Responses_to_Aircrew_Services_Questions_5.1.docx

Aircrew Services Questions/Response

There is no work done at the contractor facility, therefore in the RFP, para 3.1.2.1 any mention of worked performed at contractor site has been removed.

There is no Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

There is no Service Contract Act (SCA) on this contract. There is only Standard Occupational Classification (SOC).

This will be taken into consideration for the final RFP for release.

a) Our review of the 2013 RFP Attachment P-1, found that Attachment P-1 requires a significant level of information analogous to providing a resume for each individual across all 67 labor categories.

b) Assuming the current workforce is mostly acceptable to the Government and is meeting the RFP requirements, then all offerors will likely hire the majority of the current workforce and hire only a small number of replacements due to normal attrition such as retirements or to fill new requirements not on the current contract.

c) The detailed information requirement gives the incumbent, who already has the labor force, a tremendous and unfair advantage over other potential offerors. If qualification table requirement remains, it is very likely the Government will have presented to industry what appears to be a RFP biased toward the incumbent. Such an approach will likely result in little, if any, competition. The lack of response to the earlier RFI supports this assessment.

d) In order to promote industry to compete for this contract, the following recommendation are provided.

i. Require offerors to provide their staffing approach.

1. If an offeror chooses to not hire the incumbent workforce, then they should be required to complete Attachment P-1 for all new hires.

ii. If the offeror’s staffing approach is based on hiring the bulk of the current workforce, then the offeror should be required to provide Attachment P-1 data for 1% of the labor category FTEs (approx. 6-7 FTEs). In this way, the Government can assess the offeror’s ability to find qualified personnel as a technical risk factor.

1. Pro. Since current workforce meets the qualification requirement, most competitors will hire approximately 98 to 99 percent of the current workforce. This approach results in very little risk to the Government.

2. Pro. While the incumbent still has an advantage of being able to provide information for 100% of the staffing, the advantage would be reduced and thus would allow for a much more competitive solicitation process.

This will be taken into consideration for the final RFP for release.

The Senior Curriculum Instructor and Chief Flight Instructor are government employees.

Please identify which labor categories in the Section L 3.7.2 table are to be considered as non-flying?

Added labor category, Non-Flying Fixed and Rotary Wing Flight Instructors in Section L 3.7.2 and SOW 3.10

The vehicles are all Government provided.

a. Titles do not match

i. Para 3.10: C-2 Flight Technician; Hour Table: C-2/E-2 Flight Technician

ii. Para 3.10: H-60 Test Pilot (CAT A/B/C/D); Hour Table: VH-60 Test Pilot (CAT A/B/C/D)

b. Para 3.10 has 68 labor categories. The Section L Hour Table has 68 labor categories with an extra labor category for “Test Flight Engineer”. There is no such title in para 3.10.

a. i) The Statement of Work (SOW) has been updated to reflect C-2/E-2.

a. ii) The SOW has been updated to include a H-60 and VH-60 Test Pilot.

b. The labor category for Test Flight Engineer has been removed from Section L.

TBD at time of award.

a. 52.246-23 Limitation of Liability

b. 52.246-24 Limitation of Liability - High Value Items

RFP has 52.246-25 Limitation of Liability-Services. This is a Services contract. 52.246-23, -24 Limitation of Liability is for delivery of supplies. There will be no delivery of supplies on this contract.

a. Please clarify if it is the Government’s intent for bidders to populate Section B in total for all 5 Years of the IDIQ (i.e. totaling 937,624 man-hours) or will separate CLINS be provided for the Base Year and Four 1-year Option Periods?

The bidder is not required to populate dollar amounts in the Section B CLINs. The Government will estimate each CLIN value for the 5-year ordering period.

RFP Section B, page 9, clause 5252.211-9503 level of effort is the man-hours of direct labor including authorized subcontract labor, this does not include contractor administrative functions.

a. Do these estimates include supervisory/administrative functions? For example, if a company were to designate one of the labor categories as a chief pilot to oversee all pilot activities, are the administrative hours included in the Government estimate?

The Government estimated labor hours for each labor category display’s the total hours needed for that said position. Any of the labor hours devoted to supervisory/administrative functions would need to be displayed in the company’s proposal.

a. Please clarify and define the contractor requirements with regard to aviation safety.

b. Is there a requirement for a dedicated safety officer in addition to the aircrew labor categories listed in para 3.10?

a. Aviation safety for aircrew is vital for the safe execution of test and evaluation. The paragraph has been changed to include “in accordance with all applicable instructions and notices list in paragraph 2.1.3. of the SOW”.

b. There is no SOW requirement for a dedicated Safety Officer.

a. Please define the EMC/SOFT qualification and currency requirement and provide the directive.

RFP Section C, page 20, para 3.3.6.1 has been changed to reflect the one-time requirement for Electromagnetic Compatibility/Safety of Flight Test (EMC/SOFT). Now states “The contractor shall maintain currency on flight physicals, swim qualifications, physiology training, NATOPS training, instrument qualifications, and Night (unaided) qualifications. Night Vision Device (NVD) qualifications and currency will be maintained as mission requirements dictate. Stores Carriage and Separation, Carrier Suitability/Dynamic Interface, and Electromagnetic Compatibility/Safety of Flight Test (EMC/SOFT) are one-time qualifications (performed by the appropriate department), and will be obtained as mission requirements dictate”.

a. Please clarify the security clearance required for the Aircraft/Aircrew Scheduler/Coordinator.

b. Please clarify the security clearance required for the Commercial Derivative Aircraft Pilot.

c. For the H-60 Test Pilot (CAT A/B/C/D) MH-60R/S job description, please clarify if the flight hours must be in the MH-60R/S or any rotary wing aircraft. Please verify Top Secret clearance is required.

d. Please clarify the security clearance required for the KC-130 Navigator.

a. Removed Labor Category

b. Top Secret is required. The ability for the pilot to obtain SCI access is desired but not required.

c. Updated SOW to clarify:

Minimum 1,000 hours in any type rotary wing aircraft. Minimum of 1000 hours in the TMS (to Include MH-60 B/F/S/R). Top Secret Clearance is required.

d. Please see paragraph 3.9.2 which states “All labor categories require Secret clearance unless otherwise noted in the labor category”.

a. This requirement clearly favors the incumbent since there are no other programs that align with the labor categories and requirements of this effort.

b. Recommend the requirement be changed to state “Relevant contracts are contracts that provide pilots and aircrew who performed required functions and requirements similar to this effort.”

The relevant definition has been updated in Section M “Relevant contracts are contracts in which the performance effort involves similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires”.

This will be updated for the final RFP release to include the labor requirement percentage by site for Point Magu and China Lake.

The units (squadrons) listed do not include USNTPS. For completeness, would the Government add USNTPS to the list?

USNTPS has been added to Section C, pg. 10, 1.0

Non-flyer TPS Curriculum support. The RFP does not have an associated labor category or anticipated hours assigned to this SOW paragraph. We currently have one part-time instructor on the current contract providing this support. Would the Government consider adding an appropriate labor category and hours?

Non-Flying Fixed and Rotary Wing Flight Instructor labor category and hours have been added to the contract. SOW 3.10

NAVPASS support is in the SOW, but the RFP does not provide the associated labor hours or labor category. Would the Government consider adding a labor category and associated hours for this effort?

Program/Project Analyst/Specialist labor category covers this effort. See section C for assigned hours.

The RFP includes an aircraft scheduler labor category and hours. Should this labor category be on this contract? There is a separate Scheduling contract vehicle for NTWL squadrons.

The aircraft scheduler labor category will be removed before the final RFP release.

The EA-6B is out of service with the US Navy and will be out of service with the USMC soon. Would the Government consider deleting the EA-6B labor categories and hours?

The EA-6B labor categories and hours have been removed.

Volume 2 page limits are given as "25 Pages (5 Pages for Each Contract). This seems to imply a maximum of five contracts. However, Section L, Part B, paragraph 2.1 allows for more than 5 contracts from the prime contractor; it also allows up to two contracts from each principal subcontractor. Would the Government consider changing the Past Performance page limits from "25 Pages (5 Pages for Each Contract") to "5 Pages for Each Contract" to allow for subcontractor past performance?

The final RFP Section L, Part A, pg 119, 3.0 has been updated to reflect up to 5 contracts for the Prime Contract, 2 for principle subcontractor and 2 joint venture. The page allowance has been adjusted to 45 pages, this encompasses all of the potential information the Offer can provide for Past Performance.

This paragraph requires Offerors to "propose their understanding and capability to perform all of the requirements of the SOW." Does the Government wish for Offerors to describe their understanding and capability to perform the tasks in SOW 3.3 and its subparagraphs (Operations and Performance Requirements), or does the Government require that Offerors also respond to the General Requirements in SOW 3.1 and the Security Requirements in SOW 3.2?

The Government requests the Offeror’s proposal encompasses understanding and capability to perform all of the requirements in the SOW paragraph 3.0 Requirements.

Offerors are required to complete the Workforce Qualification worksheet, Attachment P-1, for each current, contingent, and prospective hire employee proposed under this effort. Given the approximately 89 FTEs required for this effort, Attachment P-1 could be very lengthy. Would the Government confirm that Attachment P-1 is exempt from the 50-page Technical Volume page limit?

This will be taken into consideration for the final RFP for release.

This paragraph requires Offerors to "provide one electronic copy of the contract award, one electronic copy of the Statement of Work and any CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaires relevant to the provided Past Performance Information." Will the Government allow these documents to be provided in an Annex to the proposal? If not, would the Government confirm that these documents are exempt from the Past Performance page limits?

The government will update Section L, Part B, pg. 123, 2.1 to direct that any CPARS or Past Performance Questionnaires relevant to the provided Past Performance Information is exempt from the page limits and can be provided as an Annex.

Offerors are required to submit up to two Past Performance Information form for each principal subcontractor, for which a “principal subcontractor” is defined as a subcontractor who provides at least 20% of the proposed total price/cost. If a subcontractor provides less than 20% of the proposed total price/cost, but is expected to perform critical tasking on the contract, would the Government permit Offerors to submit past performance information forms for such a subcontractor?

The government’s definition of a principal subcontractor provided in Section L, Part B, pg. 123, 2.1. has been adjusted so the principal subcontractor must be one that provides at least 10% of the proposed total price/cost.