Q&A #2 for Task Order FOSR - 13 Feb 2020.pdf

NAVAIR KRACEn MAC

USMC F/A-18 FOSR Questions and Answers #2 Posted 13 Feb 2020

N00421-20-R-0105 TO-0001

Document

(PWS, RFP,

Attachment)

Reference

Paragraph Industry Question Government Response

Amemdment

Section L, Part B, 2.4.a, Amendment

0003 Note

Offerors are asked to provide a signed SF30 cover page to acknowledge Amendment 0003 in Block 14. Block 14 of the SF30 is "DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION". Does the Government desire a signed

Amendment 0003 SF33, a signed updated SF33 that acknowledges Amendment 0003 in the SF33 Block 14

"ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENTS", or both?

The Government intends to revise the Section L Amendment 0003 Note to say Block 15 of the

SF30 via Amendment 0004. The Government does not need a signed copy of the SF33.

Attachment L-

4 FOSR

3.2 c

The requirement for the response to remain valid for a minimum of 180 days from receipt by the Government is inconsistent with the requirement as represented in Attachment F7 (5th row in the table under Response

Validity) where it is stated as "at least 240 days after response submission." Will the Government clarify the actual minimum as to one or the other?

Attachment F7 will be revised to show 180 days in Amendment 0004.

Attachment

F3, Q&A #1

REVISION

for Task

Order FOSR -

31 Jan 2020, Draft RFP

Q&A 19 Dec

T-2 Contract

Summary, Question #1 of FOSR

Q&A, &

Question #1

Draft RFP

Q&A

In the USG response to Question #1 for the FOSR, the Government responded that Corporate Experience that was performed by a JV where the Offeror was a Member would not count as Corporate Experience for that

Offeror. It would only count as experience if the JV was the Offeror. Please note that only Prime contractor experience will meet the requirements of FOSR paragraph 4.1. Table T-2 in Attachment (F3) will be revised to show "work performed as Prime" in Amendment 0003.

In the USG response to the Question #1 for the KRACEn MAC DRAFT, when asked about JV's the USG response indicated work for both members of a JV would be considered when they responded that members of a JV should be distinguished by entering either Prime of the JV or Sub of the JV on the T-2 Contract

Summary Column E.

Question: Given these responses by the USG, will the USG now clarify further how CFR §125.8(e) is not applicable to this FOSR as it pertains to JV Past Performance and how JV member past performace could be considered at the MAC level but not the Task Order level?

In accordance with 4.1.2f)3 of the FOSR, Joint Ventures may submit contract references performed by the individual JV members to satisfy the requirements of the FOSR.

For example, if Company A and Company B form a joint venture called JV-AB, contract references from Company A, Company B, or JV-AB could be used to satisfy the FOSR requirements.

However, if a company was planning to submit a stand-alone offer under its own CAGE, it cannot use experience from a joint venture to satisfy the FOSR requirements. For example, if

Company A is submitting the offer on its own, it cannot use contract references from JV-AB to satisfy the requirements of the FOSR.

Q&A #1

REVISION

for Task

Order FOSR -

31 Jan 2020

Question #17

The Governement's response addressed Market Research to the KRACEn MAC, which was not referenced in the initial Question. We are not awawre of any Market Research conducted by NAVAIR to determine if sufficient

Small Business was capable of perfoming this work under the 488190 NAICS. Historically, there have been no less than six Small Businesses who have bid on this 488190 work in the past, and several SDVOSB Small

Business currently hold similar Aircraft Organizational Level Maintenance contracts from MCIEastor other

Contracting Agencies. Small Business examples include: LOGMET, SkyQuest Aviation, AVMAC, ASR Corp, etc.

Question: Would the Government consider changing the Small Business set-aside NAICS assigned to this

FOSR from 336411 to 488190 considering the historical precedence established for this effort, that no known

Market Research was conducted for this specific effort, the fact there are more than two Small Businesses capable of performing this work, and that the Scope of Work does not include “Aircraft Manufacturing” or

“Depot Level Repair" or provide the rationale for arbitrarily chnaging the NAICS?

NAICS 336411 is appropriate to identify the predominance of the work under the KRACEn

MAC as determined by the market research collected during the "Request for Information" period and the approved Small Business Coordination Record, Form DD2579. As such, Task

Order competitions under the KRACEn MAC will fall under the same NAICS IAW 13 C.F.R.

121.402(c).

Q&A #1

REVISION

for Task

Order FOSR -

31 Jan 2020

Question #30

A question was asked if the Contractor was to provide vehicles to provide transportation for personnel and equipment. The Government answered that “No Government transportation vehicles will be provided to the contractor”

Question: Are Offerors to provide transportation vehicles for personnel, tool boxes, and test equipment, which would be an additional cost to their proposals?

Government common support equipment such as tow tractors, external power units, other equipment as necessary may be provided to perform job functions if required. This equipment is designed for aircraft maintenance and movement of aircraft. No Government/Commercial transportation vehicles will be provided to the contractor such as a car or truck.

N00421-20-R-0105 TO-0001

Document

(PWS, RFP,

Attachment)

Reference

Paragraph Industry Question Government Response

Q&A #1

REVISION

for Task

Order FOSR -

31 Jan 2020

Task Order

0001, Attachment 1

- PWS

Question #32

PWS 4.1 &

5.4

PWS paragraphs 4.1 Government Responsibilities and 5.4 “Quality Control Program” appear to be in conflict.

Para 4.1 states “The Government will be responsible for Quality Assurance (QA) and Collateral Duty

Inspections (CDI) of all work accomplished by any member of the Contractor team. Final responsibility for ALL completed work remains with the USMC” while para 5.4 states “The contractor shall implement and maintain a

QA program using best commercial practices.”

Question 1: Will the Government specify whether the Contractor will augment an existing Quality Assurance

Division or will establish its own Quality Assurance Work Center? Government's response was "Q1. The contractor will be responsible for establishing it's own QA work center.

Question 2: Will the Government specify if the Contract is responsible for any QA Managed/Monitored

Programs IAW the NAMP, and if so, specify what programs? Government's response was "Q2. Yes, the contractor will be responsible to manage/monitor it's programs IAW the NAMP, the list of programs is provided

IAW NAVAIRINST 3710.1G chapter 5."

Question: The NAMP, Chapter 7 stipulates minimum requirements for Quality Assurance at an Organizational

Level activity that being a Power Plants, Airframes, Egress/Environmental and Armament QAR along with a QA

Supervisor. The SOW only adresses two multi-system QARs. Will the Government clarify how the Contractor is to comply with the NAMP by establishing its own QA Workcenter vice augmenting a USMC QA Division?

The contractor will not be required to establish its own work center but will establish its own

GOP's to ensure sound QA.

The Government intends to revise 4.1.k as follows: Be responsible for certifying aircraft Safe for Flight. The Government will be responsible as the Plane Captain, and only the Government can release an aircraft for Safe for Flight.

The Government intends to revise 5.4 as follows: The contractor shall implement and maintain a QA program to support/ensure quality maintenance practices IAW the NAMP and

NAVAIRINST 3710.1G. The contractor will be responsible for managing its own aircraft maintenance to include CDI (if required due to the nature of the discrepancy), VIDs/MAFs sign-offs, and quality control program with regards to all facets of O-level aircraft maintenance. The contractor shall establish its own QA procedure(s)/process(s) that meet the NAMP, Chapter 7 for the sections of the chapter that are applicable. The contractor will be responsible for establishing Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) in accordance with the programs as outlined in NAVAIRINST 3710.1, Chapter 5. The Contractor shall participate in periodic QA audits and periodic monitoring. Additionally, the Contractor shall participate in periodic Government

Aviation Maintenance Management Team (AMMT) inspections, Aviation Logistics

Management Assist Team (ALMAT) inspections, Maintenance Program Assist (MPA) visits, training assist visits (pre-MPA), Material Condition Inspections (MCIs), and Naval Safety

Center surveys.

N00421-20-R-0105 TO-0001

Document

(PWS, RFP,

Attachment)

Reference

Paragraph Industry Question Government Response

Q&A #1

REVISION

for Task

Order FOSR -

31 Jan 2020

Task Order

0001, Attachment 1

- PWS

Question #66

PWS 5.1.6,

5.2.11

The initial Question was IRT PWS paragraph 5.1.6 Government Labor Mixture Table, Maintenance Admin

Specialist / Data Analyst Organizational Level is listed as SCA Occupation Code 23019 (Aircraft Logs and

Records Technician). The Data Analyst is a much higher skill level than a SCA 23019 (Logs and Records Clerk)

IAW COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2 (NAMP) and the SCA Wage Determination does not address this Labor category. Question: As there is a significant distinction between a Logs & Records Clerk and a Data Analyst, will the Government clarify which specific Labor category is required or change the Maintenance Admin

Specialist / Data Analyst to exempt SOC/ 13-1111 or provide the rationale how this position at MCAS Beaufort is different? The Government's response was "The Government is not requiring a Logs and Records Clerk. An experienced Maintenance Admin Specialist/Data Analyst Organizational Level IAW SCA 23019 is required."

Question: Per Wage Determination 2015-5800 for Beaufort County SC, SCA 23019 Labor category is for an

"Aircraft Logs and Records Technician". Per the Government's response, The Government is not requiring a

Logs and Records Clerk." Please note Clerk and Technician are synomous. What labor category should

Contractors use for the requested "experienced Maintenance Admin Specialist/Data Analyst Organizational

Level"?

Offerors should provide SCA/23019. The labor Cateogry Title will be revised to Aircraft Logs and Records Tech Organizational Level in PWS Tables 1 and 3 via Amendment 0004.

Q&A #1

REVISION

for Task

Order FOSR -

31 Jan 2020

Task Order

0001, Attachment 1

- PWS

Question #67

PWS 5.1.6,

5.2.11

The initial Question was IRT PWS paragraph 5.1.6 Government Labor Mixture Table, Maintenance Admin

Specialist / Data Analyst Organizational Level is listed as SCA Occupation Code 23019 (Aircraft Logs and

Records Technician). The Data Analyst is a much higher skill level than a SCA 23019 (Logs and Records Clerk)

IAW COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2 (NAMP) and the SCA Wage Determination does not address this Labor category. Question: As there is a significant distinction between a Logs & Records Clerk and a Data Analyst, will the Government clarify which specific Labor category is required or change the Maintenance Admin

Specialist / Data Analyst to exempt SOC/ 13-1111 or provide the rationale how this position at MCAS Beaufort is different? The Government's response was "The Government is not requiring a Logs and Records Clerk. An experienced Maintenance Admin Specialist/Data Analyst Organizational Level IAW SCA 23019 is required."

Question: Per Wage Determination 2015-5800 for Beaufort County SC, SCA 23019 Labor category is for an

"Aircraft Logs and Records Technician". Per the Government's response, The Government is not requiring a

Logs and Records Clerk." Please note Clerk and Technician are synomous. What labor category should

Contractors use for the requested "experienced Maintenance Admin Specialist/Data Analyst Intermediate

Level"?

Offerors should provide SCA/23019. The labor Cateogry Title will be revised to Aircraft Logs and Records Tech Intermediate Level in PWS Tables 1 and 3 via Amendment 0004.

Q&A #1

REVISION

for Task

Order FOSR -

31 Jan 2020

Task Order

0001, Attachment 1

- PWS

Question #90

PWS 6.5

The initial Question stated "The COR may authorize up to 400 hours of overtime per quarter. Attachment F6 calls for identifying Regular and Overtime hours. Question: How is the contractor to determine how the

Overtime Hours are to be distributed? "The Government's response was "Overtime is determined at the time a need arises and cannot be specifically defined in advance. The contractor may be expected to provide one Team

Lead or MMCO, one Maintenance Controller, one Maintenance Admin Specialist/Data Analyst, one Aviation

Logistics Specialist, four QAR/CDQAR/CDIs, and four workers associated with the required job tasks to accomplish overtime tasking.

Question: Would the Government consider a NTE limit for Overtime funding, which would create a level playing field for all Offerors, and would only require the Government to evaluate Offeror's burdened OT rates.

The Government does not intend to revise the CLIN structure. Offerors shall include overtime in the total price for each CLIN. The Government provided its expected labor mix for the overtime breakout in its res[pmse to Question #90.

N00421-20-R-0105 TO-0001

Document

(PWS, RFP,

Attachment)

Reference

Paragraph Industry Question Government Response

Task Order

0001, Attachment 1

- PWS

5.2.4

The question was asked "If Ordinance and Seat Shop Technicians are required to handle Class V ammo, will there be a requirement to compensate those positions 4 percent differential in accordance with the area wage determination?" The USG then responded "Yes. Note (10) will be revised in Amendment 0003 to include the designation for the 4% Hazard Pay Differential." The USG should note that per Marine Corps Order 8023.3C, no contract shall be approved permitting the certification of Defense Contractor personnel to load/download, arm/de-arm any Marine Corps owned tactical military aircraft.

Question: Will the USG please clarify that the the 4 percent Hazard Pay Differential does not apply to

Ordanancemen?

MCO 8023.3B has been superseded by MCO 8023.3C. Revisions will be made in PWS para

3.0 and 5.2.10 via Amendment 0004. Please note that the qualifications outlined in Table 3 do not required Ordinance categories to comply with Note (10).