QA_Consolidated_Feb_2018.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N00421-16-R-0032
About this file
This document provides details for an industry day regarding solicitation number N00421-16-R-0032 for Commercial Air Services Aerial Refueling Services. The Naval Air Systems Command intends to conduct an industry day to allow potential offerors to review the draft Performance Work Statement and provide feedback. The industry day will include a government briefing and question and answer session, with 30 minute one-on-one discussions available upon request. The industry day is scheduled for December 1, 2016 at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point and will provide insight into NAVAIR's proposed acquisition for aerial refueling services, including expected capabilities, contract structure recommendations, and cost per flight hour. Attendees are required to RSVP in advance and provide security information for base access.
Questions and Answers regarding draft requirement documents.
View the file
Other files
Show all 41
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| CAS AAR DOCUMENT RESPONSE TEMPLATE |
| Response Template Instructions: Respondents are encouraged to provide feedback (questions, comments and recommendations) regarding the draft Documents. Among other things, NAVAIR/NAWC-AD is interested in: |
1) anything that seems unclear or requires editing,
2) recommended changes PWS elements.
Respondents may submit feedback using the template any number of times prior to the deadline. Please identify the draft Document and Page Number in Column A and Section Number in Column B that corresponds to your feedback in Column C.
| DOCUMENT NAME and PAGE NUMBER | SECTION NUMBER | COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS | Government Response | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update | Normal solicitation "Clause" sections, e.g., SF 33 items A-K | Will NAVAIR publish a draft of the RFP clauses & other relevant information prior to issuing the final RFP? Some clauses may have an impact on an Offeror’s pricing and/or bid approach, & understanding them in advance of the final RFP would be useful. | A posting of draft RFP clauses is not planned at this time. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update | FARS & DFARS | Will the applicable FARS & DFARS be published prior to the release of the final RFP? This information is critical to submitting a fully compliant & competitive proposal. | A posting of draft RFP clauses is not planned at this time. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update | SF 33 proposal response date | What response time do you envision between the issue of the final RFP & the bid response deadline, 45 days, or something else? This is useful information for resource management, bid & proposal cost management, & personnel scheduling, even if it's an estimated response time. | At this time, a response time of 45 days is planned. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, L-1 Content of Proposal Services, Page 1-2 | Part A, Paragraph 2.0 - Proposal Format | This section states, "… with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on a CD-ROM." Recommend changing to "… in Adobe Acrobat PDF format", as Reader is Acrobat format viewing software. Are PDF copies only wanted for non-MS Office files? | Yes, per Section L-1, Adobe files are only required for non-MS Office files. Section L-1 has been revised. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, L-1 Content of Proposal Services, Page 2 | Part A, Paragraph 3.0 - Proposal Content & Volumes, last sentence | The sentence states, “The authorized annexes are summarized in the table below.” The referenced table appears to be missing. Offerors with actual DoD/NAVAIR experience in aerial refueling & possessing all the required processes, procedures, training, & other GFR, NAVAIR, & FAA approved governing directives should be permitted to submit them as part of the annexes in order to adequately provide proposal reviewers valuable information. This opportunity would also help an offeror manage suggested page count by maximizing the use of annexes. A wide latitude in what material/documentation may be included as annexes is beneficial for all Offerors & proposal reviewers. | ||
| All references to "annexes" have been removed from Section L-1. Offerors will be required to submit documentation requested by the final soliciation and page counts are only suggested. | ||||
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, L-1 Content of Proposal Services, Page 8-9 | Part B, 2.0 Price Proposal, Paragraph 2.3 - Price Volume Detailed Instructions, table titled “Aerial Refueling Aircraft Fuel Information” | For the calculation needed for CLIN 0001, the table shows Mfg. burn rate with full fuel tanks at 25K MSL. Planes burn fuel climbing to 25K MSL, thus the fuel tanks after climb are not 100% full. This table should state “Calculation should assume take-off with full fuel tanks, climb and transit to the mission area, and fly at 25K MSL.” Note: OEM performance charts do not have Max Gross Weight, full fuel tanks at altitude. | This section of L-1 has been revised. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, L-1 Content of Proposal Services, page 9 | Part B, 2.0 Price Proposal, Paragraph 2.4 - Annual Exercise Requirement, Historical & Planning data tables | This section regarding Annual Exercise Requirements suggests values that are based on average requirements. It is recommended that a further examination be given to the values in this chart to ensure that they are representative of the 2,000 hour flying requirement. | This section of L-1 has been revised to base the data on projections, not historical data. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), Page 3 | Section 3.0, Paragraph 3.1 - Aircraft Performance Requirements | Are Performance Requirements in this section tanker aircraft requirements for each aircraft or aggregate requirements of the proposed tanker fleet? For example, is the requirement for 3 hours on station, with a 120,000 lbs. offload, centerline refueling, & multiple simultaneous aircraft refueling capability required for all proposed aircraft, or the capability must be available in the proposed mix of tanker aircraft? Performance Requirements should allow for the most effective and efficient mix of the tanker aircraft fleet tailored for U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, Test and Evaluation, and Foreign Military Sales missions. | The Performance Requirements Table 3.1 identifies performance minimums / thresholds that each tanker aircraft must achieve as well as desired (but not required) performance objectives. Therefore, in the example cited, the 3 hour on station and 120,000 lbs. offload is a desired performance characteristic (objective); it is not a requirement. Also, the ability to refuel more than one (1) receiver at a time is also a desired performance capability (objective); it is not a requirement. However, per Table 3.1, the V-22 and E-2D platforms can only refuel from a centerline equipped tanker aircraft. Combined with the requirement to support two (2) geographically separate simultaneous presentations, at least two (2) of the tanker aircraft proposed must be capable of centerline refueling per the minimum / threshold requirements identified in Table 3.1. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 7 | Section 3.0, Paragraph 3.3 - AAR Capability Establishment | This section covers aircraft only without a Navy IFC. Will modifications to aircraft with an IFC be covered, if modifying aircraft achieves transitioning from a "threshold" to an "objective/stretch" goal? There are capabilities being asked for, but will require installation and appropriate certification. Understanding objective/stretch goals will help Offerors potentially improve their proposal offering. | PWS Section 3.3 only covers capability establishment in reaching the minimum threshold capabilities. Expanded performance capabilities beyond PWS minimums (see PWS Table 3.1) that would require Navy certification will be conducted during regular performance of the contract (CLIN 0001 Flight Minutes), therefore such costs should be included in the offeror's proposal where applicable. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 7 | Section 4.0, Paragraph 4.1 - Mission Planning | There is/are no "in-service" time(s) noted. Should Offerors assume that a tanker can be left "in-service", though flying no missions for extended periods of time? Leaving tanker aircraft "in-service," but not flying missions for an extended period will make it challenging for Offerors to provide the Government with accurate costing data. This section should state the number of "in-service" days for each tanker aircraft to ensure identical variables are used by all Offerors thus affording Offerors the ability to provide precise costing data. | Section L-1 of the solicitation will contain data on Typical Planning and Scheduling of AAR Requirements, to include information on "in-service" times. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 7 | ||||
| Section 4.0, Paragraph 4.1 - Mission Planning, Subparagraph C | This section should give some consideration to the number of anticipated/required “in-service” days, “augmented aircrews”, "pilot non-fly” days, “aircrew movement”; and, “Ferry positioning flights." In order to minimize contractor risk, provide finite quantities for the aforementioned items or give consideration to a “risk factor” adjustment in the cost/price calculations. Lower contractor risk = lower cost to the USG. | The Government appreciates the feedback; it will be taken under advisement. | ||
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 7 | Section 4.0, Paragraph 4.1 - Mission Planning, Subparagraph D | This section should give some consideration to the number of anticipated/required “in-service” days, “augmented aircrews”, "pilot non-fly” days, “aircrew movement”; and, “Ferry positioning flights." In order to minimize contractor risk, provide finite quantities for the aforementioned items or give consideration to a “risk factor” adjustment in the cost/price calculations. Lower contractor risk = lower cost to the USG. | The Government appreciates the feedback; it will be taken under advisement. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 8 | Section 4.0, Paragraphs 4.2 - Mission Contract Coordination, 4.2.1 - Meetings & Communication | These paragraphs do not have associated text. If “Paragraphs 4.2 & 4.2.1” are compulsory, then more information is required so Offerors may be able to address it appropriately. | Paragraphs 4.2 and 4.2.1 are merely headings and subheadings, included in the PWS for structural / organizational purposes. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 10 | Section 4.0, Paragraph 4.2.7 - Civil Aircraft Landing Permits | The previous version of the PWS spelled out very specific insurance requirements, the current version does not detail any specific requirements. Is there an expectation of some specific levels and types of insurance coverage? This section should state specific insurance requirements to ensure all Offerors have the ability to provide precise pricing and adequate insurance coverage. | Minimum insurance requirements will be specified in the clauses of the final solicitation. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), pages 11-12 | Section 4.0, Paragraph 4.4.1 - Contractor Representative (CR) | In order to meet the 24/7/365 CR requirement with an appropriate quantity of CR’s it is important for an Offeror to understand the number of "in-service" days for each tanker aircraft. This section should state the number of "in-service" days for each tanker aircraft to ensure identical variables are used by all Offerors, thus affording Offerors the ability to provide precise costing data. | The Government appreciates the feedback; it will be taken under advisement. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 12 | Section 4.0, Paragraph 4.4.1 - Contractor Representative, Subparagraph G(4) | This section states that, “...the report will contain a synopsis of flight hours and sorties completed, and billable flying minutes (CLINS 0001 and 0002) and fuel charges." This section should state that, “…the report will contain a synopsis of flight hours and sorties completed, billable flying minutes (CLIN 0001), and fuel charges.” | This section of the PWS has been revised. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 12 | Section 4.0, Paragraph 4.4.1 - Contractor Representative, Subparagraph G(4) | This section states “…provide daily “as flown” reports to facilitate flying hour management to the SO and a designated Program Manager AIR (PMA-226) representative.” This section should state “...provide “as flown” reports to facilitate flying hour management to the SO and a designated Program Manager AIR (PMA-226) representative as required by the SO." This practice would be more in concert with actual mission execution. | This section of the PWS has been revised. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 13 | Section 4.0, Paragraphs 4.4.2.3.2 - Flight Reviews, & 4.4.2.3.3 - Instrument Proficiency Check | These sections would benefit from additional clarification & may be combined. Rename these sections to 4.4.2.3.2 - Pilot In Command (PIC) Requirements | ||
