RFP_QA_Responses__07-18-2019.pdf

Question Form N00421-17-R-0036

DOCUMENT NAME

and PAGE NUMBER

SECTION

NUMBER

COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS Response

Solicitation, Page 107 Section M, 2.0

The government provides dollar amounts for Magnitude examples. Are these dollar amount ranges for individual T&M and RS&C services? (For example, if an offeror has past performance for T&M services only, does the "Very Relevant" magniitude need to be $5.0 for only the T&M services provided, or a total of the T&M AND RS&C services?

The dollar amount ranges are for total of TM and RS&C services.

Under the medium duration requirement profile (estimated 20 percent of the time) offerors are required 4-6 hours of duration against one required aircraft. Can the government provide the required mission profile altitude when operating the PMSR so offerors may calculate fuel burns

The contractor shall provide any technical solution set that complies with the requirements of the solicitation, Reference to

PBWS Section C, paragraph 4.1.2.

and provide validation of endurance of up to 6 hours endurance?

Confirmed, endurance of up to 6 hours. Reference to PBWS

Section C, paragraph 4.1.4 Aircraft Mission Profiles, PMSR

Profile, Duration: 4-6 hours.

Conversely, under the max duration mission profile, can the government confirm the 6-10 hours of duration for the RS&C in the PMSR is across two aircraft?

Confirmed, the 6-10 hours of duration for the RS&C in the

PMSR is across two aircraft.

May the offeror use one aircraft if it has endurance of ten (10) hours?

The contractor shall provide any technical solution set that complies with the requirements of the solicitation. Reference to

PBWS Section C, paragraph 4.1.2.

If two aircraft are required for max duration, can the government confirm each aircraft will only be required 5 hours each endurance?

The contractor shall provide any technical solution set that complies with the requirements of the solicitation. Reference to

PBWS Section C, paragraph 4.1.2.

Please confirm operational altitude.

The contractor shall provide any technical solution set that complies with the requirements of the solicitation. Reference to

PBWS Section C, paragraph 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.

How does the government propose an offeror is to bid for technology mods assuming this is future work with unknown SOW?

Section L, Part B, 3.5.1(b) b.CLIN 0006 Advanced Technology

Modifications, For bidding purposes, the offeror shall use the

Government NTE amount for CLIN 0006 provided in the CLIN

Table, which are inclusive of the prime and all subcontract efforts. The cost for these services shall be reimbursed at COST, up to and not exceeding the NTE amount. When and if the

Advanced Technology Modifications capability is required, a separate RFP will be issued.

Why is the offeror expected to provide services under CLIN 6 at cost?

Due to the unknown nature of the requirement that may or may not come to fruition.

Can the government provide the historical (last 5 years) usage by year for flight hours and days of service per mission in the following categories:

TM, PMRF, and PMSR?

Yes, available data will be provided.

If possible, please provide the required simultaneous operational days by year for PMRF and PMSR. This will help confirm our proposed fleet strategy.

Yes, available data will be provided.

We must know if the requirement is to have a separate and available TM aircraft outside of the PMRF and PMSR aircraft. Please clarify this requirement

The contractor shall provide any technical solution set that complies with the requirements of the solicitation. Reference to

PBWS Section C, paragraph 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.

Solicitation, Page 17 Section 4.1.4 Must both RS&C aircraft need to be capable of completing PMRF performance requirements (speed, range, altitude, and endurance)?

Yes, both RS&C aircraft need to be capable of completing

PMRF performance requirements (speed, range, altitude, and endurance).

Solicitation, Page 104 Section M, 1.0

The solicitation states: " No alternate proposals will be considered."

Please define and clarify the government's definition of "alternate". Does it mean only one proposal may be submitted per offeror, or does it mean no alternate solutions may be provided in a single proposal?

Only one proposal may be submitted per offeror and the proposal must have only one priced solution.

Solicitation N00421-17-

R-0036, Page 1 & 94

SF33 Block 9, and

Section L Part A

4.0

In addition, because the government’s responses to the questions are necessary in order for us to properly and adequately respond to this solicitation, we respectfully request a thirty (30) day extension to the current response due date.

The Solicitation due date modified to 15 August 2019.

Solicitation N00421-17-

R-0036, Page 1 & 94

SF33 Block 9, and

Section L Part A

4.1

Based on the recently published Q&A’s and further review, FSI hereby submits the additional questions presented below and FSI respectfully requests a 30 day extension of the proposal due date in order to allow sufficient time to incorporate/account for both the Q&A’s just recently published as well as answers to the follow up questions submitted below.

The Solicitation due date modified to 15 August 2019.

Please clarify and advise if the examples used under relevancy are examples or required thresholds? This includes the dollar amounts, and language below:

The Navy will allow commercial past performance, but if the evaluation threshold is for military only, and offerors must meet the thresholds, then a commercial past performance will not suffice.

For example, "over water clearing 640,000 NM squared (NM2) in support of military operations ". Another example is,"RS&C and TM services in support of military operations ". Will the government accept comparable services over land or comparable ISR operations as "Very

Relevant "?

The examples used under Scope/Complexity/Magnitude are examples of required thresholds. The government will accept relevant commercial and governmental services overland and water. Relevancy shall be evaluated by the degree R&SC and

TM operations are relevant to the specifications detailed in

PBWS Section C, paragraph 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. Including, e.g., contracts in support of military operations, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operations and Maritime

Patrol radar surveillance.

4.1.4, Aircraft

Mission Profiles, PMSR, Medium

Duration

4.1.4, Aircraft

Mission Profiles, PMSR, Max

Duration

Solicitation, Page 105 Section M, Part B, 1.0

Solicitation, Page 103 Section M, 2.0

Solicitation, Page 17

Solicitation, Page 47 Section F, CLIN

Question Form N00421-17-R-0036

In the previous Q&A, The government responded to a similar question with "The description of work under Section M, 2.0 are provided as relevancy criteria. The Government will accept relevant commercial or governmental past performance." Will the government accept comparable services over land or comparable ISR operations as "Very Relevant"?

The government will accept relevant commercial and governmental services overland and water. Relevancy shall be evaluated by the degree R&SC and TM operations are relevant to the specifications detailed in PBWS Section C. paragraph

4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. Including, e.g., contracts in support of military operations, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance

(ISR) operations and Maritime Patrol radar surveillance.

Will non-military services be considered as "Very Relevant"?

The government will accept relevant commercial and governmental services overland and water. Relevancy shall be evaluated by the degree non-military operations are relevant to the specifications detailed in PBWS 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.

Including, e.g., contracts in support of military operations, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operations and Maritime Patrol radar surveillance.

Ref pages 11 & 13

Navy response to the previous related question concerning the minimum number of aircraft required for the RS&C CLIN

0001 missions – If the offeror proposes to utilize an aircraft & radar combination that provides a surveillance rate two or more times greater that the Objective’s stated 12,000 NM2 , i.e. 24,000 NM2 , could the

PMSR Outer Sea Range mission be flown by a single aircraft?

The contractor shall provide any technical solution set that complies with the requirements of the solicitation. Reference the

PBWS Section C, paragraph 4.1.1 and 4.1.2.

Ref conformed page past performance description of work

“Operating aircraft, including ….overwater clearing 640,000 Nautical

Miles squared (NM2), will the Navy consider Maritime Patrol radar surveillance government contracts which provides/utilizes exactly the same capabilities & skill sets, i.e. finding the same size boats/ships over vast amounts of water on missions routinely lasting 6 to 10 hours, as equivalent and relevant past performance to “range clearing”?

The examples used under Scope/Complexity/Magnitude are examples of required thresholds. The government will accept relevant commercial and governmental services overland and water. Relevancy shall be evaluated by the degree R&SC and

TM operations are relevant to the specifications detailed in

PBWS section C, paragraph 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. Including, e.g., contracts in support of military operations, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operations and Maritime

Patrol radar surveillance

The flight profile listed in Column C (25K, 250 kts) does not fairly reflect the realistic flight profiles that each bidder may need to fly to perform the stated missions. For example, a bidder proposing an older technology radar may need to fly at 5,000 ft to 15,000 ft (much higher fuel consumption) to be able to detect the size targets specified while a bidder proposing a newer, more technically advanced/capable radar can fly the missions at 25,000 ft with substantially lower fuel consumption thereby having a lower TEP.

Mfg. burn rate information is required to be provided for each proposed aircraft with full fuel tanks, at 25K feet and 250 kts

(gal/FH). This fuel calculation is not measuring radar performance.

Also, the mission profiles and thus fuel consumptions will be substantially different for the PMRF missions than the PMSR missions so the Navy should provide separate TEP profiles and realistic, separate estimated FMs for PMRF & PMSR flight activity to provide for a fair evaluation of proposals.

Mfg. burn rate information is required to be provided for each proposed aircraft with full fuel tanks, at 25K feet and 250 kts

(gal/FH). This fuel calculation is not measuring radar performance.

Ref page 100

Part B, Volume 3 para 3.5.1 (the second para #’d

3.5.1)

We believe that the incumbent listed, Phoenix Air Group, Inc. is only the incumbent for the PMRF portion of the solicitation. If this is correct, please provide the names of the incumbents for the PMSR & TM portions of the solicitation.

Phoenix Air Group, Inc. is the incumbent contractor for all

RS&C and TM efforts under contract N00421-14-D-0023.

Ref page 100, Part B, Volume 3 para 3.5.1

Solicitation, Page 103 Section M, 2.0