N0042117R0018_RFP_Q&As_FINAL.pdf

QUESTION

NUMBER

DOCUMENT NAME and PAGE

NUMBER

SECTION NUMBER COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1. RFP pages 3,4,79 Sect B Sect L, Part B

The total minutes listed for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0101 on page 3 and 4 are 861720 which is equivalent to 2872 hours a year over the 5-year period. The Example historical task orders listed in Sect L only add up to 660 hours a year to cover the Cherry Point, 29 Palms and Fallon classes.

a) Does the government currently plan to order any significant amount of the remaining 2212 hours listed in the CLIN or is that currently future growth?

b) How would the government order against those task orders - via time, location, or customer?

c)Does the government anticipate these additional task orders of short duration(weeks) or over longer periods (months, years)?

a) The Section L Historical Information and Possible Future Task Order Requirements are only provided for information purposes only.

The Government will have the opportunity if it chooses to utilize more CCAS to cover readiness gaps where organic military aircraft historically have taken the forefront.

b) The Government intends to issue annual task orders for each of its USMC EWTG and NAWDC traditional customers. If a non-traditional customer requests CCAS services from this MAC, each individual customer will have the option of the period of performance, quantity, and location.

c) As stated above, the Government intends to issue annual task orders initially, however cannot rule out additional task orders of short duration or longer periods (years). The Government intends to utilize the MAC to the maximum extent practical.

2. RFP page 6 Sect C RFP defines CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0101 as "Terminal Attack Controller Trainer Services For use when performing TACT services as described in the PWS in support of CCAS for the locations identified below in Appendix C. Services are to be provided on a per Task Order basis." Are ferry flights to location of performance covered under this CLIN or are those expected to be flown at offerors expense?

A specific question related to ferry flights was addressed in an earlier posted document at FBO.gov titled, “N0042117R0018_GOVT_RESPONSES_TO

QUESTIONS_IN_RESPONSE_TO_RFI.pdf”. To restate, “the Government’s intention is for all event/deployment specific costs, to include Flight Minutes, Travel, Ferry, Risk, and ODC’s to be rolled up into one Firm Fixed-Price per event/deployment.” Requirements for pricing will be completely identified and defined in any Task Order Request issued by the Government, in accordance with the Section H Task Order Procedures. Any resultant Task Order that is issued will be paid by the Government after service is rendered, in accordance with an issued Task Order.

3. RFP page 6 Sect C RFP defines CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0101 as "Terminal Attack Controller Trainer Services for use when performing TACT services as described in the PWS in support of CCAS for the locations identified below in Appendix C. Services are to be provided on a per Task Order basis."

a) Could the government define how task orders are contemplated to be defined such as duration, location or customer?

b) Since the example tasking is episodic (NAWDC classes 4 times a year for 2 weeks, 29 Palms, G-10 tasking monthly for one week) - will the task orders be for short durations to only cover individual classes or will they cover a period of time covering multiple classes?

a) The Government’s intent initially is to issue annual task orders for each of the USMC and NAWDC customers in which have traditionally held training at the Fallon, 29 Palms, and G-10 ranges as related to each of the customer’s geographical location. If non-traditional customers request service or support, Task Order duration and location will be defined in any issued Task Order Requests.

b) The Government’s intent is to issue annual task orders of each of the USMC and NAWDC customers. Each task order would cover multiple classes over a defined duration or period of performance.

4. RFP Page 8 Attch P4 PWS 3.1.1, Minimum Aircraft Performance Requirements. Attch P4

The aircraft threshold requirements listed in the table on page 8 (specifically the Airspeed/Endurance) are different than the threshold requirements listed in attachment P4. Which are the correct requirements?

Document N0042117R0018 ATTACHMENT P4 requirement content is correct. The Section C, RFP PWS, 3.1.1 Endurance Mission Profile paragraph has been revised to reflect the correct aircraft performance requirement for this element and included within Amendment 0001 to this solicitation.

5. RFP Page 8 PWS 3.1.1, Minimum Aircraft Performance Requirements

The PWS specifies threshold (minimum) Weapons/Ordnance requirements as, "1.

Light Inert (BDU-33/MK-76) Practice Bombs. The Government's minimum requirement per aircraft is the capability to carry at least two (2) MK-76/BDU- 33's."

If an offeror proposes newly manufactured, advanced close air support aircraft from an OEM that has conducted flight certification/testing of MK-82 and GBU-12 weapons but has not yet completed MK-76/BDU-33 testing (simply due to development schedule but with plans to add SUU-20 (MK- 76/BDU-33) and LGTR weapons capability during the PoP), will the Government modify PWS Threshold weapons/ordnance requirements to state, "1. Training Bombs. The Government's minimum requirement per aircraft is the capability to carry at least two (2) MK-76/BDU-33's, or two (2) 500lb-class inert free fall weapons such as MK-82 and/or GBU-12"?

The benefit to the Government of such consideration would be to make available advanced CCAS aircraft with greater weapons delivery capability that could be utilized for future task orders requiring other than MK-76/BDU-33 delivery.

This approach would be consistent with the Government's statement in para 3.3.1, "The Government desires, at the

The Government’s Minimum Aircraft Performance Requirements for purposes of entering the MAC IDIQ are at time of award that a T/M/S have the ability to carry, “Light Inert (BDU-33, MK-76) Practice Bombs. The Government’s minimum quantity requirement per aircraft is the capability to carry at least two (2) MK-76/BDU-33’s.”

The Government advises that all interested parties take note of the Section H Note, H-1 ADDITION OF CONTRACTORS, in which will allow the government to add contractors, if determined to be in the Government’s best interest, during the life of the ID/IQ Contract.

The currently stated requirements remain constant as stated in the currently posted Section C, PWS.

Task Order level, to be able to require the following contractor provided capabilities above the minimum or threshold requirements" where the Government later lists MK-80 series inert free fall bombs as an Objective requirement.

6. RFP Page 9 PWS 3.1.2 RFP states" For CCAS performance, all Contractor aircraft platforms shall possess an active and approved Weapons Danger Zone (WDZ) and IFC for Contractor aircraft platforms and be able to perform required task execution prior to award of a task order for training ordnance release CCAS".

Can the Navy explain their proposed process and timeline to support contractors achieving IFC and WDZ approval prior to bidding on Task Orders?

The IFC and WDZ process will begin after award of the initial task order, CLIN 0002, to all MAC IDIQ awardees. IFC’s will be processed concurrently amongst all MAC awardees. The process and timeline will be discussed and covered in-depth in resultant post-award conferences that will be held with each MAC IDIQ awardee after completion of the IDIQ source selection process. Review and assessment for prospective issuance of the Weapons Danger Zone (WDZ) approval for contract aircraft weapons release will be part of the IFC process after IDIQ award.

7. RFP Page 33 Sec F The RFP states "CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0102, Option - The delivery information detailed below constitutes the ordering periods. The delivery shall be complete six months after issuance of the task order as identified in the individual task orders.". As written, the statement seems to imply a stand-up period of 6 months following issuance of the task order. Can the Government explain the delivery expectations of CLIN 0002?

CLIN 0002 is established as a mechanism to provide Contractors the guaranteed minimum order quantity for each MAC IDIQ Contract holder. The Government’s intent is to issue the initial first Task Order of CLIN 0002 immediately upon MAC IDIQ award to all MAC contract holders. That each MAC awardee will receive a $10,000.00 Task Order for Initial Documentation in Support of Airworthiness and Contract Execution.

8. RFP Page 42 Sect H-2 Can the Government provide any scope or definition to Task Order duration, period of performance, and quantity so the contractor can have a better understanding of fixed risk?

The RFP’s Section C, PWS provides overall scope related to performance required of all T/M/S aircraft supporting Task Orders. As stated above, “The Government’s intent initially is to issue annual task orders for each of the USMC and NAWDC customers in which have traditionally held training at the Fallon, 29 Palms, and G-10 ranges as related to each of the customer’s geographical location. The Government plans to have the ability and bandwidth if determined necessary to cover additional capacity with this MAC IDIQ contract vehicle. If non-traditional customers request service or support, Task Order duration and location will be defined in any issued Task Order Requests.”

As provided for Informational Purposes in Section L, a table of possible future task order requirements has been provided.

9. RFP Page 42 Sec H When does the Government intend to issue the first task order? What is the duration of the task order phase-in period?

As stated above, The Government’s intent is to issue the initial first Task Order of CLIN 0002 immediately upon MAC IDIQ award to all MAC contract holders. That each MAC awardee will receive a $10,000.00 Task Order for Initial Documentation in Support of Airworthiness and Contract Execution.

10. RFP Page 77 Sect L, Part B, 1.0, TE #1, 1.1

If offerors propose multiple aircraft types (variety of T/M/S) in quantities exceeding the minimum of four aircraft as part of the IDIQ bid, will each category of T/M/S aircraft be evaluated individually for participation in the IDIQ or will the proposed total fleet be evaluated collectively? That is, if the government finds a specific T/M/S aircraft type proposed to be unacceptable, will only that part of the bid be rejected or will the entire bid be rejected regardless of the acceptability and remaining quantity (assuming at least four) of the other aircraft T/M/S types offered in the bid? In keeping with the Government's intent to maximize the pool of responsible vendors competing under this IDIQ (and making available the widest quantity of acceptable aircraft for future task orders), we recommend the Government perform individual evaluations of each specific T/M/S type of aircraft offered with the result being that if the vendor is deemed to have at least four acceptable aircraft (of any T/M/S type) contained within the proposal then that proposal would be rated technically acceptable.

Multiple aircraft types (variety of T/M/S) are allowable as part of an offeror’ s proposal. All aircraft proposed by an offeror, as being part of its Technical Approach, are required to meet all of the Government’s minimum performance requirements and will be evaluated collectively.

The Government has not stated an exact number requirement for minimum number of aircraft owned or utilized by a contractor as required to support this MAC IDIQ contract.

PWS paragraph 3.2 Sortie / Mission Requirements the Government states minimum capability to support, that as a minimum to enter the MAC IDIQ, that each MAC contractor shall be able to support at least four (4) aircraft for up to three (3) turns daily in support of an event with duration of sustained operations for at least fourteen (14) days without interruption.

Contractors will be expected to provide the required services defined in each task order to at least meet the 85% minimum performance standards as defined in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP, Attachment 02 of the

RFP).

11. RFP Page 77 Sect L, Part B, 1.0, TE#1, 1.2

The RFP states, “The Offeror shall submit documentation that provides the Offerors proof of ownership or lease for each of the aircraft proposed for use under this contract.”

a) In the case of a leased aircraft arrangement and for the purpose of the IDIQ proposal, does the offeror satisfy the requirement by providing (1) proof of a signed Teaming Agreement with the owner of the aircraft and (2) the aircraft owner’s proof of aircraft ownership in place of a Lease Agreement? The terms of a lease agreement consider the specific requirements to be identified in future Task Order Requests. A Teaming Agreement at this point in the program is more appropriate given that the current IDIQ RFP does not contain sufficient detail to establish the conditions of a signed lease agreement.

Yes. The Government would accept a signed Teaming Agreement with the owner of the aircraft and (2) the aircraft owner’s proof of aircraft ownership in place of a Lease Agreement.

12. RFP Page 78 Sect L, Part B, 1.0, TE #3, 3.3.1

The RFP states " The Offeror shall demonstrate for each aircraft proposed that the aircraft has been maintained in accordance with the requirements established by the OEM or civil regulations similar to or such as that required by FAA Part 91.417 for the timeframe from manufacture to proposal submittal. The Offeror shall provide a list of documentation, and all data and records supporting the maintenance."

The total amount of documentation for aircraft that have been in service long periods stretches over 1000 pages.

Would the Government accept this documentation as part of CDRL 01 subject to the offeror providing evidence of those documents in the IDIQ proposal?

As there is no page limit to Technical Element #3 Airworthiness Data. The Section L requirements as stated remain the Government’s requirements. Offerors, “shall provide list of documentation, and all data and records supporting the maintenance.”

13. RFP Page 79 Sect L, Part B, 1.0, Table

The example task orders given in the chart at the bottom of page 79 list year long period of performances with episodic event durations of 1- 2 weeks during that PoP.

a)If offerors offer a pool of multiple aircraft types to fulfil the tasking for the event periods listed, will offerors be able to provide different aircraft to fulfill tasking for each event assuming every aircraft utilized meets the TO threshold requirements and has been approved for the IDIQ? The intent would be to provide the government a continuous availability (with simultaneous event execution) of aircraft that meet threshold requirements throughout the PoP with the addition or substitution of greater capability aircraft for certain periods and supporting specific events based on scheduled aircraft availability.

Yes. Multiple aircraft types (variety of T/M/S) are allowable as part of an offeror’ s proposal.

14. RFP Page 85 Sect M, Part B, 1.0, TE #2

The RFP states, "Any proposed aircraft or proposed solution that does not meet all threshold performance requirements will be deemed unacceptable." In a scenario where a vendor proposes a total of 6 aircraft of two distinct T/M/S (where one T/M/S (let's call it T/M/S "A") consists of two aircraft and the other T/M/S (T/M/S "B") consists of four aircraft), if T/M/S "A" aircraft are evaluated by the Government to be unacceptable but T/M/S "B" aircraft are evaluated by the Government to be acceptable, will the Government consider the proposal "technically acceptable" assuming the rest of the technical elements are acceptable?

Multiple aircraft types (variety of T/M/S) are allowable as part of an offeror’ s proposal.

“ALL” aircraft proposed by an offeror, as being part of its Technical Approach, are required to meet all of the Government’s minimum performance requirements. An offerors fleet or cadre of aircraft will be evaluated collectively.

15. RFP pg. 2 Section A - Solicitation.

Contract Form

The RFP states in paragraph (1) This acquisition is a full and open competition that will result in placement of a multiple award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IG) contract. Based on market research indicating two or more capable small business for this type of work, will the Government consider a partial set-aside for Small Business? (see ACCAMIC RFP FA4890-17-R-0007 for CAF CAS services and AFSOC contract FA0021-16-C-0002 for CCAS services)

As stated in Section A, “This acquisition is a full and open competition that will result in placement of a multiple award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract.

The Government is not considering a partial set-aside for Small Business.

Small Businesses are encouraged to participate as they can often provide the best value to the Government.

Large Business Offeror(s) shall provide a SB Subcontracting Plan conforming to the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7 as Annex 1, unless there is an already approved comprehensive SB Plan.

16. RFP pgs. 8-9; Attach P4 pg. 1 Section C, PWS paragraph 3.0 & 3.3;

Block 6 Airspeed and Endurance

Aircraft Speed envelope is currently established at 300 KTAS minimum with a 350 KTAS objective. The USAF solicitation FA4890-17-R-0007 has two categories of aircraft with differing performance but the same technical capabilities. The USAF Category D aircraft speed range is 175KTAS minimum with a 250KTAS objective but must have the same radio, sensor, live weapons, strafe, and digital capabilities as the Category E "jet class" which fly higher and faster. The preponderance of the USAF contract is Category D aircraft which more than satisfies any requirements for all but a few JTAC training needs. If the Navy were to mirror or at least somewhat match the USAF performance requirements it would certainly open competition and allow Contractors who made significant investments in aircraft fleets utilize the same aircraft and equipment to service both branch's JTACs to meet their Joint training requirements. Would the Navy have any reason not to utilize the same aircraft specifications as the Air Force for training Joint Terminal Attack Controllers?

The Navy and USMC TACT requirements are provided as stated in the RFP, Section C, PWS.

These are the requirements for the Navy and USMC, and we cannot speak to the USAF requirements.

17. RFP page 74 L; PART A; 2.0 States “The Offeror shall provide one copy of the proposal to the Procuring Officer (PCO) as electronic files…”

a. Is this copy in addition to the 2 CDs identified in Table L-1 for a submission total of 3 CDs? (1 CD to the PCO and 2 CDs

a) Provision of the two (2) CDs meet the requirement here.

b) Address as stated in Section L:

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AD-PAX

Code: AIR-2.5.1.13.13 (Betty Rojas / David Silverstone)

b. Can the Government please confirm the name and delivery address of the

PCO?

c. Does the Government want the PCO copies boxed separately from the delivery copies?

21983 BUNDY RD, BLDG 441

PATUXENT RIVER, MD 20670

Solicitation Number: N00421-17-R-0018

c) No.

18. Attachment P1 page 1 N/A States “Response Template instructions:

Respondents are encouraged to provide feedback (questions, comments and recommendations regarding the draft Documentation.” We are under the impression that the solicitation issued on 12/4 is the final solicitation.

a. Can you please confirm that the solicitation issued on 12/4 is not a draft document?

b. Can you please confirm that a response to the solicitation issued on 12/4 if due on 1/15?

a) Final RFP was issued on 30 November 2018.

b) Proposals are due 15 January 2019.

19. RFP page 76 L; PART A; 4.0 States “It is requested that Volume 3 Past Performance information be submitted 14 days prior to the submission date specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP.” Since 14 days prior to 15 Jan is 1 Jan, the New Year’s Day holiday, can the Government please consider extending this due date to no earlier than 4 Jan so Offerors do not need to contend with shipping over a holiday weekend?

Yes. The requested time period has been changed from 14 to 10 days prior, to address this logistical circumstance and included within Amendment 0001 to this solicitation.

20. RFP page 10 C 3.5.13 States "For each aircraft proposed that requires modification to meet the requirements of PWS, the Contractor shall modify, as required, the Management Plan, (CDRL A001) detailing the modifications required to bring the aircraft into compliance.” CDRL A001 references Section C 3.5.1.3, however the title of CDRL A002 is “Management Plan and Standard Operating Procedures” and does not reference Section C 3.5.1.3. Can the Government please de-conflict?

De-confliction is not required. CDRL A001 is the correct reference here in PWS Paragraph 3.5.1.3.

21. RFP page 14 C 4.2.2.1 Does not reference CDRL A003. Can the Government please add the appropriate reference?

CDRL A003 has been revised, removing the citation to PWS Paragraph 4.2.2.1 and included within Amendment 0001 to this solicitation.

22. CDRL A005 page 1 N/A Cites PWS Section 3.5.3.1. There is no Section PWS Section 3.5.3.1. Can the Government please de-conflict?

CDRL A005 has been corrected, removing the citation to the non-existent Paragraph 3.5.3.1 and included within Amendment 0001 to this solicitation.

23. PWS page 22 C.9.7 Cites CDRL A007, however CDRL A007 does not reference CDRL A007. Can the Government please de-conflict?

CDRL A007 has been revised, adding the citation to PWS Paragraph 9.7 and included within Amendment 0001 to this solicitation.

24. RFP page 76 L; PART A; 3.0 States “Use tabs and dividers”. Since this is an electronic (CD) submission without any hard copies, can the Government please remove this requirement?

Yes. Requirement to utilize “tabs and dividers” has been removed in Section L, Part A, 3.0 Proposal Content and Volumes and included within Amendment 0001 to this solicitation.

25. RFP page 74 L; PART A; 2.0 States “The Offeror shall provide one complete copy of the proposal to the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) as electronic files fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2010 and for information not supported by MS Office products, with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on a CD-ROM. “

a. Please confirm that the Government’s preference is to receive files in their native form (i.e. docx and xlsx) vs PDF files.

b. Please confirm that the Government will accept PDF files for documents unavailable in their native form (i.e. SOWs/PWSs for cited contracts).

An Offerors proposal shall be provided as electronic files, fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2010 and for information not supported by MS Office products, with the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on a CD-ROM.

26. RFP page 77 L; PART B; 1.0 States “With exception of the IR Sensor, the Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate that its technical approach meets all of the Government’s minimum threshold requirements…If the Offeror is not able to demonstrate how the aircraft will meet the IR Sensor minimum threshold requirement at time of contract award, the Offeror shall provide a plan that demonstrates how the aircraft will meet the IR Sensor minimum threshold requirement within six months from the date of contract award.”

This language seems to conflict. Can the Government please confirm that it is acceptable for Offerors to meet the threshold requirement for the IR Sensor within 6 months of contract award?

The language referenced here does not conflict and “Yes” the Government can confirm, in accordance with Section L; Part B, Technical Element #2 that, “If the Offeror is not able to demonstrate how the aircraft will meet the IR Sensor minimum threshold requirement at time of contract award, the Offeror shall provide a plan that demonstrates how the aircraft will meet the IR Sensor minimum threshold requirement within six months from the date of contract award.

27. RFP page 80 L; PART B; 2.0 States “The Offeror shall complete the Past Performance Information Form, Attachment P2, for each past performance reference performed within five years of the solicitation release date. The Offeror shall submit no more than five Past Performance Information Forms as the Prime Contractor and/or no more than two forms for each JV team member.” This language is a little confusing.

a. Must Offerors provide Past Performance Information Forms for a TOTAL of 5 contracts (as the prime)?

b. Can Offerors select ONLY their most relevant contracts and provide Past Performance Information Forms for a MAXIMUM of 5 contracts (as the prime)?

a) Past Performance will only be evaluated for offerors as a Prime Contractor. No more than five (5) Past Performance Information Forms can be submitted for each offeror.

b) Yes, offerors can select the contracts it wishes to submit Past Performance Information Forms for at a maximum of five (5).

Evaluation of Past Performance will only be conducted for contracts where the offeror was the Prime Contractor or as a Joint Venture.

Contracts where an offeror performed as a subcontractor will not be evaluated.

28. RFP page 80 L; PART B; 2.0 States “The primary source of past performance information will be PPIRS.

If a Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) exists for multiple years for the same contract/order, all periods of performance within the recency period specified above, for that contract/order, will be used for evaluation.”

a. Will the Government go onto PPIRs directly to review CPARS?

b. Does the Government want Offerors to provide CPARS in their proposal if available?

a) Yes.

b) Yes.

29. RFP page 81 L; PART B; 3.0 States “a The original signed SF33 for the basic solicitation and each amendment (as applicable) (including Solicitation sections B-K).” Does the Government want Offerors to provide all solicitation sections B-K or only those requiring fill-ins?

Prospective offerors are required to submit an original signed SF33 for the basic solicitation and each amendment to include Solicitation sections B-K as stated in Section L, 3.0 Volume 3 – Contract Administration.

30. Attachment P2 N/A Does the Government want Offerors to keep each Past Performance reference to the 2 pages that are allocated within the Past Performance Information Form?

The “Contract Effort Description” field on the Attachment P2 Past Performance Information Form has no word count limit, therefore there is no page limit for past performance information.

Offerors can provide a supplemental document to follow along with the P2 Past Performance Information Form in its Past Performance Submittal.

31. RFP page 74 L; PART A; 2.0 States “Written proposals must be formatted using a Times New Roman 12

pt. Normal font…” however the Past Performance Information Form defaults to Helvetica and cannot be adjusted. Can the Government please consider removing this requirements for the Past Performance volume?

Yes, we have considered and will allow use of Helvetica for the Past Performance Information Form.

32. RFP page 80 L; PART B; 2.0 States “The Offeror shall provide a narrative on each Past Performance Information form in the “Contract Effort Description” area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation.” The space provided for Offerors to respond to the “Contract Effort Description” is not large enough to address all items identified in Section M.

a. Can the Government provide a revised Past Performance Information Form that provides more space to respond to the Contract Effort Description?

b. Can Offerors use their own template instead of the Past Performance Information Form?

a) The provided Attachment P2 Past Performance Information Form is the standard document utilized and shall be completed for each past performance reference submitted.

b) Offerors can provide a supplemental document to follow along with the P2 Past Performance Information Form in its Past Performance Submittal.

33. Attachment P2 N/A The Past Performance Information Form only provides a small space to provide a Contract Effort Description and a large space to provide “Demonstrated Systemic Improvement Information”, however Section M of the solicitation requests the following information as is pertains to contract Relevance “Scope, Complexity (Aircraft Basing and Maintenance, FAA Type Certificates; and Continuing Airworthiness) and Magnitude (Dollar value)” and the following information as it pertains to contract quality “1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance; 2) meeting schedule requirements, e.g., on time performance; 3) controlling contract cost; 4) managing the contracted effort;

5) utilization of small business; 6) regulatory compliance, and 7) the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems.”

a. Can the Government provide a revised Past Performance Information Form that more closely aligns with the Section M requirements?

b. Can Offerors use their own template instead of the Past Performance Information Form?

a) The provided Attachment P2 Past Performance Information Form is the standard document utilized and shall be completed for each past performance reference submitted.

b) Offerors can provide a supplemental document to follow along with the P2 Past Performance Information Form in its Past Performance Submittal.

34. Attachment P2 page 1 N/A Contains cells to provide contact information for the Program Manager and the Contracting Point of Contact.

Section L PART B states “The Offeror shall include instructions for the Program Manager to send completed questionnaires within seven (7) days of its receipt…”. Can the Government

CPAQs only need to be sent to the Program Manager, however need to be completed to the maximum extent possible. This would include population of the Agency/Customer Contracting POC information fields.

please confirm that CPAQs should only be sent to the Program Manager?

35. Attachment P4 N/A This was provided as a PDF file and therefore cannot be filled in.

a. Do Offerors need to insert our information into the actual document provided?

b. If so, can the Government please provide a word file for Offerors to complete?

c. Can Offerors recreate Attachment P4 as long as it contains the same information and cells?

d. Does the Government want Attachment P4 included within the body of the Technical Volume or as an attachment to the Technical Volume?

a. No, Offerors can recreate the Attachment P4 as long as it contains the same information and cells.

b. Offerors can recreate the Attachment P4 as long as it contains the same information and cells.

c. Yes.

d. Offerors can provide as an attachment to its Technical Volume.

36. RFP page 77 PART B 2.1 States "If the Offeror is not able to demonstrate how the aircraft will meet the IR Sensor minimum threshold requirement at time of contract award, the Offeror shall provide a plan that demonstrates how the aircraft will meet the IR Sensor minimum threshold requirement within six months from the date of contract award." However, Section M states "For the IR Sensor performance threshold requirement, if the proposed aircraft is not currently capable of meeting the requirement then the Government will evaluate the offeror’ s proposed plan to meet the requirement within six months from the

Please see Government Response to question 26, above.

date of contract award." Can the Government please de-conflict?

37. RFP Page 78 L, Part B, 3.3.1 States "The Offeror shall provide a list of documentation, and all data and records supporting the maintenance." The volume of "all data and documentation" is immense can offerors provide a link (active or inactive) to our data room in lieu of hardcopy data?

As there is no page limit to Technical Element #3 Airworthiness Data. The Section L requirements as stated remain the Government’s requirements. Offerors, “shall provide list of documentation, and all data and records supporting the maintenance.” The information in question here is required with the offeror’ s proposal. This data is not required to be submitted hardcopy. Proposals are to be submitted on Compact Discs (CDs), not hardcopy.

38. RFP page 8 PART 3.1.1 Airspeed and Endurance threshold 2 states "2. Endurance Mission Profile:

Assume standard day conditions. While carrying the required threshold ordnance and external stores the aircraft shall launch from airfield from sea level to 4K MSL. Transit 150 nautical miles to desired working area. Conduct a minimum of 4 Dive Delivery Profiles at 300 KTAS in threshold ordnance configuration from altitudes up to 18K MSL without any refueling operations.

Aircraft shall have sufficient fuel, following return to base, in order to comply with FAA or OPNAVINST 3710.7 (as appropriate) fuel reserve requirements."

a) Is the return to base also 150 nautical miles from the working area.

b) How much time on station is requested on station to perform the (4)

a) Yes.

b) The RFP PWS at 3.1.1, Airspeed and Endurance, 2. Endurance Mission Profile has been revised as follows and is included within Amendment 0001 to this solicitation:

“Endurance Mission Profile: Assume standard day conditions. While carrying the required threshold ordnance and external stores the aircraft shall launch from airfield from sea level to 4K MSL. Transit 150 nautical miles to desired working area. Maintain a 60-minute time on station in the desired working area at a minimum of 12K MSL. Conduct a minimum of 4 Dive Delivery Profiles at 300 KTAS in threshold ordnance configuration from altitudes up to 18K MSL without any refueling operations. Aircraft shall have sufficient fuel, following return to base, in order to comply with FAA or OPNAVINST 3710.7 (as appropriate) fuel reserve requirements.”

attacks. (i.e. are the 4 attacks part of close air support attacks, in which case the planning factors currently used by EWTGPAC are (2) close air support attacks per 30-minute time (so would be 1-hour on station) or are the attacks as quickly as we can circle around at 300 KTAS and thus a much shorter time on station?

39. RFP page 10-11 Part 3.5.1.3 Aircraft modifications required to meet the requirements of the PWS, does the government expect the contractor to assume all of the financial risk for a modification (Such as a targeting pod) if the government does not approve the modification?

Yes.

40. RFP Page 9 Part 3.1.2 States "For CCAS performance, all Contractor aircraft platforms shall possess an active and approved Weapons Danger Zone (WDZ) and IFC for Contractor aircraft platforms and be able to perform required task execution prior to award of a task order for training ordnance release CCAS."

a) Does this mean that the WDZ is required to have in order to submit a compliant proposal in order to meet the requirements or can a contractor bid without a WDZ with the hopes of getting one prior to a task order, and if so what assurance would be needed for the government to determine a contractor meets the requirement to be able to get a WDZ?

Possession of a WDZ is not required in order to have a compliant proposal. Section L, Technical Element #2 states, “For each T/M/S aircraft proposed for use on this contract, the Offeror shall demonstrate how the aircraft will meet the requirements described in PWS paragraph 3.1 and provide evidence of each T/M/S aircraft proposed were developed and manufactured to drop ordnance/threshold munitions. Each aircraft proposed shall meet the Threshold performance requirements specified in the PWS. Supporting data (excerpts from flight manuals, published performance data, etc.) shall be submitted to substantiate the aircraft meets the performance requirements. For supporting data, the reference sources are required. As evidence or substantiation data of proposed T/M/S aircraft, the Offeror shall submit Original Equipment

Manufacturer and/or Military documentation that the T/M/S were developed and manufactured to drop ordnance and/or has been qualified by a military airworthiness authority, and utilized in dropping of threshold requirement ordnance.”

41. RFP Page 14 Part 4.2.2 Fuel: Requesting clarification if fuel will part of the pricing or if it will be government paid fuel costs and not part of contractor pricing.

As stated at Paragraph 4.2.2 of the PWS, this contract is a “dry” contract, in that the Government will provide appropriate fuel cards for each of the Contractor’s aircraft and cover costs for scheduled flights in support of contract performance. The fuel will be paid for by the Government as the Government will provide access to fuel at U.S. Government bases and civil fields. Fuel will be Government paid fuel costs in support of specific task orders and will not be a part of contractor pricing analysis at the task order level.

42. RFP Page 8 Sec. 3.1.1 Targeting Pod:

a) Does every mission require a targeting pod?

b)Does every aircraft require a targeting pod on missions requiring a targeting pod or is one pod sufficient for each element?

a) No, not every mission will require use of a targeting pod.

b) All aircraft proposed are required to meet the minimum threshold performance requirements identified in the PWS. For the IR Sensor performance threshold requirement, if the proposed aircraft is not currently capable of meeting the requirement then the Government will evaluate the offeror’ s proposed plan to meet the requirement within six months from the date of contract award.

Any proposed aircraft or proposed solution that does not meet all threshold performance requirements will be deemed unacceptable.

43. RFP Page 9 Sec. 3.3.1 For the DAF objective, is that an objective for every mission and if so is it an objective for each aircraft to have the capability or is one aircraft with the capability sufficient in the element for missions requiring the capability?

The Government at this time cannot project if and when DAF will become a requirement;

however, capability to provide the DAF objective will not be a part of the MAC IDIQ Source Selection Process. Objectives may be utilized at the Task Order level.

44. RFP page 88 2.0 States "The Offeror shall provide a narrative on each Past Performance Information Form in the "Contract Effort Description" area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation." However Section M evaluation of Relevant Magnitude is based on Task Orders >$500,000 and greater than 1 week in length. Does the Government want Past Performance Information (and associated CPAQs) to

Provision of Past Performance Information at the Contract Level, with performance specific information identified at a Task Order level therein, would be a valid approach to submittal.

be provided at the contract level (with Task Orders identified therein)?

45. RFP page 88 2.0 States "The Offeror shall provide a narrative on each Past Performance Information Form in the "Contract Effort Description" area that clearly describes how each contract reference has relevant work effort that matches the relevancy definitions specified in Section M of the solicitation." However Section M evaluation of Relevant Magnitude is based on Task Orders >$500,000 and greater than 1 week in length. Does the Government want Past Performance Information (and associated CPAQs) to be provided at the Task Order level?

Yes, submission of Past Performance responses and information for Task Orders held as a Prime Contractor could be a valid submittal.

The Government, at the Task Order level in accordance with FAR 16.505 Fair Opportunity Procedures and the Section H Ordering Procedures, reserves the right to utilize Past Performance or Performance on previously held Orders in the Task Order selection process.

46 N0042117R0018_TACT_FINAL_RFP

(Page 76-77)

Section L "For Informational Purposes Only, Possible Future Task Order Requirements, initially planned to be acquired on an annual basis, are provided as follows. "

a) Please clarify the intent of the term "For Informational Purposes Only" when referring to the Task Orders. Does the government intend to award a single location (e.g. Cherry Point) to a single contractor for a one-year period?

b) Will a location be awarded to multiple contractors, with each one or two week Det competed separately?

c) Can one contractor win multiple task orders simultaneously?

a) The Government intends to utilize the flexibility of the MAC ID/IQ to the maximum extent practical. The current plan is to issue one (1) Task Order for the USMC EWTGs and one (1) for NAWDC JCAS traditional or primary customers; not on a per location basis.

However, the Government does reserve the right to do so.

b) No. Intent is to issue annual Task Orders per customer, not specific to a location.

c) Yes.

47. N0042117R0018_TACT_FINAL_RFP

(Page 3-5)

Section B Since there is no separate Cost/Price Vol, does the Government want the Offerer to populate pages 3-5 for the total Clin value (861,720 minutes) and include it in Vol. 3 of the proposal?

Population of CLIN values are not required nor requested as This RFP utilizes Class Deviation (2018-O0006, dated 13 DEC 2017) which permits Multiple Award Contracts (MACs) to exclude price/cost as an evaluation factor under certain conditions. Price/Cost evaluation is not a part of the MAC IDIQ Source Selection Process.