| Prior to flying as PIC, the pilot shall meet the requirements IAW 14 CFR 61.57 and 61.58. A flight simulator may be used to meet the requirements of 14 CFR 61.57 provided the flight simulator represents the type of aircraft used under the contract and the check is conducted by a training center certified by the FAA. | Consideration has been given to the suggested change; this section of the PWS will remain unchanged. | |||
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 19 | Appendix A - Definitions & Glossary, Aborted Mission | This section states “...aborted missions are any missions that are not completed as a result of Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE) malfunction, contractor personnel, or other contractor error or failure to provide air-to-air refueling services. These missions are not funded.” This section should delete the sentence “...these missions are not funded.” As currently stated this sentence would imply that no portion of a mission is reimbursed, even if some of the mission was successful. For example, if a mission was scheduled for 4 hours, but only 3 hours were completed due to a contractor issue, etc.; this sentence if allowed to stay in this section would prevent contractor reimbursement for the first 3 hours of the mission that was in fact successfully completed. | The definition of "Aborted Mission" has been revised. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 19 | Appendix A - Definitions & Glossary, Additional Tasking | This definitions states "additional tasking is defined as a new requirement, not previously scheduled during a 72 hour period when an aircraft is not dispatched on an official Navy Task Order." This definition should state: "additional tasking is defined as a new requirement, not previously scheduled during a 72-hour period when an aircraft is not dispatched on an official Navy Task Order. Scheduling should be in coordination with the SO & CR." | The definition of "Additional Tasking" has been revised. | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Performance Work Statement (PWS), page 19 | ||||
| Appendix A - Definitions & Glossary, Ferry Missions | The first paragraph states: "The Contractor is required to pre-position the aircraft to the designated base for refueling detachment operations." The second paragraph in this section states “OCONUS Ferry Missions are funded from an East or West coast departure point to the theater base of operations, plus 150 miles.” This section does not address the Ferry Mission from the Contractor Commercial Operating Base to the referenced East/West departure points, e.g., when an OCONUS European mission requires a tanker home-based on the West coast, will the Government fund the Ferry Mission cost to fly to the East coast departure point? In paragraph 1, delete the 2nd sentence, "The Contractor is required to pre-position the aircraft to the designated base for refueling detachment operations." In paragraph 2, recommend the following text: "OCONUS Ferry Missions are funded for East or West coast suitable departure points in coordination with the SO & CR." | The definition of "Ferry Missions" has been revised. | ||
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Section B CLIN Structure, page 1 | CLIN 0002 - AAR Fixed Costs, Length of service clause | In this section, CLIN 0002 states that the total time should be 59 months; however, this solicitation update proposes that the contract would be for a period of 60 months minus one (1) day. For simplicity and easier evaluation of Offeror’s proposals by NAVAIR, it may be better for evaluation purposes to use a common divisor, otherwise for an Offeror to correctly calculate actual AAR fixed costs for the mission month they would have to proportionally split the costs over 59 months, or the final 11 payments in the last year. | Refer to Solicitation Section L-1, Volume 2.0, Section 2.3. The commond divisor is the maximum quanitity (59 months). | |
| Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 11 Jan. '18 update, Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for AAR, page 5 | Section 9 - Enclosures, Enclosure (1) Contracted Air Services Performance Standards - Metric 1 | The referenced metrics are quite high, even the U.S. air forces, with greater resources don't meet these metrics. Using a fleet of three aircraft, a single issue will have a disproportionately negative statistical impact on the cumulative metric. Recommend that Exceptional rating be >97-100%, Very Good >95-97%, and Satisfactory >90-95%. Just as the old "Zero Defects" programs resulted in negative unintended consequences, we believe this could contribute to decisions being made that could push people or aircraft to try to achieve 100% with unintended consequences. | The Government has reevaluated and revised the metric percentages contained in the QASP. | |
| Minimum and Maximum Quantities | As stated during the industry day meetings, "X" Company is not in favor of a 2,000 flight hour guarantee that would apply to the entire 5 yr ordering period. This could result in an unrealistic evaluation of pricing as the first 2,000 flight hours could potentially be priced at a rate far in excess of the annual current budget available to NAVAIR to purchase these services. "X" Company endorses an annual minimum guarantee of 1,000 flight hours in each year of the contract period. Otherwise, five years of fixed cost could end up being applied to the first 2,000 flight hours. For example (using fake numbers for simplicity), if the Direct Operating Costs of the aircraft is $7,500 per hour and the annual fixed cost to support approximately 2,000 annual flight hours is $3 million, then the flight hour rate to the government should be a total of $9,000 per flight hour ($7,500 + $3M / 2,000 hrs). If the only guarantee is in the first 2,000 hours, then the flight hour rate could be as high as $15,000 per hour in the first year until the 2,000 hours are expended ($7,500 + $15M / 2,000). | Solicitation clause 5252.216-9506 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES has been revised to reflect a planned minimum guarantee of $31,500,000. | ||
