Warehouse Specialist cross walks to Supply Runner. | N/A | ||||||
| 28 | RFP | General | Will the FFP CLINs be invoiced using a standard FFP billing formula of 1/12th total, monthly? | The Contractor will invoice IAW the monthly price specified on the FFP CLIN. | N/A | ||
| 29 | RFP | Section L, 6.0, f., (2) | Price Attachment P-8 (Vol 5 Cost Price Exhibit B). Offerors are advised that Price Attachment P-8 Vol 5 Cost Price Exhibit B) will be used by the Government to populate Section B for the awarded contract. | Is the contractor expected to leave Section B of the model contract unpopulated? | Yes, Section B of the model contract shall not be completed by Offerors. | Section L, Volume 6, paragraph f.(2) | |
| 30 | RFP | Section/Para - Article IX | All bidders will be bound by law to the full terms of the CBA. | Can the Government attach the full terms of the CBA to the Solicitation including the CBA Job Descriptions? | The Government has included the CBA on record as Attachment J-14 and does not have any additional information to provide. Standard labor qualifications are included in Attachment J-19. | N/A | |
| 31 | QASP | 2.3 | HX-21 total weighted Performance Metrics identified for the COR report is greater than 100%. DRATR = 25% UP Gripes = 25% Phase Inspections = 35% Corrosion = 20% | Which weighted performance metric will be reduced by 5% to equal 100%? | Attachment J-20 QASP, Enclosure (2), paragraph 2.3.4 Aircraft Material Condition/28-Day Corrosion Inpsections, part c. will be updated to "This Metric will be weighted as 15% of the Performance metric on the Contractor's monthly performance measurement/report for HX-21" | Attachment J-20 QASP, Enclosure (2), paragraph 2.3.4 Aircraft Material Condition/28-Day Corrosion Inpsections, part c. | |
| 32 | QASP | 2.3.1 | NRAM = Non-Ready Aircraft due to maintenance. Aircraft has an EOC coded Z MAF, or an EOC coded MAF that prevents or limits testing. Aircraft is in an FCF status unless waived by MO/DMO. Since the contractor does not provide FCF pilots for this squadron, the contractor has no control over FCF completions. Additionally, FCF requirements are often driven by project requirement over which the contractor has no control. | Why are aircraft in an FCF status considered NOT ready due to maintenance? Please clarify how the Government intends to measure this metric since the contractor does not control all aspect of the FCF process. | FCF is a maintenance function. A process exists for the Maintenance Control supervisor to request metric relief from the MO/DMO or designated representative for instances of extended periods of time outside of the contractor's control or special circumstances. These include but are not limited to Aircrew non-availability, weather, PLO/Platform reprioritization. Refer to Enlcosure (2) of the QASP "The Contractor shall request exemption from a performance metric for reasons that are beyond the Contractor’s control. The Contractor shall request exemption using the “Relief from Performance Metric” form in §10 Log Reporting. Only the MO/DMO or designated representative may determine that it is unreasonable for the Contractor to meet a performance metric." | N/A | |
| 33 | QASP | 2.3.1.e 2.3.1.f 2.3.1.g | 2.3.1.e states the RA calculation will be as of 1400. 2.3.1.f states the NRA will be reported at 1400. 2.3.1.g states the RA calculation will be reported at 0800 | Please verify the correct time by which the RA and NRA will be calculated and reported. | RA and NRA will be calculated at 1400 for the purposes of metric calculation. AMSRR will be generated utilizing OOMA data and submitted to NTWL at 0800. | ||
| Attachment J-20 QASP, Enclosure (2), paragraph 2.3.1.g will be updated to "For the purposes of this performance metric, aircraft reported as RA that have downing discrepancies found on the first preflight of the day (discrepancies that are covered under the applicable Daily/Turn-Around inspection requirements) shall result in the aircraft being measured as a Non-Ready Aircraft for that day. | Attachment J-20 QASP, Enclosure (2), paragraph 2.3.1.g. | ||||||
| 34 | QASP | 2.3.1.f | 2.3.1.f states “For the purpose of this metric, aircraft that are reported NRA at 1400 and subsequently complete a scheduled flight event for that day will be counted as RA for that day. Only FCF flights resulting in FCF completion will be counted as RA for the day.” Since the contractor does not provide FCF pilots for this squadron, the contractor has no control over FCF completions. Additionally, FCF requirements are often driven by project requirement over which the contractor has no control. | Why are aircraft in an FCF status considered NOT ready due to maintenance? Please clarify how the Government intends to measure this metric since the contractor does not control all aspect of the FCF process. | Refer to the response to question 32. | ||
| 35 | QASP | 2.3.2 | 2.3.2 states “The maximum allowable daily up-gripe discrepancies on all aircraft except those in a NRAIM status shall be IAW Table B. For the purpose of this performance measure the following discrepancies will be excluded from the Up Gripe Target (UGT) count: valid Awaiting Parts (AWP), flyable Planning and Estimator (P&E) discrepancies, discrepancies awaiting Government disposition, TDs, and corrosion discrepancies, High Time Components, Post Maintenance awaiting flight or turn discrepancies (FCF requirements, TQ checks, leak checks, etc.), awaiting AIMD maintenance, and authorized relief discrepancies as approved by the MO/DMO.” Aircraft in heavy maintenance and phase will generate many gripes that will drive the total daily counts well above the maximum of six as currently written. These will be completed before the end of the phase. Recommend the UGT be applied only to RA aircraft as was previously written. | Are aircraft inducted into heavy maintenance/ phase included in the maximum allowable daily up gripe count? | Up-Gripe discrepancies on aircraft in phase are not included in the daily up-gripe target (Fix Phase MAFs are included with phase). Maintenance on NRA (not in phase) will be inclued in the daily up-gripe target. | ||
| 36 | QASP | 2.3.3 | 2.3.3 states “The average number of uncorrected discrepancies for each aircraft completing a Phase inspection shall not exceed six, excluding valid Awaiting Parts (AWP), flyable Planning and Estimator (P&E) discrepancies, discrepancies awaiting Government disposition, and Depot Level TDs, instrumentation Modifications. Corrosion discrepancies shall be corrected prior to aircraft being released from Phase inspection.” There is nonproductive time associated with all phase inspections. For example, an H60(R) 364 day inspection requires that the fuel tanks be drained and certified gas free,(H60(S) does not have this requirement). The fuel tank ventilation could take up to 3 working days to achieve the required certification and the aircraft is not allowed to be worked on while the fuel tank is being ventilated. | Are the nonproductive days awaiting parts, cure time or other work stoppage requirements included in the phase completion time limits? | Yes, nonproductive days awaiting parts, cure time or other work stoppage requirements are included in the phase completion time limits execpt for AWP work stoppage. Please refer to the response to question 32. | ||
| 37 | QASP | 2.3.3.b | 2.3.3.b states “Contractor performance will be measured, graded, and reported monthly.” Listed are 3 metrics within each grade criteria, MAF count, Phase time and special inspection time. | Will the government consider adding a formula that measures the weight of each metric identified in the new Phase completion expectations? | The Government considered the suggestion. The grading criteria remains the same. | ||
| 38 | QASP | 2.3.3.b | Below all aircraft types Phase timeframe standards are additional standards for inspections “when performed in conjunction with phase” For example, in the “to achieve a grade of 1” section for the H1, the 182 day inspection standard is 14 days when performed in conjunction with phase. | Please clarify if the inspection day standards below the phase standards are include in the phase standards or will increase the phase standard when these inspections are performed. | The number of days identified for inspections (e.g. 14 days for the H1 182 Day Inspection) are in addition to the time criteria identified for Phase completion when an inspection is accomplished concurrently. | ||
| 39 | QASP | 2.3.3.b | At the end of the phase standards it states “For the purpose of phase sign-off criteria, gradable time begins that day the Phase MAF is initiated. End of phase process is when aircraft is ready to commence ground turns.” Other factors, outside the control of the contractor, may affect the date ground turns can commence (e.g. parts/equipment not available) but, not prevent the completion of the Phase. | Recommend the government change the end of the Phase process time to the day the Phase MAF is signed off as complete vice when the aircraft is ready to commence ground turns. | The Government considered the suggestion. The end of the phase process time remains the same. The intent of the change is to measure total number of days the asset is not available for flight test. Please refer to the response to question 32. | ||
| 40 | QASP | Table 1.3 pg. 14 | Recommend deleting the uncorrected discrepancy (UGT) row to match the deletion on of section 2.4.3 on 33-34pg | The Government concurs. The 3rd row (UGT) of Table 1.3 Air Test and Evaluation Squadron TWO ZERO (VX-20) in Attachment J-20 QASP, Enclosure (1) will be deleted. | Attachment J-20 QASP, Enclosure (1), Table 1.3 Air Test and Evaluation Squadron TWO ZERO (VX-20). | ||
| 41 | PBSOW | CDRL A004 PBSOW pg. 65 | CDRL A004 – DD Form 1423 states “No Later Than the 5th day of the following month” PBSOW, page 65 states “Monthly, NLT 10th day following month” | Please verify the report due day as either the 5th or 10th day of the month? | DD Form 1423 CDRL A004, Block 16 will be updated to “No Later Than the 10th day of the following month...” | DD Form 1423 CDRL A004, Block 16 | |
| 42 | Attachment L-7 | VX-20 Tab | With the addition of the six E2/C2 aircraft to the NTWL program, the Government added direct labor but did not fully account for the associated indirect labor. Specifically, there was only one QCI added to VX-20 and there were no Maintenance Controller additions. | Please verify the Government’s manning estimate (Attachment L-7), includes the appropriate adjustments for indirect QCI and Maintenance Controller positions in support of the six E2/C2 aircraft added to the program. | The Government confirms Attachment L-7 Government Manpower Estimate includes the appropriate adjustments for indirect QCI and Maintenance Controller positions in support of the six E2/C2 aircraft added to the program. | N/A | |
| 43 | Attachment L-7 | HX-21 111 Tab | The number of Government estimated Aircraft Quality Assurance Inspectors appears to be low for the work that is required. | Please verify the Government’s estimate of 13 Aircraft Quality Assurance Inspectors is correct. | The Government confirms Attachment L-7 Government Manpower Estimate for HX-21 Aircraft Quality Assurance Inspectors is 13. | N/A | |
| 44 | Model Contract | Section B, page 74 | Clause 5252.211-9503 states “The level of effort estimated to be ordered during the term of this contract is [TBD] man-hours of direct labor including authorized subcontract labor, if any. The contractor shall not, under any circumstances, exceed one hundred (100%) percent of the total level of effort specified in this basic contract. | Are the estimates and limits of the LOE calculated on an annual period of performance basis or on the full potential 5-year term of the contract? | The operation of the LOE clause will be dependent on the information added to the clause at award. The Government currently intends to indicate the LOE for each option period. | N/A | |
| 45 | Model Contract | Original and amendments | Some amendments made changes to sections of the model contract. Amendment 2 changed Sections B, E, & F. Amendment changed Sections A, F, & I. | Will the government provide a conformed model contract for contractor use? Or is the contractor to manually incorporate all amendment changes into the model contract? | The purpose of the amendment is to inform Industry that the Government will not be posting a Conformed copy of the NTWL solicitation. Offerors must rely upon the most current version of the solicitation and are advised to review the solicitation and attachments closely to ensure they use the current versions of all documents when preparing proposals for submission. Section L attachments are available upon email request only: please contact Denise Morrissette at denise.morrissette@navy.mil and Benjamin Washburn at benjamin.washburn@navy.mil. | N/A | |
| 46 | |||||||
| 47 | |||||||
| 48 | |||||||
| 49 | |||||||
| 50 | |||||||
| 51 | |||||||
| 52 | |||||||
| 53 | |||||||
| 54 | |||||||
| 55 | |||||||
| 56 | |||||||
| 57 | |||||||
| 58 | |||||||
| 59 | |||||||
| 60 | |||||||
| 61 | |||||||
| 62 | |||||||
| 63 | |||||||
| 64 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .