The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
RFP N0042117R0055
Aircrew Services Questions/Response 2 of 2
| Industry Question |
| Government Response |
| 15 |
| Page 100, Section L Part A, paragraph 6.0 says, “All proposals must be UNCLASSIFIED;” however, page 102, Section L Part B, paragraph 2.1 says, “the Offeror shall provide one electronic copy of the contract award, one electronic copy of the SOW….” How would the Government advise offerors to comply with the whole of Section L if the contract award and SOW are classified? |
Section L, Para 6.0 of Part A is referring to the Offeror’s proposal in response to this solicitation, N00421-17-R-0055, and that proposal must be UNCLASSIFIED.
Section L, Para 2.1 of Part B is referring to contracts submitted as Volume 2 Past Performance reference submissions and the Government will not accept any Past Performance reference submissions containing any CLASSIFIED information.
| 16 |
| On pages 105-8, Section L Part B, paragraph 3.4.2, Labor hours are grouped by Labor Category, but location of performance is not broken out among places of performance. For example, a total of 9 FTEs of C/KC-130 Flight Engineer are required, but they are only depicted as located at “Pax River/Pt. Mugu.” Without specific information on how many of each labor category are required at each location, a significant advantage is conferred on the incumbent for pricing purposes, as these locales have substantially different costs of living associated with them, and therefore labor costs are distinctly different. |
Will the government identify how many of each labor category are required at each geographical location?
The Government will specify the labor hours for each location in ATT_P-9 Breakout of Labor Hours via Amendment.
| 17 |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Pages 34-45, Position Requirements. The Position Requirements specify several positions with the desire to obtain an SCI clearance. The released DD-254 is not consistent with the requirements for Sensitive Compartmented Information (Section 10.e.1 of the DD-254) and/or Special Access Information (Section 10.f of the DD-254). Will the Government issue an updated DD-254 to eliminate this ambiguity? |
The Government plans to continue the solicitation at TS.
| 18 |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Pages 34-45, Position Requirements. Several positions descriptions state “A Secret Clearance is required with a Top Secret clearance and the ability to obtain SCI access desired.” Would the Government consider changing this requirement to read “A Secret security clearance is required with the ability to obtain a TS/SCI clearance”? |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Pages 34-45, Position Requirements will be updated via Amendment to read, “A Secret security clearance is required with the ability to obtain a TS” |
| 19 |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 34, Position Requirements (C/KC-130 In-Flight Engineer). Listed title is C/KC-130 In-Flight Engineer. The word “In” is not required; recommend deletion. |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Pages 34, Position Requirements (C/KC-130 In-Flight Engineer) will be updated via Amendment to delete the word “In”. |
| 20 |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 36, Position Requirements (E-2/C-2 Weapon System Operator/Flight Test Engineer (NFO CAT C/D). Description states that must be a graduate of a Test Pilot School. For pilot positions (Cat C/D testing) there is a waiver process in the 3710.1 instruction that is not applicable for NFOs. Would the Government consider stating that being a graduate of a Test Pilot School is desired vice required? |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 36, Position Requirements (E-2/C-2 Weapon System Operator/Flight Test Engineer (NFO CAT C/D) will be updated via Amendment to read, “A graduate of one of the following: U.S. Naval Test Pilot School, U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School, Empire Test Pilot School, EPNER Test Pilot School is desired. Two years RDT&E experience is required.” |
| 21 |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 38, Position Requirements (F-18 WSO (CAT A/B/C). Description states that must be a graduate of a Test Pilot School. For pilot positions (Cat C/D testing) there is a waiver process in the 3710.1 instruction that is not applicable for NFOs. Would the Government consider stating that being a graduate of a Test Pilot School is desired vice required? |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 38, Position Requirements (F-18 WSO (CAT A/B/C) will be updated via Amendment to read, “A minimum of 1,000 hours in the F-18 (A/B/C/D/E/F/G) T/M/S and two years of RDT&E flight test experience required. For CAT C must be a graduate of one of the military test pilot schools - USNTPS, USAFTPS, Empire, and EPNER is desired. Two years of RDT&E flight test experience required.” |
| 22 |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 38, Position Requirements (Fixed Wing Instructor Pilot). Second to last sentence states “Four additional years of ‘rotary’ wing test pilot experience…” Would the Government consider changing the word ‘rotary’ to ‘fixed’ for consistency with the rest of the description? |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 38, Position Requirements (Fixed Wing Instructor Pilot) will be updated via Amendment by changing the word “rotary” to “fixed” in the sentence, “Four additional years of rotary wing test pilot experience and a BA/BS degree may be substituted for a Master’s degree.”. |
| 23 |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 38, Position Requirements (H-60 Test Pilot (CAT A/B/C/D). Last sentence states “A Top Secret Clearance is required.” This is inconsistent with similar labor categories that only require a Secret clearance with the ability to obtain a Top Secret clearance. Would the Government consider relaxing the security clearance requirement to be consistent with other labor categories? |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 38, Position Requirements (H-60 Test Pilot (CAT A/B/C/D) will be updated via Amendment to read, “A Secret security clearance is required with the ability to obtain a TS clearance” |
| 24 |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 40, Position Requirements (Non-Flying Fixed and Rotary Wing Flight Instructors). Most of the description discusses actual flight instruction. Would the Government consider deleting the first section and only keep the verbiage starting with “Non-flying instructors”? |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 40, Position Requirements (Non-Flying Fixed and Rotary Wing Flight Instructors) will be updated via Amendment to read, “The Flight Instructor provides individual flight, and ground instructions to military, civilian or international student pilots, flight officers, and engineers in a highly structured training environment. Flight instruction may be performed in a high performance aerobatic aircraft with students who have limited or no previous flight experience. Instruction is based on highly structured syllabus of instruction. Instructors must be able to tailor instruction to students' individual progress and previous qualifications. Instructors must be skilled in providing instruction. This position maintains training folders that accurately reflect student performance and progress, documents student deficiencies and suggests corrective actions, and motivates students having problems with performance or adaptation to the flight environment. Typically performs all functional duties independently. Non-flying flight instructors shall become instructors in ground-based flight simulators. Certification in an exercise as a non-flying flight instructor includes all the training required for a flight instructor minus the flying. Six years of Instructor experience and a Masters' degree are required. Four additional years of experience and a BA/BS may be substituted for the Masters' degree. The non-flying instructors perform all the tasks of a fixed or rotary wing flight instructor except in-flight instruction. Non-flying instructors have no flight qualification or currency requirements. A Secret Clearance is required. |
| 25 |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 41, Position Requirements (P-3C/EP-3 Flight Engineer). For this description there is no security clearance requirement mentioned. Would the Government consider adding similar verbiage to other labor categories such as “A Secret Clearance is required with the ability to obtain a Top Secret/SCI”? |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 41, Position Requirements (P-3C/EP-3 Flight Engineer) will be updated via Amendment to read, “A Secret security clearance is required with the ability to obtain a TS clearance” |
| 26 |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 41, Position Requirements (UAS Group 5 Test Tactical Coordinator (TACCO) (CAT A/B/C/D). Description states that must be a graduate of a Test Pilot School. For pilot positions (Cat C/D testing) there is a waiver process in the 3710.1 instruction that is not applicable for NFOs. Would the Government consider stating that being a graduate of a Test Pilot School is desired vice required? |
| Section C, Paragraph 3.9, Page 41, Position Requirements (UAS Group 5 Test Tactical Coordinator (TACCO) (CAT A/B/C/D) will be updated via Amendment to read, “A graduate of one of the military test pilot schools - USNTPS, USAFTPS, Empire or EPNER is desired. Two years of RDT&E flight experience desired.” |
| 27 |
| Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3.0, Page 98, Proposal Content and Volumes. Past Performance page limits are 5 pages per contract; however, Microsoft Excel places an upper limit on row height such that the narrative block (row 13a) cannot be expanded to allow offerors to use the full 5 pages for a contract reference. Would the Government allow the use of Microsoft Word for the relevancy discussion? Section L, page 102, currently requires that the narrative be in the “Contract Effort Description” area of the Attachment P-3 Past Performance Information form. |
| Per solicitation Section L, Part A, Para. 3.0 Table, the past performance page limit is five (5) pages for each contract. In addition, Section L, 2.0 Volume 2, Past Performance it states, “The Offeror shall complete the Past Performance Information Form, Attachment P3, for each past performance reference performed within five years of the solicitation release date (Extra tabs can be added in this Excel document without counting against the page count for Past Performance listed in Section L, 3.0).” The Offeror may use the extra tabs in Excel and not MS Word. |
| 28 |
| Section L, Part A, Paragraph 3.0, Page 98, Proposal Content and Volumes. Annex 1, OCI Disclosure and Mitigation Plan – if an offeror does not have any OCI, is an offeror still required to submit Annex 1, or may offerors make a statement that they have no OCI in their submittal letter? |
| Annex 1, OCI Disclosure and Mitigation Plan is only required if applicable. |
| 29 |
| Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1, Page 102, Past Performance. This paragraph requires offerors to provide one electronic copy of the contract award, one electronic copy of the SOW and any Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) or Past Performance Questionnaires relevant to the provided Past Performance Information. Would the Government confirm that all of this documentation belongs in Annex 3, The Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR)? |
| No, the documentation in Section L, Part B, paragraph 2.1 belongs in Volume 2, Past Performance. Annex 3 is just the CPAR. |
| 30 |
| Section L, Page 105, Paragraph 3.4.2, Labor Hours table. Would the Government add Pt. Mugu as a Government site for the C/KC-130 Loadmaster? |
Section L, Page 105, Paragraph 3.4.2, Labor Hours table, labor category C/KC-130 Loadmaster, Government will add Pt. Mugu as a Government site via Amendment.
| 31 |
| Section L, Page 106, Paragraph 3.4.2, Labor Hours table. Would the Government add China Lake as a Government site for the F-18 WSO (CAT A/B/C)? |
| Section L, Page 106, Paragraph 3.4.2, Labor Hours table, labor category F-18 WSO (CAT A/B/C), Government will add China Lake as a Government site via Amendment. |
| 32 |
| Section L, Pages 105 through 108, Paragraph 3.4.2. Labor Hours table. For all labor categories that have multiple locations, would the Government specify the labor hours for each unique location? |
The Government will specify the labor hours for each location in ATT_P-9 Breakout of Labor Hours via Amendment.
| 33 |
| Attachment P8 is missing labor category, E-2/C2 Weapon System Operator/Flight Test Engineer (NFO CAT C/D). RFP page 106, section 3.4.2. Labor Hours table includes Government estimated hours for this labor category. Will Government add this labor category to Attachment P8 in the next version? |
| Attachment P-8 will be updated to reflect E-2/C2 Weapon System Operator/Flight Test Engineer (NFO CAT C/D) labor category via Amendment. |
| 34 |
| Attachment P8. Two labor categories listed in Attachment P8 are not listed in Attachment P6 and RFP page 106, section 3.4.2. Labor Hours table. They are: EA-6B NFO (CAT A/B/C): Journeyman (row 24) and EA-6B Pilot (CAT A/B/C): Journeyman (row 25). Will Government remove these two categories from P8? |
| Attachment P-8, EA-6B NFO (CAT A/B/C): Journeyman and EA-6B Pilot (CAT A/B/C): Journeyman will be removed via Amendment. |
| 35 |
| Attachment P8. (TAB 1), column C, Functional Category, pricing instructions says, “furnished by Government.” Is it correct that offerors should not modify the Government provided functional category name? |
| Attachment P8. (TAB 1), column C, Functional Category should not be modified. |
| 36 |
| Attachment P8. (TAB 1), column I-M, it seems like that there is a discrepancy between column I-M heading tripwires and instructions tab, row 8. Is it correct that offerors should not modify the Government provided tripwires amount? Please clarify what input is required in columns I-M, if any. |
| Attachment P8. (TAB 1), column I-M has been updated to reflect a flat Tripwire rate of $300,000.00 Annually and the Government updated the instructions for Row 8, I-M via Amendment. |
| 37 |
| Attachment P6 and P8. Different proposal format is provided in Attachment P6 (Arial 8 pt.) and P8 (Times New Roman 9 pt.). Should offerors use the Government provided font and font size or modify the Government font and font size to reflect Times New Roman 12 pt. per RFP page 97, section 2.0 proposal format requirements? |
Font sizes do not need to be altered to reflect Times Roman 12pt. Offerors should use the Government provided font and font size for Attachment P-8 (Times New Roman 9 pt.) and P-6 (Arial 8 pt.).
| 38 |
| Attachment P8. TAB 1, columns D-H, should the Prime offeror’s fully burdened labor rates include fee? There appears to be a discrepancy between RFP page 103 section 3.3 and RFP page 105. Page 103 states, “Fully burdened labor rates are defined as direct labor rates plus all applicable burdens, to include indirect rates, fee…” Page 105 says, “Attachment P8 spreadsheet will consist of composite rates for each labor categories, exclusive of fee. For purposes of this particular spreadsheet, composite rates are defined as direct labor rates plus all applicable burdens, to include indirect rates, and subcontractor pass-through costs where applicable, but exclusive of fee” Would the Government verify that P8 excludes the Prime offeror’s fee? |
Attachment P8. TAB 1, columns D-H, the Prime offeror’s fully burdened labor rates should include fee. The RFP page 105 section 3.3 will be updated via Amendment.
| 39 |
| Annex 3. If the Government-provided contract awards, SOWs, and CPARs are in a font other than Times New Roman 12, will the Government accept those documents in their original font size? Some of these documents are provided to offerors in formats that cannot be edited. |
The Government will accept the electronic copies of the contract award, SOW and CPAR for each contract reference in their original font and size.
| 40 |
| Attachment P-2. The solicitation documents include Attachment P-2, Workforce Hours Matrix, but neither Section L nor Section M have any requirements for completing or evaluating this matrix. |
Attachment P-2 will be removed from this solicitation.
| 41 |
| The table on Page 3, Section B, under paragraph B-1 shows Year 4 of the contract ending on 09/30/2023, and Year 5 running from 10/01/2024-09/30/2025. Recommend changing Year 5 to read: 10/01/2023-09/30/2024. |
Year 5 will be reflected to show 10/01/2023-09/30/2024 via Amendment.
| 42 |
| The draft RFP included both a 45-day period prior to Period of Performance (PoP) start and a 60-day phase-in period after. The final RFP removed reference to the 60-day phase-in, which we believe has two undesirable effects: |
1. It hurts the Government. By not allowing for a face-to-face turnover of work between outgoing and incoming contractors it will inevitably lead to breaks in service and missed flights. While many of the required administrative actions to transition a flying contract can be initiated prior to actual PoP start, there are vital steps that do not apply in other services contracts that cannot occur until afterward, some of which are dependent on government actions over which the contractor has no control. Only through a closely coordinated phase-out of the predecessor contractor and phase-in of the incoming contractor can an orderly transition occur without interruption to flight operations.
2. It unfairly advantages the incumbent. As it reads, the incoming contractor must achieve “full performance” on day one of the PoP. If this means the contractor must be flying at all sites on day one of the PoP, for the reasons outlined above, only the incumbent can say with certainty that it can.
Will the government consider reinstating the language of the draft RFP allowing for a 60-day phase-in following PoP start in order to avoid interruptions to operations and allow a level playing field?
The Government has given a 45-day transition period so that the offerors can prepare necessary requirements to start performing at period performance start date. In addition, The Contractor’s Flight and Ground Operations must be approved by the GFR prior to first flight with an accepted draft being required five days prior to the first day of performance and final approval within 30 days of contract award IAW CDRL A003 per the SOW 3.1.3.3.