| PWS, Page 19 | Appendix A | A. Please provide more clarity on the definition of Ferry Mission vice Pre-positioning/Re-positioning. | For the purposes of this requirement, the terms "Ferry Mission" and "Pre-positioning/Re-positioning" are synonomous. | |
| PWS, Page 19 | Appendix A | B. Confirm the contractor is responsible for all ferry costs with the exception of two tankers required on the same coast (where more than one tanker presentation is required on the same coast) ? In this scenario please confirm the de-positioning leg is also paid for? | Ferry Missions (flights flown at the direction of the SO) are reimbursable; refer to the definition of "Ferry Missions" in PWS Appendix A. | |
| PWS, Page 19 | Appendix A | C. Is Ferry/Positioning considered scheduled activity? I.E. will Government Furnished Fuel for positioning/ferry be authorized? | Yes to both questions. | |
| PWS, Page 10 | 4.2.11 General deployments | How many training deployments per year occur outside the mid-Atlantic and South West Coast i.e. Washington (state), Oklahoma, Illinois, Texas, Maine, and Florida? | The majority of deployments occur in Southern California (Pt. Mugu down to MCAS Miramar), followed by the Southeast Coast (Myrtle Beach SC, down to Jacksonville FL). The Navy's AirBoss (CNAF) determines the priority of aerial refueling requests. Due to the location of the Navy's EA-18G squadrons, operations in Washington state may start/increase. | |
| PWS, Page 10 | 4.2.10 | Please confirm that our insurance will only need cover damage to contractor aircraft (to include loss of drogues and baskets) and not any damage to a receiver aircraft. | The contractor is not responsible for insurance coverage of receiver aircraft. | |
| CLIN Description, CLIN 0005 | Section C | Please confirm the capability establishment CLIN 0005 is for all burdened costs to establish capability (including labor and training required to achieve readiness for certification flights) | Yes. | |
| PWS, Page 10 | 4.2.5 | Are maintenance, training and positioning flights considered public use. | Company maintenance and training flights are civil. However, because positioning (Ferry) flights are billable per the terms of the contract, such flights are considered public use. | |
| QASP, Page 6 | Enclosure 1, Fuel Accountability, Metric 5 | Provide evidence that the fuel card charge receipts match with flight log and fuel receipts. Take total fuel transactions (receipt amounts and gallons dispensed) and compare/match aggregate cost & gallons & fuel log & flight log. Perform sample audit each month of transaction IAW MIL-STD-105D using normal, single sample plan using Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) 0.4 or 4%. Use table I General Inspection Level II for sample size determination. Use table II-A for sample plan. Aggregate 12 months of audits into % compliance. Take each months results (pass/fail) 12/12=100% compliance. |
QUESTION - with this rating scale if one month fails then the entire year is rated Marginal as the percentage of 11/12 is 91.7%. Was that the intent, or should the rating be based on total number of sample audits?
| This section of the QASP has been revised. To derive a percentage, the calculation will be based on dividing the total number of errant fuel transactions by the total number of fuel transactions in the CPAR cycle. | |||
| PWS | Section 1.0 Scope | The fifth paragraph states the “contract will be a five (5) year ordering period.” Alternatively, there have been references to five- (5-) years minus one- (1-) day (ref doc: Industry Day II Questions for Tanker) and also a base of five- (5-) years plus an additional option period(s) (ref doc: Industry Day – 1 Dec 2016. The draft RFP needs to state the contract period (and option years), so as to afford an Offeror the opportunity to appropriately determine a CLIN OX01 and OX02 price for the contract for CAS AAR services. | All references to performance period have been removed from the PWS. The total Performance Period of the base contract will be identified in solicitation Section F (4 years and 364 days), with no option periods. |
| PWS | Section 1.0 Scope | In this section the NAICS code of 488190 should be stated (ref docs: NAVAIR modification to Commercial Air Services Aerial Refueling Services FedBizOpps.gov Solicitation N00421-16-R-0032 on 12 Sep 2016 and Industry Day – 1 Dec 2016 – presentation slide deck). | The NAICS and corrresponding Small Business Administration size standard will be included in section K clause 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications, of the solicitation. |
| PWS | Section 2.0 Applicable Documents | The documents listed should include the FACSFAC VACAPES and FACSFAC San Diego Operations Manuals. | The Fleet Area Control Surveillance Facility (FACSFAC) Virginia Capes (VACAPES) and FACSFAC San Diego Operations Manuals have been added to PWS Section 2.0. |
| PWS | Section 3.1 | In the Minimum Performance Requirements, under the title Altitude/Airspeed, the altitude is correct; however, the minimum performance requirement for airspeed should state “200 – 300 Knots Indicated Airspeed (KIAS).” The nominal AAR requirement for tanker missions is 200 – 300 KIAS. | This section of the PWS has been revised. |
| PWS | Section 3.1 | In the Minimum Performance Requirements, under the title Configuration, the minimum performance requirement should state “[a]pproved dual hose or dual redundant probe and drogue (hose & basket) refueling system.” | This section of the PWS has been revised. |
| PWS | Section 3.1 | In the Minimum Performance Requirements, under the title Special Equipment, the minimum performance requirement states a need for “[i]nstalled Recording Device to Support Aircraft Aerial Refueling: Video and Audio of receiver aircraft entering and leaving the refueling drogue.” The requirement stated here means that each tanker needs to have an ability to record the communication between the tanker and receiver aircrafts and also tanker cockpit communications. This is a greater requirement than required by the U.S. Air Force’s KC-46 program. | Consideration has been given to the suggested change; this section of the PWS will remain unchanged. |
| PWS | Section 3.1 | This section states that the “contractor shall only utilize aircraft that possess FAA Type Certifications, U.S. Navy AAR airworthiness certifications, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) refueling ATP-3.3.4.2 approval with applicable amendments at contract award [and in other NAVAIR solicitation documents it says that it is recommended that tanker aircraft should be N-registered (ref doc: Industry Day – 1 Dec 2016 – Questions & Answers)]. The contractor shall comply with all Airworthiness Directives (AD) pertinent to continued flight operations in the National Air Space. All aircraft must be certified to fly in actual and forecast icing conditions. Former military aircraft, regardless of source, must meet their original design standards for this condition.” The paragraph should state that former military aircraft are permitted providing they possess IFCs, FAA Airworthiness Certificates, and Supplemental Type Certificates, or the paragraph should remove all reference to former military aircraft. | This section of the PWS has been revised. |
| PWS | Sections 3.2.1.1 - 3.2.1.2 | These paragraphs require certain documentation to achieve FAA Type Certifications, U.S. Navy Airworthiness, NATO refueling ATP-3.3.4.2, etc. approval. The paragraphs should add that a resubmittal of the entire package to meet the aforementioned technical requirements is not required if an Offeror already has certified tankers. Alternately, Offerors with appropriately certified tankers should submit IFCs, FAA Airworthiness Certificates, and Supplemental Type Certificates for each tanker being proposed under this CAS AAR contract proposal. [Same comment applies to number 18 of the Draft Proposed Instructions to Offerors recommendations. | These sections of the PWS have been revised. |
| PWS | Section 3.2.1.2 | This section states “[f]or each modification, whether internal or related to the carriage of external stores, or external mold line, the Contractor shall secure and make available for review, a valid FAA airworthiness certification, FAA Form 8130-7 and associated Operating Limitations (CDRL A001). Where a modification is a Major Change (defined by 14 CFR 21.93), the Contractor shall also secure the FAA’s determination regarding the need for new or amended operating limitations.” From an airworthiness certificate standard, it’s not clear the association between a major modification and the FAA Form 8130-7 and its Operating Limitations. | This section of the PWS has been revised. |
| PWS | Section 3.3.1 | This section needs to indicate the guaranteed core flight hours/minutes that directly supports the U.S. Navy Fleet (i.e., CNAF). | PWS 3.3 formerly contained information on the planned CLIN structure (this language has since been replaced). Additionally, the definition of "Ferry Missions" has been revised, and the Appendix A glossary term "Ferry Flight" has been changed to "Maintenance Flights / Maintenance Test Flights" for greater differentiation from "Ferry Missions". |
| PWS | Section 3.3.1 | The last sentence states the “[c]ontractor ferry flight costs are not allowable under these CLINs.” These costs should be allowable for cost basis and for purposes of auditability; the sentence should be changed to “[c]ontractor ferry flight costs will not be reimbursable and therefore should not be invoiced to the Government.” | PWS 3.3 formerly contained information on the planned CLIN structure (this language has since been replaced). Additionally, the definition of "Ferry Missions" has been revised, and the Appendix A glossary term "Ferry Flight" has been changed to "Maintenance Flights / Maintenance Test Flights" for greater clarity. |
| PWS | Section 4.4.1 | This section states that “[s]cheduling conflicts within the confines of this contract will be decided by CNAL N31B.” It is our experience, as the incumbent contractor, that this responsibility is currently discharged by CNAL N31A. | Revised PWS paragraph 4.1.1 reorganized into 4.1 Mission Planning (Processing and Dissemination). Language revised to state "N3" instead of "N31A". |
| PWS | Section 4.2.2.11 | This section states “[t]he Contractor shall ensure that all aircraft are equipped with the applicable communication and navigation capability to operate in U.S. National Air Space. In addition, tasking requirements will require aircraft to deploy worldwide. The Contractor shall ensure that a sufficient number of aircraft are equipped, as applicable, to operate in foreign nation airspace. The Contractor shall comply with other FAA, International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), or foreign nation equipment pre-requisites….” So as not to create a NAVAIR unfunded federal mandate, consideration for specific communication and navigation capabilities should be given to the facts that tanker aircraft and the accompanying TACAIR receiver aircraft nominally refuel at attitudes under 29,000 feet MSL and in Warning/Restricted Areas. Nearly all of the communication and navigation capabilities required under this section should not apply to tanker aircraft operating below 29,000 feet MSL in U.S. National Air Space or in foreign nation airspace in accordance with FAA, ICAO, or other foreign nation aviation authorities. | Revised PWS paragraph 4.2.2.11 reorganized into 4.2.12. |
| PWS | Section 5.1.3 | This section states “[t]he Contractor shall report all aircraft accidents and incidents greater than $2,000 of damage/loss in accordance with their MRP, GOP, FOP and section 4.2.1.” The paragraph should remove the $2,000 requirement and state “The Contractor shall report all aircraft accidents and incidents of damage/loss in accordance with the GFR-approved MRP, GOP, FOP, and section 4.2.1.” | Revised PWS paragraph 5.1.3 reorganized into 5.3. |
| PWS | Appendix A | The definition for Additional Tasking states “[a]dditional tasking is defined as a new requirement, not previously scheduled during a 72 hour period when an aircraft is not dispatched on official government orders.” The definition should be changed to “[a]dditional tasking is defined as a new requirement, not previously scheduled during a 72 hour period when an aircraft is not dispatched on an official Navy Tasking/Delivery Order.” | The definition of "Additional Tasking" has been revised. |
| PWS | Appendix A | The definition for Augment Crew states “[f]leet Training Exercises requiring airborne tanker services beyond a normal 14 hour daily flight schedule will require an Augment Crew positioned with the refueling detachment to relieve the original crew.” The definition should be changed to define an augment crew as follows: “An Augment Crew consists of a flight crew able to relieve the original crew in accordance with the contractor’s GFR-approved CAS Operations Manual.” | The definition of "Augment Crew" has been revised. |
| PWS | Appendix A | The definition for Ferry Missions states “[t]he Contractor is required to pre-position the aircraft to the designated base for refueling detachment operations. CONUS Ferry Missions only fund 150 miles of the transit from the Contractors Commercial Operating Base to the designated detachment base of operations.” Since this solicitation proposal demands only “two simultaneous presentations” and not a greater number of tanker aircraft, it is foreseen that tanker aircraft may need to complete cross-country ferry flights between Navy designated operating areas. This paragraph should be changed to reflect this occurrence since this contract requires such few aircraft. This paragraph should be changed to drop the 150 mile transit bubble or expand the bubble to state “CONUS Ferry Missions only fund up to 2,980 miles (i.e., Jacksonville to China Lake) of the transit from the Contractor’s operating base to the designated detachment base of operations.” | The definition of "Ferry Missions" has been revised. |
| Section L-1 | Section 1.0 Volume 1: Technical | Offerors that are operating tanker aircraft with current IFCs should not be required to submit Technical Elements #2, #3, and #4, as these documents simply support the award of an IFC. This section should be modified to reflect the situation where Offerors that are operating tanker aircraft with NAVAIR approved IFCs should alternately submit IFCs, FAA Airworthiness Certificates, and Supplemental Type Certificates for each tanker being proposed under this CAS AAR contract proposal. | Consideration has been given to the suggested change; this section of the solicitation will remain unchanged. |
| Section L-1 | Section 3.2.1 - Aircraft Modifications Status Report | This section states “[t]he Offeror shall include for each aircraft proposed a list of all currently installed modifications and configuration changes since released by the OEM.” The paragraph should add that a resubmittal of this list is not required if an Offeror already has certified tankers. Alternately, Offerors with appropriately certified tankers should submit IFCs, FAA Airworthiness Certificates, and Supplemental Type Certificates for each tanker being proposed under this CAS AAR contract proposal. | Consideration has been given to the suggested change; this section of the solicitation will remain unchanged. |
| Section L-1 | Section 3.3.2 - Maintenance History Report | This section states “[t]he Offeror shall include for each aircraft proposed a description of the process and method used to establish the aircraft's maintenance history prior to taking possession of the aircraft.” The paragraph should add that a resubmittal of these descriptions is not required if an Offeror already has certified tankers. Alternately, Offerors with appropriately certified tankers should submit IFCs, FAA Airworthiness Certificates, and Supplemental Type Certificates for each tanker being proposed under this CAS AAR contract proposal. | Consideration has been given to the suggested change; this section of the solicitation will remain unchanged. |
| This contact is currently listed as a Total Small Business set aside; has this been determined to be the final decision? | At this time, the decision to proceed as a Total Small Business set-aside remains. | ||
| Can a foreign reregistered aircraft or operator be subcontracted to support this contract? | Yes. However, compliance with all terms of the contract is still required. Full performance under the contract is required after performance of the planned Capability Establishment CLIN 0005 is complete. | ||
| How far off shore will training missions be conducted and will the Navy require tanker aircraft to be ETOPS certified? | Normal fleet integrated training will be within 250NM of shoreline (thus tanker track within that distance, ~150NM), however with regards to ETOPS, there are OCONUS operations that will the aircraft to fly to ~Sydney, AUS, Honolulu, HI, Anchorage, AK and Guam or Atsugi Japan that must be considered. Paragraph 3.1 of the PWS has been revised to require ETOPS certification. | ||
| What is intended by the statement that preference is given to FAA Part 121 aircraft? | FAA Part 121 Air Carrier Certification relates closely to what the Government Flight Representative (GFR) would use as foundational evidence to conduct their inspection of the contractor to ensure that their Ground Operation Procedures (GOPs) and Flight Operation Procedures (FOPs) either meet or exceed the expectations of the Government’s requirements (ie, the Naval Aviation Maintenance Program (NAMP)). | ||
| PWS | Section 8.0 | Are there any specific security clearances required for the Aircrew or Maintenance personnel? | Specific clearance requirements are identified in revised PWS section 8.0. |
| Generally speaking, how many flight crews are required on both east coast and west coast to meet the avg monthly block hrs of flying? | The number of flight crews are at the discretion of the contractor. Section L-1 of the solicitation will contain data on projected tanker usage. | ||
| Section L-1 | Technical Element #2, section 2.4 | Regarding the NAVAIR IFC, 2.4 states "Navy airworthiness certification plan – All aircraft under this contract will require a U.S. Navy issued Interim Flight Clearance (IFC). The Offeror shall submit a plan detailing its approach to obtaining a Navy IFC, including original certification authority, source of supporting data and major milestones." |
Typically, as the one’s issuing the IFC, the TAE’s put out their data requests in E-power for the Class Desk to facilitate obtaining. As far as this contract is concerned I am not sure how the Gov’t wants us to submit a plan on the NAVAIR IFC when we don’t know exactly what they want for data.
