Q and A Additional Question 051920.pdf

Fighter Jet Services Final RFP Questions and Answers Posted 05 May 2020

Document

(PWS, RFP,

Attachment)

Reference Paragraph Industry Question Government Response

1 RFP

Pg. 7 & 9- CLINs 0007, 0008, 0011 Pg. 85- Para. 4.4.4, 4.4.6

Most service contracts of this nature that envision on-demand, limited notice, and essentially unbounded deployments in length, location and frequency use a reimbursable travel and deployment cost CLIN structure. This concept shares risk between the contractor and government, and reduces overall cost to the government, because the contractor does not have to price in a travel/shipping contingency risk reserve that results in higher cost to government for the same service. Conversely, if the contractor does not price in a healthy travel/shipping risk reserve into these CLINs, the government is at risk of continuity of service issues due to extreme financial distress transferred to the contractor. Interaction at the in-person industry day several months ago indicated that both industry and government officials (particularly the funding agencies) preferred this system, but that it was not permitted to use a reimbursable CLIN for this type of contract. Further research in the ensuing months has revealed that concept is allowed, but that it was not pursued. In order to achieve lowest cost to the government, and equitable risk sharing between government and industry, will the government please re-consider implementing reimbursable deployment expense CLINs for travel and transportation of equipment?

For statutory and regulatory compliance reasons, the Government does not intend to make the requested change.

2 RFP

Section M: Part II.

Specific Information; A.

Technical, pg. 89 & 90

Section M includes the establishment of a Technical Risk Rating which considers the potential for disruption of schedule, yet there is no methodology spelled out to reduce the risk rating for offers who actually possess aircraft today, are in country, with applicable FAA and DoD airworthiness certifications, and can lessen the government’s risk significantly. Will the government detail how they will assess offers who have possessed aircraft today versus those offers who promise to acquire more aircraft at a later date?

The Government will assess risk based on Section M criteria, "Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance."

Risk reducers, i.e. "An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that reduces risk in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance", may be assigned to an offeror whose proposal demonstrates that it's approach will lessen the risk of unsuccessful performance.

3 RFP

Section M: Part II.

Specific Information; B.

Past Performance, pg. 90

& 91

Section M discusses the establishment of a Performance Confidence Rating as the level of confidence of an offeror successfully performing based on past contract performance, yet does not include a way for an offeror to detail their flying safety records, a key aspect all flying programs should consider. Will the government include previous flying safety records in their development of the Performance Confidence Rating?

As stated in RFP pg 78, Sec L, Part B.3, para 3, "Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and Questionnaires will be the primary customer feedback data used to evlauate the Offeror's past performance...." As stated in RFP, pg. 91, Section M, Part II.B, paragraph 1, "The Governement will evaluate the Offeror's and (if applicable, it principal entities (as defined in Section L, PartA, 1 General) demonstrated past performance in delivery quality products and services similar to the solicitation.

The past performance evaluation will be based on customer feedback of contracts in the performance areas of ..." As also stated, "A separate Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned based on an integrated assessment of all performance areas..."

Document

(PWS, RFP,

Attachment)

Reference Paragraph Industry Question Government Response

4 RFP Section B pg. 5 &6;

Section L, 4.4.2 pg. 85

Section B states that the Max Quantity for CLINs 2 and 5 is 54 months. Section L 4.4.2 states that the quantity “shall be between 54 and 59 months”. Can the Government please clarify?

Per Section A note (6) of the Request For Proposal (RFP), the amounts provided in CLINs 0002 and 0005 are based upon an offeror achieving Full Operational Capability (FOC) in six months, but these amounts will be adjusted at time of contract award to reflect the number of months to achieve FOC as proposed by the successful offeror.

This is also explained in Section F, CLINs 0002 and 0005, “The period of performance (POP) shall not exceed 54 months (unless the Offeror proposes a stand-up shorter than 6-months)

5 RFP

Section L: Part A-General Instructions; Table G-2, Volume 3-Past Performance, pg. 64

Do the Authorization Letters required in the Past Performance volume count within the 25 pages?

No. As stated in RFP pg 65, Sec L, Part A.3 "Information submitted as an Annex to a particular proposal volume could include…, as well as other information requested in "Part B Specific Instructions" and do not count towards the suggested page count…"

6 Att. L-2, Vol 2 T-1 CR 2.1; Section L, Table T-1,

2.1 pg. 72

Table T-1 Cross Reference Matrix references PBWS paragraph 3.7, however that paragraph does not exist. Can the Government please clarify?

Correct reference is PBWS paragraph 3.6. Cross Reference Matrix will be revised to reference correct PBWS paragraph in a forthcoming amendment.

7 RFP Section L, 2.1.5 pg. 73 Can Offerors provide the Master Schedule identified in RFP L.2.1.5 on 11x17 paper? No paper copies of the proposals are requested. Please provide the Master Schedule in

MS Project format. See forthcoming amendment.

8 RFP Section J, pg. 48 RFP Section J - List of Documents, Exhibits and Other Attachments lists Exhibit A CDRLS A001- A007 in the Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents. Would the Government please provide Exhibit A?

Exhibit A documents have been posted to beta.SAM.gov on 27Apr2020

9 RFP Section A, para. (9), pg 3 Since 25 May 2020 is a holiday, would the Government consider a brief extension to mitigate the risk of shipping over a holiday weekend?

The Government does not intend to extend for this reason.

The Solicitation will be amended to request electronic submittals via DOD SAFE, eliminationg shipping risks. See forthcoming amendment.

10 PBWS Matrix 1, pg. 4, Conf. & Spec. Eqmnt., b.

Attachment 5 Matrix 1 lists TCAS/TAS as a requirement. If traffic avoidance is the desired outcome, and since U.S. government fighter aircraft do not use TAS/TCAS and the FAA is requiring all aircraft to have ADS-B will the government consider an ADS-B In/Out solution for traffic avoidance in place of TCAS/TAS?

The Government does not intend to remove TCAS/TAS as a requirement. ADS-B is typically secured and is not yet available on all Navy aircraft during operational exercises. Therefore, TCAS is still required as a situational aid during exercises.

11 PBWS Matrix 1, pg. 4 Conf. & Spec. Eqmnt., g.

Attachment 5 Matrix 1 lists RedNet or RedNet equivalent systems compatibility. As RedNet is an internal U.S. Navy program will the government please provide the aircraft specific elements required by the contractor to make the aircraft enabled for RedNet (e.g. tablet, wiring, RedNet enabled ACMI/TCTS pod, etc.) and what would constitute an “equivalent” to Rednet (e.g. Bandit Board)?

RedNet is provided as GFE. The Offeror just needs to ensure proposed aircraft is configured to enable installation. This system is connected to the TCTS pods, which are also GFE/GFP. In order to be compatable, the aircraft is required to have a store station which is able, mechanically and electrically, to support a LAU-7. The control/display is a tablet that is provided with the system and is used as an Electronic Kneeboard (EKB). Connectivity between the TCTS pod and EKB is via encrypted wireless. The Government is not currently aware of equivalents, but the option is provided in the event one is/becomes available.

12 PBWS Matrix 1, pg. 4 Conf. & Spec. Eqmnt., g.

Attachment 5 Matrix 1 lists TCTS Level II / LVC integration, when available, as a requirement.

What does the government consider acceptable for a contractor aircraft to be TCTS Level II enabled and what level / type of LVC integration is referred to in the PBWS?

PBWS has been amended to limited requirement to TCTS Inc. I. See forthcoming amendment.

Document

(PWS, RFP,

Attachment)

Reference Paragraph Industry Question Government Response

13 PBWS Matrix 1, pg. 4, Conf. & Spec. Eqmnt., e.

Attachment 5 Matrix 1 lists A/A Tacan as a requirement. A/A Tacan provides aircraft to aircraft ranging only. If aircraft to aircraft ranging is the desired outcome will the government consider alternative methods of airborne ranging, such as a datalink (E.g. Link-16) or ADS-B that provide ranging to other aircraft and much more data (e.g. position, velocity, vector…) as an acceptable solution to the A/A Tacan requirement?

The Government does not intend to remove A/A TACAN as a requirement. Some platforms are not equiped with Link-16, and ADS-B is typically secured and is not yet available on all Navy aircraft during operational exercises. Therefore, A/A Tacan is still required as a situational aid during exercises.

14 Same as Question 6 Same as Question 6

The cross reference matrix has incorrect references and appears not to be updated since the draft, specifically PBWS Para 3.7. Will the government please update the table and confirm the cross reference sections are correct?

Correct reference is PBWS paragraph 3.6. Cross Reference Matrix will be revised to reference correct PBWS paragraph in a forthcoming amendment.

15 RFP Section L, 2.1.5 pg. 73 & Table G-1 pg. 64

Section L, Part B, paragraph 2.1.5 requires the submittal of a draft MS as part of the proposal. File naming conventions in Part A, Table G-1 specifies .mpp as an authorized file format but table G-2 does not include this MS submittal in the file naming convention list. Please advise which Volume the Govt would like the draft MS submitted (Technical, Price or both) and what file extension to use.

The Master Schedule to achieve Full Operational Capability should be submitted in Volume 2 - Technical. Please submit the Master Schedule in MS Project format. See forthcomming amendment for file naming convention in table G-2.

Document

(PWS, RFP,

Attachment)

Reference Paragraph Industry Question Government Response

16 Same as Question 1 Same as Question 1

The predecessor contract to this solicitation uses reimbursable travel and equipment shipping CLINs for government directed deployments, as do many similar services contracts that require frequent operational deployments that cannot be reasonably predicted in advance by contractor or government. This contract is particularly unbalanced with respect to deployment risk to the contractor – it effectively establishes a naval air force larger than many small countries that is on alert 24/7/365, with the possibility of being deployed with no limits as to quantity and frequency, with extremely variable as to location and once deployed, re-deployed again with only 18 hours’ notice. The contractor has no options to refuse deployment orders and the government has no contractual limits on how often it may deploy the contractor, resulting in immense risk to the contractor. During previous interactions, industry unanimously indicated that reimbursable travel and shipping CLIN structures for government directed deployments was preferred; government officials agreed that reimbursable travel and shipping would be optimal but were considered “illegal.” After further research with government acquisition officials, and analysis of Federal Acquisition Regulations, it appears that reimbursable CLINs are in fact both legal and common for this type of acquisition, however there is policy direction that discourages their use. The intent of the policy is to achieve the lowest cost to the government by including these costs in the total evaluated price. However, in this case given the completely unbounded risk transferred to the contractor, all bidders will have to make many worse case assumptions as to travel costs and still apply a healthy contingency reserve for situations unique to this contract (for example it is quite possible that one person will end up with two hotel rooms billed on the same night due to an 18 hour re-deployment directive that happens after hotel checkout time at the original location).

Ironically the policy guidance designed to reduce costs to the government would end up increasing costs to the government; situations like these are why policy waivers and exceptions exist. Because of the unique circumstances of this proposal’s deployment requirements, it would be much more cost effective for the government to request the appropriate waivers and permissions to include Cost Reimbursable CLINs for Travel and Transportation of Equipment. In the interest of achieving lowest cost to the government, will the government consider requesting the appropriate permissions to implement reimbursable deployment travel and equipment transportation CLINs?

For statutory and regulatory compliance reasons, the Government does not intend to make the requested change.

17 RFP Section I pg. 31 & 32 Since no corresponding H clauses exist and the blanks have not been filled in, will the Government remove FAR 52.211-11 and 52.228-9 from the RFP?

The Government will delete FAR clauses 52.211-11 and 52.228-9 from the RFP. See forthcoming amendment.

Document

(PWS, RFP,

Attachment)

Reference Paragraph Industry Question Government Response

18 PBWS Matrix 5, para. 4.5.11,

pg. 16 & 17

Matrix 5 specifies the number of government funded personnel allowed on detachment. This matrix was not included in previous draft PBWS versions, so industry has not been offered an opportunity to provide feedback on it. The matrix allows 2 maintainers per jet for Type 4, and approximately half that number for Type 3. Type 3 and Type 4 aircraft are of similar generation and complexity;

the lessor number allowed for Type 3 is not justified based on reality. The requirements of the PBWS primarily drive the number of maintainers required, such as length of fly day, 12 hour rescheduling timeline, 18 hour detachment re-deployment requirement, etc. The requirements in this solicitation’s PBWS are much more demanding than the predecessor contract, which appears to be the source of this matrix. When Navy/Marine F-5’s deploy to accomplish similar missions as contemplated in this proposal, they typically bring 4 contract maintainers per aircraft; F-5s are of similar generation and complexity as typical industry aircraft. The 2 maintainers per aircraft standard for Type 4 and even lessor number for Type 3 appears to be low (dangerously low for Type 3) given the more demanding schedule execution language in the PBWS and comparable Navy/Marine practice. Although the contractor can bring unreimbursed additional personnel, this increases the overall cost to the government due to the risk that must be priced into the contractor’s price – non-reimbursable travel always results in a higher price to the government because the provider must price in extra risk in his fixed or variable CLINs. Will the government consider increasing the number of matrix 5 reimbursed maintainers to 3 maintainers per jet (still a bargain compared to USN/USMC practice), and also consider harmonizing the number allowed (same numbers regardless of type airframe being supported) in order to yield a lower overall price to the government by reducing/eliminating expensive unreimbursed maintainer travel?

The Government’s requirement as currently defined in Matrix 5 remains the requirement and defines the number of personnel that the Government will reimburse the Contractor for on a per travel day basis, per quantity of each type aircraft.

19 PBWS

Para. 8.2 International

Traffic in Arms Regulation, pg. 24

The paragraph in questions states: “When handling export controlled items, including information, technology or hardware, the Contractor shall notify the COR.” The contractor will be handling controlled items and data multiple times a day at multiple locations continuously throughout the contract period, making notification to the COR impractical for both the COR and contractor.

Would the Government consider an alternate ITAR surveillance method such as an annual report or ITAR compliance discussion as part of the overall program review meetings? If not, would the Government confirm the frequency and method of reporting this information to the COR?

Para. 8.2 of the PBWS is being revised to remove requirement for reporting of information to the COR. See forthcoming amendment for PBWS revision.

Document

(PWS, RFP,

Attachment)

Reference Paragraph Industry Question Government Response

20 RFP Section B, pg. 12, CLIN

The proposed Transportation of Equipment CLIN (CLIN 0011), requests a price to ship 100 lbs.

Industry highly recommends replacing this CLIN concept with an actual expense reimbursable CLIN in accordance with previous industry feedback. However, in the event that reimbursable CLINs are not adapted and the current system is retained, the CLIN description appears to be insufficiently defined enough for industry to price. Shipping costs are dependent on the following variables: Distance, Cargo Weight, Cargo Volume, Mode of Transportation (Sea, Rail, Truck, Air, Horse Drawn Carriage), Departure Point, End Point, Peak Travel/Shipping Dates (holidays, etc), Speed of Delivery (Overnight, 2 Day, etc) and Cargo Type/Special Handling (Hazmat, explosives) considerations. Some of these factors can be eliminated from consideration, such as shipping by Horse Drawn Carriage, and others can be modeled by the bidder (such as the relationship between weight and volume of the bidder’s gear). The most important shipping pricing factor is distance, and given the extremely unpredictable nature of deployment locations anticipated for this contract (we see Alaska in the provided historical data), without some form of mileage dimension to apply to the 100 lb unit, we can see no way to calculate a price for this CLIN given the CLIN description.

Will the government please consider adding a distance factor to the shipping CLIN, for example defining it as the price to ship 100lbs in increments of 100 miles?

Amended RFP will change CLIN 0011 (Transportation of Equipment) to include 100 lbs shipped per 100 miles. Quantity Units will be updated to reflect the change. See forthcoming amendment.

21 RFP Section B, pg. 6, CLIN 0007 &0008

After analysis of the locations in Attachment L-6 Fighter Jet Historical Data it appears offerors will need to conduct numerous detachments throughout the period of performance. Further analysis shows the quantities for CLINS 0007 and 0008 are likely not enough to support the quantity of travel expected over the full length of the contract. Per previous input, industry strongly recommends replacing these CLINs with reimbursable travel CLINs, but in the event the government retains this CLIN concept the following question is submitted. Would the Government clarify how the CONUS and OCONUS travel days were developed for CLINS 0007 and 0008?

Additionally, would the government please clarify how it intends to manage these travel days – is the quantity a hard limit over the course of the 5 years or does the government intend to amend the contract and increase these quantities should OPTEMO exceed the governments expectations? If these travel days become a hard limit vice an amendable quantity, bidders will have to price in a travel risk budget should the allocated travel CLIN days be expended prior to the end of the contract. If this quantity is amendable then industry can deliver a lower price to the government by incorporating less travel risk into its other CLINs. If not amendable or adjustable, we recommend the government increase CLIN 0007 and 0008 quantity to 45,000 and 9,000 respectively to provide enough travel days to last for the entire contract performance period.

The Government intends to keep CLINs 0007 and 0008 as FFP CLINs. Based on the current known requirements, the Government also intends to keep CLIN 0007 at 25,000 days and CLIN 0008 at 7,500 days.

Document

(PWS, RFP,

Attachment)

Reference Paragraph Industry Question Government Response

22 RFP/PBWS Section I, pg. 34/ Para.

3.6.1, pg. 8

The PBWS specifies on-going delivery of airworthiness substantiation data (ongoing submissions of CDRL 0001) and has included the language “and as generated or requested” to cover any relevant change or modification requiring the submission of updated data during the period of the contract. This requirement is present in some form in all paragraphs of the PBWS Paragraph 3.6.

However, the RFP does not indicate what “deferred delivery” data is per DFARS 252.227-7026.

Furthermore, DFARS 252.227-7027 indicates that any technical data may be ordered. Since the more specific PBWS Paragraph 3.6.1 clearly indicates the ongoing obligations of the contractor to deliver the relevant data, will the Government remove these two (2) DFARS clauses from the RFP?

The Government intends to keep the two DFAR clauses 252.227-7026 and 252.227- 7027, which state that the Government has, “the right to require, at any time during the performance of this contract, within two (2) years after either acceptance of all items (other than data or computer software) to be delivered under this contract or termination of this contract”. In addition, “The obligation to furnish such technical data required to be prepared by a subcontractor and pertaining to an item obtained from him shall expire two (2) years after the date Contractor accepts the last delivery of that item from that subcontractor for use in performing this contract.” Deferred data includes any technical data that the contractor is required to provide under the contract as defined in the PBWS and CDRLs and not limited to just airworthiness substantiation data as the question suggests.

23 RFP

Section M: Part II.

Specific Information; B.

Past Performance, pg. 90

& 91

In Section M, Part II, B. Past Performance, it is stated that “The past performance evaluation will be based on customer feedback of contracts in the performance areas of Technical, Schedule, Management and Small Business Utilization.” Will the Government utilize information from other areas of CPARS or PPQs such as Regulatory Compliance, and Other?

The “performance areas” listed are not meant to refer to specific sections of the CPARS or PPQ; these are merely the aspects of performance that the Government will consider in evaluating past performance. The Government reserves the right to use any customer feedback obtained in evaluating past performance, including information from any part of a CPARS or PPQ.

Final RFP Q&A