Industry_Q&As_11_OCT_2019.pdf

Solicitation Number: N00421-19-R-0011

1 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_001 SUBJECT: DD-254 Detail Clarification:The DD-254 does not align with several expected aspects of contract execution, as detailed below:

a. The DD-254 does not check the box allowing possession of classified material outside of US territory (box 11f). Contractor needs to access classified material in Japan and neighboring countries. Will the government please confirm this requirement and check the box allowing possession of classified material outside US possessions?

b. Item 10K, additional access, lists secure telephone and secure fax, but does not “check the box.” Additionally it does not list SIPRNET access, which is greatly desired for the execution of this contract. Even if SIPRNET machines are not provided to the contractor, SIPRNET access as government facilities would greatly improve contract execution from both the contractor and government’s perspective. Will the government please check box 10K and add SIPRNET access to the DD-254. REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) DD-254

PAGE NUMBER: 2 PARAGRAPH: 11F

PAGE NUMBER: 1 PARAGRAPH: 10K

a. Yes

b. Yes; A revised DD Form 254 has been attached to the revised draft RFP.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_002

SUBJECT: Type III CATM Objective: SPECIFIC QUESTION:

The Captive IR Missile Objective for Type III aircraft is underspecified. Will the government please elaborate on the requirements needed to meet the objective in the following sub-areas?

a. Does this objective mean that the contractor must be able to carry a government provided CATM and does the government intend to provide CATMs?

b. If CATM is to be provided by government, which CATM does the government envision providing?

c. If the CATM that the government might provide does not allow high off boresight employment (such as AIM-9M), must the contractor still provide a helmet mounted cueing system to achieve the objective?

d. Many CATMS are in limited supply. Before industry invests in CATM carriage, has the government ensured that there will be government provided CATMs available for issue to the contractor?

e. If the government does not intend to issue CATMs and intends for the contractor to obtain their own, will the government please specify the performance specs of the desired objective system, such as acquisition range, track range, track environment (look up, look down), IRCM, off boresight capability and type of seeker? Please be advised that under current law, it is not legal for a civilian company to own a US CATM;

the CATM vendor is only allowed to make government sales. This means that any desired CATM must be of overseas origin, and this should be taken into account when determining those specs.

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 4 PARAGRAPH: 3.2

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

a: Yes b: 9M minimum C: Helmet mouted cueing has been updated to be more clear. See revised draft RFP.

d: CATMs will be supplied as mission gear for operational requirements.

E; N/A

2 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_003

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Type III IRST Objective

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

The IRST Objective for Type III aircraft is underspecified. Will the government please elaborate on the requirements needed to meet the objective in the following sub-areas?

a. What IR band is the IRST desired to operate in: Midwave IR or Long Wave IR?

b. What detection range is desired?

c. What track range is desired?

d. How many targets must be tracked simultaneously?

e. What ranging metrics are required?

f. Must the IRST be integrated into a weapons system and provide weapons quality trackfiles and associated ability to shoot simulated weapons at an IRST trackfile, or is it for detection and situational awareness use only.

g. An IRST is an extremely expensive capability for an objective on your lower end, high quantity aircraft. Is the government prepared to pay for such an expensive capability on its high quantity workhorse platform?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 4 PARAGRAPH: 3.2

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

The IRST objective has been removed. See revised draft RFP.

3 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_004

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Type III Objective Harmonization and Best Value Tradeoff Methodology

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

1. The PBWS lists some very diverse capabilities as objectives for the Type III aircraft. Some, such as RedNet, are nearly free and easy to implement. Others such as IRST, are extremely expensive. Others such as radar, are both expensive and difficult to implement in the current and expected aircraft fleets of the offerors. Does the government intend to weight these objective equally during their technical proposal evaluation? Must the offeror provide just one of the objectives to achieve objective credit or must they provide all? If they provide some but not all, will they get partial credit for meeting the objectives? And although technical proposal is weighted higher than price, some of these objectives could radical spike the price of the Type III aircraft to unaffordable limits. How does the government expect to provide credit for the objectives without ballooning the price to un-executable levels?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS and Draft RFP, Section M

PAGE NUMBER: Various PARAGRAPH: Various

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

Meeting an Objective will be considered a Strength as stated in Section M, Part II A. A strength is defined as "An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance."

The offeror may propose as many objectives as they feel they can achieve and will receive a separate strength for each objective met. The Government intends to select one offeror on the basis of its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. As stated in section M, "Meeting the objective will be considered a strength." The Government has not assigned any weighting criteria to any elements or objectives under the technical factor. The Government's evaluation will result in one technical factor rating and one technical risk rating.

At the decision authority level, in a Trade-off Analysis, all Factors are considered in accordance with Section M of the RFP to determine the best value. While technical and Past Performance are significantly more important than price, Price remains an evaluation factor that will be considered when performing the best value trade-off analysis.

4 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_005

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Detachment Redeployment

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

The PBWS requires contractors to re-deploy with 18 hours notice from one detachment location to another, yet requires 24 hours notice for flight schedule changes. Since re-deployment requires flights, and is a much more complex undertaking than merely changing flight schedules, will the government consider increasing this 18 hour limit to 24 hours (minimum) or 36 hours (preferred), to ensure safe execution of re-deployment? Flexibility is the key to airpower, and extremely flexibility is the key to seapower, but 18 hours seems unachievable in a safe or financially efficient manner.

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 11 PARAGRAPH: 4.1.3

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

PBWS para 4.1.2 relates to normal schedule for flight operations and states, "....Once this weekly schedule is published, the Government will give the Contractor 24 hours advance notice for any changes to the tasking and issue an update to the schedule...."

PBWS para 4.1.3 relates to deployed aircraft and states, "If an aircraft has deployed and is currently on a detachment (away from home base), the Government will provide at least 18 hours notice before redeploying to another site...."

The 18 and 24 hour notice timeframes are related to two entirely different situations. It is not the Government's intent to change the PBWS. The specific tasking (flight schedule) (para 4.1.2) will remain the same within a 24 hour window. The 18 hour requirement during deployments/detachments (para 4.1.3) is necessary in order for the Government to retain the capablity for redeploying assets to other locations during a deployment in order to meet mission requirements. The dynamic nature of some exercises may drive a change in the location of the tasking. As an example, weather may drive the fleet further south than planned, but the exercise will still proceed on timeline.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_006

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Flight Review

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

1. PBWS requires flight reviews in “the type of aircraft being flown” every 12 months, with the flight review to be conducted in accordance with 14 CFR 61.56. However, 61.56 does not require the check to be in “type of aircraft being flown” – one review covers ALL aircraft that a pilot flies according to 61.56 and 61.56 requires a flight review every 24 months. Can the government please clarify the use of the word “type?” In CNAF 3710, “type” is defined as the general category of aircraft, such as Fighter, Transport, Cargo, Patrol, etc, it does not apply to the specific “model” aircraft being flown (such as F-18, F-35, etc). Does the government mean “type” in accordance with the CNAF 3710? If not, the government is possibly mandating multiple flight reviews per year for contractor pilots who fly more than one model in support of the contract. Additionally, can the government please clarify that they want a flight review every 12 months, even though 61.56 mandates 24 months?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 17 PARAGRAPH: 4.6.2.2.3

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

Where specifically indicated within the PWS, the Government has set requirements which are stricter than the requirements in 14 CFR 61.56 for safety reasons. One of these is that flight reviews must be conducted every 12 months, vice 24.

Additionally, The flight review must be in one of the model aircraft being flown on this contract., For pilots flying multiple models of aircraft on this contract, while only one flight review is required per year, the flight reviews shall be rotated through each model aircraft in subsequent years.

See revised draft RFP.

5 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_007

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Japan Basing

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

PBWS requires 2 Type 3 and 2 Type 4 aircraft based in Japan. However, the PBWS also states that only 2 parking spaces are provided in the current agreement. Additionally the PBWS states Atsugi or Iwakuni, yet only an MOU for Atsugi is included. The location of the Japan base is important to the offerors’ ability to price the travel CLIN.

1. Can the government please clarify if 4 spots will be available in Japan?

2. If so, can the government please clarify the intended basing: Atsugi or Iwakuni?

3. Finally, can the government please clarify when this decision will be made? If after contract award, will the contractor be allowed to adjust their pricing to align with which location is selected as the WESTPAC base?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 19 PARAGRAPH: 5.1.4

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

1. It is the Government's intent to provide adequate spaces based on the sucessful offerors approach.

2. As stated in the PWS, current requirement for basing is at Atsugi and the offeror should propose based on this location.

3. Should the location change during the solicitation period, an amendment to the RFP will be issued and the offeror will propose based on the amended location, and the contractor will not be allowed to adjust their pricing after award. Should the location change after contract award, a modification to the contract will be negotiated.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_008

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: NFW Basing and Brief/Debrief Timelines

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

1. The PBWS states that the contractor will establish contractor owned facilities in the vicinity of NFW, yet mandates some very tight face to face brief and debrief times, which are not realistic if the contractor is not collocated with the customer at NFW. Will the government consider providing facilities aboard NFW to facilitate the requested face-to-face briefing and debriefing times? Or alternatively, will the government relax the timelines for brief/debrief or allow phone brief/debrief?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.)

PAGE NUMBER: 19 PARAGRAPH: 5.1.5

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

For evaluation purposes, assume basing will be provided at JRB DFW. Updates will be made to the PBWS. See revised draft RFP.

6 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_009

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: QASP Standards

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

1. The Mission Success Rates in the QASP seem to be unreasonably high for fighter aircraft – significantly higher than the Fallon NAWDC Adversary contract, for example. It seems as if they may have been intended for business jet or tanker aircraft as opposed to fighter aircraft.

Will the government please review the mission success rates and either adjust to more typical levels for fighter aircraft or re-affirm that these high standards are the governments intent? Although the standards are obtainable, it will be at greatly higher cost to the government than it has come to expect based on the increased number of aircraft, engines, spare parts, turning/flight line spares (including and especially on detachments) and increased personnel in order to achieve such high availability rates.

2. Additionally, no standards for the Objective systems such as CATM, Radar, IRST, etc have been established. It would be possible for an offeror to promise such things during the proposal phase and never deliver, as there is no metric for ensuring functional and operational mission systems separately from the mission success rate. Can the government please publish metrics for the mission systems requested by the objectives?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) QASP

PAGE NUMBER: 4 PARAGRAPH: Enclosure 1

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

1. The Government has reviewed the rates and a revised QASP is attached to the revised draft RFP.

2. No, the Government will not publish metrics for objectives.

The Successful offeror's proposal will be incorporated into the contract requirements prior to award. All proposed performance then effectively becomes Threshold requirements, and the mission Effectiveness requirements of the QASP Metric 1 will apply.

7 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_010

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Objective Stand-up Timeline.

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

The PBWS establishes several mission systems as objectives, such as Type 3 Radar/IRST/CATM or Type IV radar. However, the full operating capability (FOC) criteria only require the thresholds to be achieved in order to claim FOC. Without standards for the objective capabilities, it would be possible for an offeror to promise all the capabilities in the proposal phase, be awarded the contract on that basis, and not ever implement any of the objectives, as there are no criteria in the PBWS to standup those capabilities, no incentive for more payment for those objectives and no penalty or negative evaluation criteria in the QASP to hold the contractor accountable. In the interest of a fair and open competition, will the government please establish criteria for the implementation of the mission systems objectives so that contractors are held accountable for the promises they make in their proposals?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS, QASP

PAGE NUMBER: None PARAGRAPH: None, there are no criteria that we can find in any paragraph.

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

The successful Offeror's proposal will be incorporated into the contract requirements prior to award. All proposed performamce then effectively becomes Threshold requirements, and the mission Effectiveness requirements of the QASP Metric 1 will apply. In this manner the Government will hold the successful Offeror acountable to their proposal.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_011

SUBJECT: Matrices 1, 3, and 5, Objective versus Threshold performance requirements

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

During proposal evaluation, how will the Government quantify value of meeting an Objective performance requirement over a Threshold (speed & altitude, minimum take-off to landing duration time, etc.)? Without clear quantifiably-objective and predictable scoring methods published ahead-of-time, industry must assume (based on past government decision-making) there is in-fact NO quantifiable value to providing Objective performance over Threshold performance. This question applies to every requirement that sets both a Threshold and an Objective.

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 3 PARAGRAPH: 3.2

PAGE NUMBER: 5 PARAGRAPH: 3.3

PAGE NUMBER: 6 PARAGRAPH: 3.4

A similar question was raised in Question 5, please see the Governemnt's response.

The Government's evalaution and best value decision will based on a qualitative analysis of the proposal as opposed to a quantitative analysis of the number of strengths, significant weaknesses, etc.

8 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_012 SUBJECT: Matrix 1, Speed and Altitude

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government please confirm “optimum altitude” is offeror-defined?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 3 PARAGRAPH: 3.2

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

Yes, The optimum altitude is the altitude at which the aircraft obtains its best performance, and that altitude will be obtained from the performance charts for the proposed aircraft.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_013

SUBJECT: Matrix 1, Turn

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Is the Government specifying an energy sustaining level-altitude turn? If so, this requirement severely limits fighter jet type choices, probably eliminating numerous high subsonic fighter jet types industry is contemplating to offer or anything without an afterburner. Note, that if one can descend during the turn, no problem for most any fighter jet type.

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 3 PARAGRAPH: 3.2

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

The PWS has been updated to specify a 6g Instantaneous turn. See revised draft RFP.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_014

SUBJECT: Matrices 1, 3, and 5, clarification of performance requirements

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Can offeror’s assume unless the Government specifically states, offered fighter jet type(s) only need to individually satisfy all requirements as written under each heading, in the configuration specified (if it is specified) but it doesn’t have to satisfy them all in one configuration?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 3 PARAGRAPH: 3.2

PAGE NUMBER: 5 PARAGRAPH: 3.3

PAGE NUMBER: 6 PARAGRAPH: 3.4

Yes. Proposed aircraft are intended to be mission configurable, and aircraft configuration can be adjusted to meet performance requirments unless the solicitation specifies otherwise. The configuration requirements of the Speed and Altitude requirements are examples of specific configurations to meet requirements.

9 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_015

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Matrix 1, Configuration and Special Equipment, IRST, IR CATM, HMCS

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government provide specific technical performance of the IRST system, IR CATM, and HMCS?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 3 PARAGRAPH: 3.2

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

IRST requirements has been removed from the solicitation. See revised draft RFP. CATMs will be provided by the Government as mission equipment when required. The Government has no specific requirements for the HMCS.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_016

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Matrices 1, 3, and 5, Configuration and Special Equipment, Radar

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Will the Government provide specific technical performance for radar performance….look-up, look-down, 5M2 in what wavelength?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 3 PARAGRAPH: 3.2

PAGE NUMBER: 5 PARAGRAPH: 3.3

PAGE NUMBER: 6 PARAGRAPH: 3.4

The Government does not require Radar for Type III (Matrix 1).

Matrix 3 and 5 do specify limited Radar requirements. These requirements are under best performance conditions. Any radar meeting those requirements is acceptable to the Governement and it is up to the Offeror to determine its proposed solution.

10 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_017

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Matrix 1, Additional Performance Criteria, defining a required “airspeed”

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

The Government should seriously consider defining a required “airspeed” for three minutes, not a “max power at 22,000’MSL” since that may result in afterburner usage and subsequent early bingo with an airspeed well exceeding both the Threshold and Objective. We suggest the three minutes apply to the Threshold or Objective airspeeds, and power be as required. If this element remains unchanged into the Final RFP it is a significant negative impact to most probable industry offered fighter jet types.

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 4 PARAGRAPH: 3.2

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

The "Addidional Performance criteria" portion of Matrix 1 has been updated to specify that the 22,000 ft, 3 minute runs will be conducted at an aircrafts "Military", (non-afterburning) power setting, for two 3 minute presentations. See revised draft RFP.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_018

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Matrix 1, Additional Performance Criteria, “off-target” presentation

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

In our view, the Government lacks specificity for required for “off-target” presentation. We recommend the Government provide an airspeed/time/altitude to remove all doubt and potential fudging by offerors in this particular area. This type of lack-of actual specificity is how offerors’ have a high probability to waste money overspending on capability not required thereby raising the price and reducing affordability to the Government.

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 4 PARAGRAPH: 3.2

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

The "Addidional Performance criteria" portion of Matrix 1 has been updated to specify that the 22,000 ft, 3 minute runs will be conducted at an aircrafts "Military", (non-afterburning) power setting, for two 3 minute presentations. See revised draft RFP.

11 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_019

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Matrix 3, Configuration and Special Equipment, Red-Net

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

Industry is not expert on Red-Net, therefore it would enhance offerors’ technical compliance if the Government will explain necessary technical specifications instead of suggesting a vendor/commercial solution. Please clarify?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 5 PARAGRAPH: 3.3

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

The ICD has been added to the Technical Library, reference Section L paragraph 4.4 Technical Library.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_020

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Matrices 1, 3, and 5, Configuration and Special Equipment, Radar

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

With respect to the radar, the Government may benefit from reduced offeror price if the Government will explain necessary technical specifications instead of suggesting a vendor/commercial solution. Please clarify?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 3 PARAGRAPH: 3.2

PAGE NUNBER: 5 PARAGRAPH: 3.3

PAGE NUMBER: 6 PARAGRAPH: 3.4

The Government does not require Radar for Type III (Matrix 1).

Matrix 3 and 5 do specify limited Radar requirements. These requirements are under best performance conditions. Any radar meeting those requirements is acceptable to the Governement and it is up to the Offeror to determine its proposed solution.

12 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_021

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Matrix 5, Multiple references to same technical performance requirements

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

The Government makes multiple references to the same technical performance requirements. Please clarify?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 6 PARAGRAPH: 3.4

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

Matrix 5 has beed updated. See revised draft RFP.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_022

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Matrix 6, Clarification of daily sortie generation

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

With respect to the Government requirement for 2 x 2 x 2 daily at Fort Worth, how many times a week? For instance, left unclarified, this requirement could drive 1,500 sorties annually (5 days, 6 sorties per day, 50 weeks).

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 7 PARAGRAPH: 3.4.1

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

Requirements have been further clarified. See revised draft RFP.

13 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_023

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Matrix 2, Clarification of residual requirement at East Coast base during Key West operations

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

How much of the Government’s residual requirement at the East Coast base will remain for offerors to perform during Key West operations?

Please clarify?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PBWS

PAGE NUMBER: 4 PARAGRAPH: 3.2.1

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

Any residual aircraft at the East coast basing would be available for tasking.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_024

CONTRACTOR QUESTION

SUBJECT: Technical Evaluation area weighting

SPECIFIC QUESTION:

The Government states, “The evaluation will also include an assessment of the Offeror's approach to (1) Capability Stand-up, (2) Aircraft Performance Requirements, (3) Airworthiness Data, (4) Aircraft Support, (5) Aircraft Availability and (6) Small Business Strategy.” Will the Government please clarify if these technical evaluation areas are of equal weight?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) RFP

PAGE NUMBER: 104 PARAGRAPH: B. Evaluation Factors for Award, Part II, A. Technical

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

The Government has not assigned any weighting criteria to any elements or objectives under the technical factor. The Government's evaluation will result in one technical factor rating and one technical risk rating.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_025

As stated in the DRAFT PWS, an F-35 Production Support option (Type J) is included for the provision of airborne chase during aircraft first flights and product assurance flights for F-35 production. It is our understanding that nearly all F-35 users, as well as the Production Support at JRB Ft Worth, are currently using other F-35s as chase and safety aircraft. Industry could certainly provide a more cost-effective platform to perform the F-35 chase mission.

Question #1: Given the somewhat separate and distinct nature of Type J versus Type III and Type IV, would the Government consider “breaking out” the solicitation for the Type J either as a separate PMA-226 solicitation or in conjunction with the USAF CAF CAS IDIQ solicitation?

The Government does not intend to remove this requirment from the solicitation.

14 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_026 SUBJECT: OCONUS Shipping CLIN SPECIFIC QUESTION: RFP establishes a material shipping CLIN. Additionally it establishes CONUS and OCONUS Travel Day CLINS, designed to cover deployment costs. RFP acknowledges that OCONUS and CONUS travel rates may be radically different by providing the separate CLINs for travel days. Due to island hopping, shipping in the Pacific locations is almost 100% air freight, radically different from CONUS shipping which is mostly surface lift. As such, it would seem to make sense to create an OCONUS shipping CLIN, in parallel with the CONUS and OCONUS travel CLINs. Will the government consider creating an OCONUS shipping CLIN that is separately priced from CONUS shipping? Or alternatively, will the government consider providing military airlift for the unique challenges of deploying to island deployment locations?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) Draft RFP

PAGE NUMBER: 7 PARAGRAPH: CLIN 0011

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

The Government will provide military transportation for support equipment for OCONUS deployed missions.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_027

SUBJECT: OCONUS Aircraft Relocation Assistance SPECIFIC QUESTION: Solicitation for the predecessor contract to this solicitation prohibited government assistance (air refueling, strategic airlift or sealift, etc.) for getting OCONUS aircraft to overseas locations, ie., the contractor was solely responsible for positioning its aircraft to MIDPAC and WESTPAC (and returning them at end of contract). The current solicitation makes no mention of government assistance in positioning aircraft OCONUS – it neither offers it nor prohibits it. If an offeror requests and the government provides assistance to an offeror in positioning their aircraft overseas, how will this be evaluated with respect to total evaluated price? Will the government’s actual projected costs be added to the total evaluated price of the offeror during the pricing evaluation, or will the government add a commercial market equivalent price for its assistance services to the total evaluated price, or will the government just not provide such assistance due to the complications of accounting for this in the price competition?

REFERENCE: (PBWS, SCHEDULE, ETC.) Draft RFP

PAGE NUMBER: None PARAGRAPH: Not addressed in the Draft RFP

PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH:

The Government will not provide initial transport to home basing and these costs should be included in the Offeror's proposal.

Pre- Sol_Q&A_028

SUBJECT: Relevancy SPECIFIC QUESTION: Are all three aspects of relevancy required for a contract to be considered relevant?

Yes, failure to meet the criteria provided within the solicitation for SCOPE, MAGNITUDE, and COMPLEXITY will result in an assigned relevancy rating of NOT RELEVANT. See revised draft

RFP.

15 of 15 Industry Q&As_11 OCT 2019

Control Number Pre Solicitation Questions Government Response Pre-

Sol_Q&A_029 It is not clear how offerors should price and establish the appropriate level of effort so that the Government will receive adequate support without paying a premium for flight time capacity in support of the FJS requirement.

The Government requires flexibility in its ability to utilize the capability presented within this contract. To allow for more competitive proposals, the CLIN structure has been revised to address additional CONUS capability. See revised draft RFP.

Released 11 OCT 2019