Suggested verbiage: “The Offeror shall agree in writing in their proposal to submit all requested data necessary to obtain a Navy IFC. With the proposal, the offeror shall submit the original certification authority, extent/magnitude of data available to support the evaluation and issuance of an IFC, and agree to provide requested data within 15 days of award for initial evaluation and to work with NAVAIR 4.OP to develop a POA&M for obtaining an IFC."
| The government should consider making the POA&M for a Navy IFC part of the Post-Award conference. | This section of L-1 has been revised. | ||
| Section L-1 | Technical Element #3, sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 | These seem redundant and somewhat contradictory: |
3.1.1 - The Offeror shall demonstrate knowledge that all categories of parts with Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) defined life limits have been identified, and that a plan is in place for replacing those parts on/before their required dates.
3.1.2 -The Offeror shall include for each aircraft type proposed, the complete list of the parts, including structural components, for which the OEM or prior military user has established a life limit. The Offeror shall include for each life -limited part: (a) the flight hours, cycles, calendar date, or other limiting parameters which require removal or overhaul (b) the source that will be used to acquire or overhaul the replacement parts. The Offeror is not required to list the parts installed on each specific aircraft, only to identify the categories of life limited parts, their limitation and replacement source.
How does the offeror demonstrate KNOWLEDGE that defined life limits have been identified? Seems like we do that through 3.1.2 by listing a “complete list of the parts…” except that in the later part of 3.1.2 the document says “The Offeror is not required to list the parts installed on each specific aircraft, only to identify the categories of life limited parts…
| 3.1.2 seems like it covers 3.1.1. | Revised Section 3.1.1 to be more clear and combine with 3.1.2. | ||
| Section L-1 | Technical Element #4, section 4.2.1 | The section states "The Offeror shall provide its proposed logistical strategy for supporting each proposed TMS aircraft, to include flight and ground crew composition, and ground support equipment requirements." |
| Why is flight crew composition here? In Element #6 we have to provide flight crew resumes. This seems redundant. | 4.2.1 is referring to the personnel structure and Element #6 is referring to the qualifications of the personnel resources. | |||
| Ground Support Equipment requirements identified here should be ones (equipment or people) that are unique to the Offeror’s aircraft – if we need power carts or other standard aircraft support equipment my understanding is that these services will be available on the military bases as a hosted aircraft. DCMA GOPS would cover how we support the aircraft at its home base. | Please see PWS paragraph 4.2.11. | |||
| Quality Assurance Surveilliance Plan (QASP) | We can’t find the QASP online under the FBO posting. | The draft QASP was posted to FedBizOps in January 2018. | ||
| Section L-1 | Technical Element #6 | This section states "Personnel Resources - The Offeror shall submit a one (1) page resume for each aircrew proposed to perform under this contract." |
| This is like a “key personnel” on typical CSS contracts. Contingent or Existing, etc. What seems excessive to me is that we must provide resumes of ALL flying personnel proposed to perform when we will be submitting the bid ONE year prior to performance. Suggest that we must submit ONE or TWO resumes per position required to operate the aircraft. 6.2 addresses our plan to recruit, hire, retain qualified personnel. | This section of L-1 has been revised. | |||
| Has there been any consideration to our previous input regarding Hull and Liability insurance? We had suggested that the Government self-insure for NAVAIR tasked Air Refueling missions. Contractor covers their own positioning and depositioning, Mx and training flights. | The Government has reviewed your recommendations and has not made any changes to our initial position on insurance. | |||
| Has there been any consideration for raising the guaranteed flight hours to 1000 or 1200 per aircraft? We have only seen 875 per aircraft in previous documents. | Solicitation clause 5252.216-9506 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES has been revised to reflect a planned minimum guarantee of $31,500,000. | |||
| Has there been any decision on creating a Readiness CLIN? | A Monthly Fixed Cost CLIN 0002 will be provided for the capturing of fixed, non-recurring costs. | |||
| We hope and ask for another Industry Day. We intend to bring two or three representatives from our aircraft OEM doing the AR modification and the leasing company supplying the aircraft. We especially seek a one-on-one session with the NAVAIR Airworthiness and FAA MCO reps to better understand the required steps outlined in FAA Manual 8110.101A. | No further industry days are planned. | |||
| The Period of Performance has been deleted. Potential offerors need some baseline POP for aircraft leasing, maintenance, insurance, basing, hiring considerations, etc. As offerors have stated before, the longer the POP the lower the overall cost to the Navy, but we need some planning factor. | All references to performance period have been removed from the PWS. The total Performance Period of the base contract will be identified in solicitation Section F (4 years and 364 days), with no option periods. | |||
| Para 3.2 Aircraft Certification (AC), Maintenance Practices and Operating Procedures Comment: It would be prudent to direct more discussion and clarification of the NAVAIR and FAA MCO certification process and expectations. In correspondence (5 July 2017) NAVAIR stated it was considering a NAVAIR, FAA, FAA-MCO Industry Day devoted to certification. We strongly recommend and request this meeting be scheduled prior to draft RFP release. | One-on-one Airworthiness Briefings / Discussion Sessions were held with interested participants on 6 and 7 November 2017. | |||
| PWS | Section 3.2.2 | Para 3.2.2 Regarding this excerpt from this paragraph “Note that currently, V-22 and E2-D aircraft are only authorized to refuel from a centerline system.” Question: Is it acceptable to have only one contractor aircraft configured with a centerline drogue or do you expect simultaneous East and West MV-22 and E-2D requirements? | Yes, simultaneous presentations on the East and West coasts for MV-22 and E-2D are expected. See revised PWS section 3.1. | |
| PWS | Section 3.3 | Para 3.3 Contract Line Item Number Descriptions. Question: The Industry Day II Questionnaire and direct correspondence indicated an intent to use a Readiness CLIN to help small businesses effectively manage their cash flow between times of heavy flight ops and periods of less demand. |
| The Readiness CLIN was removed from the latest PBWS, has NAVAIR backed away from considering a Readiness CLIN? | PWS 3.3 formerly contained information on the planned CLIN structure (this language has since been replaced). A Monthly Fixed Cost CLIN 0002 will be provided for the capturing of fixed, non-recurring costs. | |||
| Self insurance recommendation: We strongly suggest the Navy considered providing a compromise approach where the Navy covers all activity inside the air refueling track-upon declaration of MARSA (military assumes responsibility for separation of aircraft) and the bidders would cover the everything outside the air refueling track—per normal commercial operations. | Use of the Ground Flight Risk clauses is not applicable for this procurement; no PWS changes made. | |||
| Discussion with NAVAIR reps at the Industry Days indicated there might be some flexibility for funding a bigger radius than 150 miles for movements from the Contractor home base to a NAVAIR tasking. | The definition of "Ferry Missions" has been revised. | |||
| Section B | CLIN 0004 | Clarification requested on pricing of GFP CLIN 0004 (industry participant asserts that there is not enough detail for offerors to quote an FFP). | PWS section 4.2.13 incorporates additional detail regarding Government Furnished Property Installation and Removal. Also, CLIN 0004 has been revised to be based on a unit of issue of "hours" that will facilitate the quoting of a fixed hourly rate for these tasks. More information on CLIN 0004 can be found in solicitation sections B and C. | |
| Section B | CLIN 0004 | GFE CLIN mentioned "install, removed and maintained". Will it also include design efforts and installation of provisions? | PWS section 4.2.13 incorporates additional detail regarding Government Furnished Property Installation and Removal. Also, CLIN 0004 has been revised to be based on a unit of issue of "hours" that will facilitate the quoting of a fixed hourly rate for these tasks. More information on CLIN 0004 can be found in solicitation sections B and C. | |
| Will there be another Industry Day? If so, when? | No further industry days are planned. One-on-one Airworthiness Briefings / Discussion Sessions were held with interested participants on 6 and 7 November 2017. | |||
| Will there be an opportunity for each vendor to meet one-on-one with NAVAIR Airworthiness and the FAA Military Certification Office (MCO) as part of that Industry Day? | No further industry days are planned. One-on-one Airworthiness Briefings / Discussion Sessions were held with interested participants on 6 and 7 November 2017. | |||
| The Government should define a minimum and maximum number of in-service detachment days or days deployed from contractor's commercial operating base. | Section L-1 of the solicitation will contain data on projected tanker usage. | |||
| Section L-1 | Part B, section 2.3c | Recommendations made to improve Section L Fuel Burn Rate / Cost calculation instructions by interested offeror. | This section of L-1 has been revised. | |
| PWS | Section 3.1, Table 3.1 | In order to capture/assess Best Value, we recommend consideration of Threshold and Objective levels for Key criteria. | This section of the PWS has been revised. | |
| PWS | Section 8.0 | Will NAVAIR require the maintenanc of aircraft to be performed by Secret cleared personnel or will the only relate to operations associated personnel such as flight crew, schedulers/mission coordinators and flying line mechanics? | Specific clearance requirements are identified in revised PWS section 8.0. | |
| Given the widely varying distances to USN Airfields from potential contractor bases, can the positioning flights be funded beyond 150nm? A 750 nm range would allow a wider consideration of potential airfields. | The definition of "Ferry Missions" has been revised. | |||
| We have experienced some significant funding gaps on other similar contracts; we have had to work at risk for periods as long as 4 months before we received funding. Has this program historically had to work at risk and can we expect similar funding gaps? | No, however there may be gaps between task orders for specific customers. During these gaps, no task order will exist and therefore no missions will be flown for those customers. Also, a Monthly Fixed Cost CLIN 0002 will be provided for the capturing of fixed, non-recurring costs. | |||
| The briefing used for the first Industry Day mentioned the potential of 1750 flight hours for the ordering period for the Contracted Air Services, Air to Air Refueling RFP N00421-16-R-0032: Has this number changed? | Solicitation clause 5252.216-9506 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES has been revised to reflect a planned minimum guarantee of $31,500,000. | |||
| Does the minimum guarantee include the hours for potential FMS support referenced in the PBWS? | Solicitation clause 5252.216-9506 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM QUANTITIES has been revised to reflect a planned minimum guarantee of $31,500,000. The minimum guarantee does not distinguish between FMS or othe types of customers. | |||
| Historically, how many flight hours have been flown to support FMS cases per year? | Approximately 100 hours per year on average. | |||
| How many days can the tanker expect to be not flying during a detachment? | Many factors play into non-flying days; weather, training objectives, location, etc. Once a CAS tanker is mobilized, the SO will seek opportunities of non flying during the fleet integrated training exercise where CVW/MAG/Squadrons could benefit and receive training. As a recent example, major exercises on the east and west coast during 1st QTR FY18 only had two no-fly days over (both) 21 day detachment scenarios, with several two event days. Fleet integrated training is driven by the larger Naval Enterprise and real world events. | |||
| Are there any situations where the tanker will be reimbursed for any flights across the country? | Ferry Missions (flights flown at the direction of the SO) are reimbursable; refer to the definition of "Ferry Missions" in PWS Appendix A. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .