QA_posted.pdf

Question/Comment RFP Section Response

1 Can NAVAIR please further explain Contract experience on slide 27? Section L Part B para 2

The criteria listed in Section L Part B Paras 2.1.a‐2.1.d are required to be met on a single contract. A single contract is a single "C Type" contract, inclusive of modifications and excercised options, A single TO/DO from a

Multiple Award IDIQ inclusive of modifications and exercised options, or an aggregated set of TOs/DOs inclusive of modifications and exercised options from the same single award IDIQ. Offerors shall submit supporting documentation that documents the requirements are met inclusive of the actual contract, PWS, and/or any other contractual attachments or exhibits, higlighting the specific language in the documents that support meeting the requirement.

2 Does past performance have to be on a NAVAIR contract? Section L part B Para 3

No, past performance may be submitted related to any contract.

However it is requested that Offerors only subit contracts that meet the criteria of somewhat or very relevant. Please note that the relevancy determination will be part of the Government's Past Performance evaluation.

Can NAVAIR please provide further detail on the Technical aspects from the evaluation criteria? Section L Part B Para 4

There will be a Technical and Technical Risk Rating (e.g. Acceptable/Low) assigned for the Technical factor. Strengths will not be assessed.

Offeror's shall describe the approach for each section in accordance with the instructions in Section L and complete the manning attachment (L‐6).

Proposed manning in L‐6 must meet the stipulated minimums at all sites for all quantities of aircraft and be conmensurate with the manning proposed in the Price Volume (Att L‐8). Offerors shall provide resumes for each Key Personnel position that supports it meets the criteria listed.

4 Is there a Small Business requirement? Section L Part B Para 4.6

Large Businesses must submit a subcontracing plan. There is a 5% goal, but this is not a requirement. Please note that the Small Business

Subcontracting Plan will be part of the responsibility determination, so if goals are not met, SDB goals are below 5%, or any subcategory goals are

0% an explanation should be submitted to support approval of the plan.

The approval of a Small Business Plan without meeting the goals of 5% require high level review and approval and puts the acceptabilty of the entire offer at risk.

5 Will a GFE list be provided? Section J Yes, the GFP list will be provided as part of the final RFP.

In the instance where federal supply is unavailable and outside commercial sourcing is utilized, you mentioned the Contractor could utilize the direct parts CLIN (0X10) to procure through “approved commercial sources”. How will the Navy provide Contractor with what sources are approved? PWS para 7.1.2

The vendor should work with FST to verify vendor is approved. If not work with the FST to approve the source.

Can a Contractor’s government‐approved procurement system be trusted as

“approved commercial sources” or will discrete approval on selected source be required for every direct part instance? PWS para 7.1.2

No. The vendor should work with FST to verify vendor is approved. If not work with the FST to approve the source.

Why is NAVAIR looking for vendor support when they have an on‐site capability? PWS Para 7.1.2

It is the Contractor's responsibility to determine what items need to be procured to meet the performance metrics. First, the Contractor should try the Federal Supply System (FSS). If the part(s) cannot be procured due to out of stock allowance or within a reasonable timeframe such as a long lead time via FSS, then the Contractor shall procure the part(s) directly through an approved source.

Will the Government consider revising the paragraph to read: “b. A single

Delivery/Task Order (DO/TO) or a set of aggregated DOs/TOs from a

Multiple Award Contract;”? Section L Para 2.1.b The Government intends to keep the current language.

Contract Administration, F(5), page 110 directs If an Offeror proposes to perform work above or not included in this solicitation (e.g., including, but not limited to, an aspect of a proposal that the Offeror believes the

Government should evaluate as a strength), the Offeror must include contractually binding additions for the contract award document.""

Evaluation Factors for Award, II.B Technical, page 116 states ""...for this solicitation there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations. Therefore, no strengths will be assigned...""

Question: These two statements appear to contradict each other. Will the

Government please clarify if performance enhancing approaches to meeting this requirment may be evaluated as a strength?" Section L, Volume 6 and

Section M.II.B

The Government does not intend to evaluate strengths. The language provided in Section L regarding contract administration is only an example and can be applicable to items that reduce risk as well. If there are any changes they will be made to Section M at final RFP release.

The definition of Very Relevant, page 119 states, "For this solicitation, a past contract is considered to have essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity as the solicitation when the past contract involved is at least one year of performing maintenance on United States Air Force (USAF) high performance aircraft using USAF publications with Navy oversight with a fleet size ≥ 30 aircraft." The requirement to perform maintenance on USAF high performance aircraft using USAF publications with Navy oversight seems to limit fair and open competition for most offerors to obtain a very relevant rating. This is especially true when the Section L Corporate

Experience criteria is "Performed O, I, and D level of maintenance on fixed wing jet powered aircraft utilizing COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2 Naval

Aviation Maintenance Program and/or equivalent maintenance utilizing Air

Force Instruction 21‐101 Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance

Management, and/or Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations." Question: Will the Government consider changing the Very Relevant definition to read "For this solicitation, a past contract is considered to have essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity as the solicitation when the past contract involved is at least one year of performing O, I, and D level of maintenance on fixed wing high performance aircraft utilizing COMNAVAIRFORINST

4790.2 Naval Aviation Maintenance Program and/or equivalent

maintenance utilizing Air Force Instruction 21‐101 Aircraft and Equipment

Maintenance Management, and/or Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations with a fleet size ≥ 30 aircraft?"

Section L Part B, Para

2.1.d and Section M.III.B

The Government does not intend to make significant changes to the relevancy definitions for this contract. The fleet size listed is the total fleet size and all aircraft within the fleet do not need to use USAF publications with Navy oversight. References to fixed wing high performance aircraft will be changed to fixed wing jet powered.

The ES‐1 Offeror Summary Table and various references within the DRFP require inclusion of the DUNS number associated with the entity that is proposing to perform work for this solicitation. Effective 4 April 2022, the

DUNS Number was removed on SAM.gov and replaced by the Unique Entity

ID for entities doing business with the Federal Government.

Question: Is the DUNS number still required to be provided for these references or does the Government intend to revise Attachment L‐1 and the

RFP to replace DUNS with inclusion of the Unique Entity ID?

ES‐1; Section L Part A.

para 1;Section L part B para 1.a(2); Section L

Part B para 2.1; Section L

Part B para 3.3.a;m

Section L, Part B Para 6 a.(1)viii and a.(2)iii;

Section M.III.B

The Government will request the CAGE and Unique Entity ID as opposed to the CAGE and DUNS. RFP will be updated at release.

PWS 7.2 states, "The Contractor shall provide warehousing functions for program related material. Estimated square footage (sqft) of program related material is 12,500 sqft. Available Government warehousing and storage is limited. … Off‐site warehousing shall be at the Contractor's expense."

Question 1: Is it the Government's intent that all shipping and receiving functions be performed at the Government's warehouse or at the

Contractor's off‐site warehouse facility?

Question 2: Will the Government provide the NSN and/or dimensions/weight of the largest item anticipated to be stored at the

Contractor's warehouse facility? PWS Para 7.2

Qusetion 1: The Government does not have a requirement that all shipping and receiving be performed at the Government's warehouse or

Contractor's warehouse.

Question 2: A GFP listing will be provided with the Final RFP. The

Government will not dictate which items need to be stored at the

Contractor's warehouse.

Column D includes a reference to PWS 5.3; however, the PWS does not contain a section 5.3.

Question: Request the Government validate/clarify the PWS response requirements pertaining to Supply Chain Management reference 5.3. Attachment L‐5 CRM

The CRM will be updated for the final RFP release. The reference to Para

5.3 will be removed.

"Numerous Exhibit A CDRLs do not match those referenced in the draft

PWS. Some examples include: > CDRL A014, Phase‐In Transition Plan, references PWS 5.1; however, PWS 4.3 calls our CDRL A014 as the Over and

Above Work Request (OAWR)

> CDRL A015, Phase‐In Inventory Report, references PWS 5.1.2; however, PWS 5.1 calls out ADRL A015 as the Phase‐In Transition Plan

> CDRL A016, Phase Out Transition Plan, referenes PWS 5.2.1; however PWS

5.1.2 calls out CDRL A016 as the Phase‐In Inventory Report

> CDRL A017, Phase‐Out Inventory Report, references PWS 5.2.6; however, PWS 5.2.1 calls out CDRL A017 as the Phase‐Out Transition Plan

> CDRL A018, NAS Lemoore, CA New Site Standup, referenes PWS 6.1;

however, PWS 5.2.6 calls out CDRL A018 as the Phase‐Out Inventory Report

> CDRL A019, NAS Lemoore, CA New Site Standup Inventory Report, references PWS 6.1.2; however, PWS 6.1 calls out CDRL A019 as the NAS

Lemoore, CA New Site Standup.

Question: Will the Government revise Exhibit A, CDRLs, or revise the PWS to match Exhibit A? "

Exhibit A CDRLS

Yes . These CDRLS and the PWS will be revised to ensure consistency with the final RFP release.

In todays current economic environment, are there any Economic Price

Adjustment clauses being considered? N/A

No, the Government does not intend on using any Economic Price

Adjustment clauses.

Section H provides for disencentives in the form of Performance Metric

Reductions for not meeting the monthly Mission Capable (MC) metric.

Question: Will the Government consider adding incentives as well for exceeding that or other performance metrics? Section H

The Government does not intend to add incentives for exceeding performance.

Referenced paragraphs identify minimum experience qualifications for certain Key Personnel (Maintenance Manager, Maintenance Operations

Manager, QA Manager). As written, all three of these positions require "The most recent five (5) years must have been supporting and maintaining F‐16 aircraft." We believe this specific F‐16 requirement is too narrowly focused and subsequently limits the pool of highly qualified candidates. We contend that an individual who has the most recent five (5) years supporting and maintaining other non‐F‐16 tactical aircraft are equally capable of supporting this requirement.

Question: Will the Government consider ammending the above paragraphs to read "The most recent five (5) years must have been supporting and maintaining high performance aircraft (i.e., F‐16, F/A‐18, etc.)?

PWS paras 9.6.2, 9.6.3, and 9.6.5 The F‐16 experience requirement will be changed to fighter aircraft.

Other Entity Cost Summary (OECS); It is understood why the Government would want detailed cost information from an Other Entity that is performing 10% of the Offeror’s Total Proposed Cost (except CR CLINS). But when the Other Entity definition also includes work performed on CLINs

0X02, 0X03, and 0X05‐0X07, that could easily capture multiple Small

Business (SB) subcontractors that may be performing only a few percent.

For example, the SB goal on the contract is 5%. If the 5% is spread over three SB subcontractors to capture all Small Disadvantaged Business categories, they could be getting subcontracts that are valued at about 2% of the total contract value. For those SB subcontractors to receive any meaningful work, they need to be assigned Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) that will be profiled to the aircraft CLINs 0X02, 0X03, etc. They are not captured by the 10% rule, but they are swept up in the second part of the definition as “an Other Entity performing work in CLINs 0X02, 0X03, etc.” The result would require the three SB subcontractors, who may have very little experience or system infrastructure, in a position of providing cost detail and completing the Attachment L‐9 OECS for an immaterial 2 percent value.

Question: Will the Government consider excluding SB subcontractors from the definition of the “Pricing” Other Entity just because they may work on

CLINs 0X02, 0X03, 0X05‐0X07?

Section L, Part B, volume

No. CLINs 0X02, 0X03, 0X05, 0X06, and 0X07 are the minimum manning

CLINs, which trace back to the Offeror's proposed manning in RFP

Attachment L‐6 Manning and Attachment L‐8 PCPS. As part of the realism analysis, the Government will be evaluating the buildup of the price.

The scope description includes only the current and planned aircraft quantities and operating hours. There is no historical flying hour information or forecast program flying hours provided for the fleets at either location.

This information is essential to determine the manning levels and skill mix necessary to support the mission. Question: Request the Government provide the last five years of actual flying hours, the associated maintenance manhour per flying hour for the period, and the forecast flying hours for the period of performance to be covered by this contract. PWS Para 1.0

Data requested is located in the technical library:

(9) Maint‐1 Consolidated Perfomance Metrics NAWDC F‐16 2012‐2022

(2) Maint‐2 Aircraft Readiness Degradation and Utilization Summary

NAWDC F‐16 2012‐2022

(3) Maint‐5 Maintenance Man Hour Report F‐16 2012‐2022

Request the Government provide the forecast flying hours for all additional aircraft for which the offeror must provide a FFP for maintenance support. PWS Para 1.3

The Navy's intent is to distribute its F‐16 flight hours up to 200 hrs per year per jet. This will be included in an update to the PWS.

The Quantity for these CLINs is 276 and 60 respectively with a Unit of

"Each."

Question (1): Request the Government provide an explanation of what this quantity represents (days, hours, aircraft).

Also, the concept of providing a single firm fixed price for the addition or reduction of aircraft to be operated at an undetermined number of flying hours seems to be an oversimplification of the requirements. Even when estimating the requirements on a per aircraft basis, the addition of 1 aircraft requires fewer resources than the addition of 10 aircraft after the initiate infrastructure is in place.

Question (2): Request the Government revise the CLIN structure to reduce the risk of FFP additions and reductions of aircraft in the fleet.

Section B CLINs 0X03 and 0X07

Q1: 'Each' represent "Jet Months" or one (1) F‐16 for one (1) month of maintenance. See the response to question above/updates to the PWS.

Navy intends to fly each aircraft up to 200hrs per year per jet. L‐6 establishes the additional minimum manning of 5 whole heads per additional aircraft. Offeror's must propose at least the minimum manning.

Q2: The Government does not anticipate updating the CLIN structure.

Request the Government provide an up‐to‐date listing of all TCTOs and other aircraft modification and configuration documentation for the aircraft in these fleets. This information drives the manning requirements to sustain the aircraft to meet very stringent MC standards. PWS Para 2 The list will be provided in the technical library

Corporate Experience, item d. states, "Performed O, I, and D level of maintenance on fixed wing jet powered aircraft utilizing

COMNAVAIRFORINST 4790.2 Naval Aviation Maintenance Program and/or equivalent maintenance utilizing Air Force Instruction 21‐101 Aircraft and

Equipment Maintenance Management, and/or Title 14 Code of Federal

Regulations" Discussion: This contract and several others cited by the

Government only require "limited D level" maintenance and not "D level."

Additionally, few contracts actually peform Depot level maintenance as that is typically performed at centralized locations such as Fleet Readiness

Centers (FRC) or USAF Depot Maintenance Facilities.

Question: Will the Government changed the requirement to read

"Performed O,I, and Limited D level" to more cleanly compare to relevance contracts? Section L Part B Para 2.1

The magnitude of the Depot level work is not being evaluated, only that there is evidence of Depot Level work.

Question 1: When does the Government anticipate release and posting of the official RFP?

Question 2: How many days after official RFP release will offerors be allotted for proposal preparation/submittal?

Question 3: What is the anticipated award date given a period of performance start date of 1 Aug 23? Slide 6

Q1: Actual Release is dependent on the review process and ultimate

SSAC/SSA approval. Currently the anticipated solicitation release date is

August 2022

Q2: It is currently anticipated that offerors will have 30 days from the release date to submit proposals

Q3: The anticipated award date is late July 2023. Transition will start at award with a PoP of 60 days, with orders for full performance issued after completion.

“If the total number of aircraft at each site exceeds the base number of aircraft in CLINs 0X02, 0X05, or 0X06 then the maintenance for those additional aircraft will be ordered under the corresponding Additional

Aircraft CLINs 0X03 or 0X07 on an ‘aircraft per month’ basis. The Contracting

Officer will notify the Contractor sixty (60) days prior to the addition of a new aircraft. After the 60‐day notification, CLINs 0X03 or 0X07 will be ordered for the new aircraft.” “If the total number of aircraft at each site decreases below the base number of aircraft in CLINs 0X02, 0X05, or 0X06 then the monthly unit price for the applicable base CLIN shall be reduced by the ‘aircraft per month’ maintenance price from the corresponding unit price in CLINs 0X03 or 0X07. The Contracting Officer will notify the

Contractor sixty (60) days prior to the removal of an aircraft. After the 60‐ day notification, the unit price for CLINs 0X02, 0X05, or 0X06 will be decreased by the unit price of the corresponding unit price in CLINs 0X03 or

0X07.”

Please confirm that these changes will be executed via bi‐lateral modification. Slide 15; Section B

Pricing Note

The Government reserves the right to issue a unilateral modification when the change is within the terms and conditions of the contract.

What is the rationale for a NSP CLIN for the two‐month transition out period if it will be part of the potential 8.5 year ordering period?

Slide 16, Section B

Pricing note, and CLIN

0413 It gives the Contractor flexibility to add the costs in other CLINs.

What regulation/instruction is utilized to determine MC rate for this requirement? What factors are considered in the calculating the monthly

75% MC rate? i.e., awaiting parts at no fault of the contractor, depot level maintenance, etc.

Slide 18, QASP Para(s) 6, Para B General, and

Enclosure 2

PWS Para 11 and 11 B.

CNAF 3510.11C Appendix 21. The factors are listed in the General Section of the QASP Para B and PWS Section 11 Para B. Government relief is also covered in QASP Para 6 and enclosure 2, and PWS Para 11.

Will a minimum and/or maximum number of past performance contract efforts be established?

Slide 29, Section L PArt B para 3

No. However it is requested that Offerors only submit contracts that meet the definition of Somewhat Relevant or Very Relevant to facilitate the evaluation.

Question 1: How will multiple year option contracts be considered as compared to single award, multiple year ID/IQ contracts with either one‐ year exercised option periods or awarded one‐year task orders?

Question 2: Will both contract types be considered one single effort as opposed to separate efforts for each year?

Question 3: If a multiple year contract (option/ID/IQ) is evaluated as a single effort, will it be rated higher than a contract with only a one‐year period of performance? Slide 31 and Section L, Part B para 2.1

It is unclear if this question is related to the Corporate Experience (CE)

Factor or the Past Performance Factor. Question

1 & 2: The definition of Contract refernce is included in Section L, Part B, Para 2.1a.‐2.1.b. For the purposes of experience scope covered by exercised options will be considered as part of the single contract reference, regardless if the contract is a Definitive or a Task order or sersies of task orders issued under an IDIQ contract.

Question 3: For the purpose of CE, only a single contract (identified in CE‐

1) will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable.

Regarding the Past Performance (PP) Factor:

Please see Section L, Part B para 3.2.

Question 1: A definitive contract inclusive of options will be considered a single reference. For indefinite delivery contracts, only executed Task orders that demonstrated actual work performed will be evaluated. The

Base IDIQ will not be a reference for actual performance since the efforts are performed under individual Task Orders.

Question 2: Task Orders (TOs) can be considered a separate Contract reference, but Offerors can submit multiple TOs under a single reference if they are for the same work effort and evaluated under a single CPAR. A definitive (e.g a "C" contract) will be evaluated as a single effort. The

Government will only be evaluating acutal work performed and documented through CPARS, PPQs or other submitted and verified metric data.

Question 3: The number of contracts (i.e. assessing as a single effort vs.

separate efforts) will not necessarilly affect the rating. PP will evaluate demonstrated performance (i.e. work actually performed) which covers exercised options and awarded Task Orders (Not the IDIQ itself).

The criteria for corporate experience is 30 fixed wing jet powered aircraft with performance at two or more sites simultaneously with detachments.

Question 1: Further rationale on selection of the stated criteria is requested.

Question 2: Does the Government anticipate revision(s) to the criteria prior to official RFP release?

Slide 40 and Section L, Part B para 2.1 b. and

2.1 c.

Question 1: It is indicative of the effort that will be performed on this contract regarding number and type of aircraft, use of detachments, and perfromance at multiple sites. The Government finds it pertinent for offerors to demonstrate experience performing a similary scoped effort to reduce potential performance risk.

Question 2: The Government intends to reduce the number of sites required to one with detachments.

32 Why is “Relevant” excluded from the evaluation rating?

Slide 49/51 and Section

M.III.B

The differentiation of Very Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not

Relevant relevancy ratings were found to be sufficient for the effort.

How will the Government evaluate past performance on a contract without a Small Business Subcontracting Plan when determining the overall performance confidence assessment rating?

Slide 53 and Section

M.ll.A

The Government will primarily use CPARS and PPQs when evaluating the small business management element of Past Perfromance. Offerors should not submit prior subcontracting plans as part of the past performance Volume. However, the Government may contact the customer or reachback to subcontracting reports to verify that there were no subcontrating requirements for the effort and assess the element based on that feedback.

Please clarify if 4.1 through 4.7 are standalone factors that will be rated individually or if there will be one comprehensive technical rating.

Slide 64, Section M.II.B, and Section L Part B para

4.1 through 4.7 are not standalone factors and will not be rated individually. A single Technical Rating and a Single Technical risk rating will be assigned to the Technical Factor.

What is the rationale for deviating from tables 2A and 2B of the DoD source selection guide and not evaluating strengths in a best‐value tradeoff with cost being of least importance?

Slide 65 and Section

M.B.II

The Government has carefully reviewed the requirements and determined that there is no known opportunity for a strength.

What is the rationale for deviating from using an “acceptable” or

“unacceptable” rating or Table 6 of the DoD Source Selection Guide when evaluating 4.7 Small Business Management?

Slide 65, Section L, Part

B, para 4.6, and

Section M.II.B

The Government has elected to evaluate Small Business as part of the

Technical Factor and not as a separate element. Therefore, para 3.1.4.2 of the Dod Source selection Guide is applicable as opposed to Para 3.1.4.1.

37 Will a list of GFP be posted with the Draft/released RFP? General The Government intends to post a GFP list with the released final RFP.

38 Does the Government plan on conducting a site visit at NAS Fallon? General

Not at this time. If site visits are available, information will be communicated through SAM.gov.

39 Will the Government provide Flight Hour Program information? General

Yes. The navy's intent is to distribute its F‐16 flight hours up to 200hrs per year per jet. This will be included in an update to the PWS.

Para 1.0 states "The selected Intermediate level maintenance consists of performing Non‐Destructive Inspections (NDI), F‐16 Aviation Armament

Equipment (AAE) repair / overhaul, and F100 storage."

Question: Where will the F100 engines be stored: in a Government facility or in the contractor provided warehouse?

PWs Para 1.0

Considering the size of the engine and trailer, it would be recommended to store on site at NAS Fallon.

In reference to the "limited Depot level maintenance in this contract", will the government confirm it is their intent for the same level of maintenance within the Corporate Experience levels listed in DFRP section 2.1.d.?

RFP/PWS 2.1.d/1.0

Currently, the Government anticipates the magnitude of Depot level work to remain as it is today. However, per PWS para 4.3 Over & Above maintenance may include additional depot level repair actions. For the

Purposes of DRFP para 2.1.d and the corporate experience factor, the magnitude of D‐level maintenance is not being evaluated. The

Government is just looking for evidence that D‐level work was performed on the Contract reference.

Para 3.3.4 states "The Government will provide access to all existing NMCI terminals contained within the facilities described in paragraph 3.3.7."

Question: Please provide information on the number of terminals in each space listed in paragraph 3.3.7.

PWS Para 3.3.4 The Government will provide a sufficient number of NMCI terminals for mission requirements. The Government does not intend to update the

PWS at this time.

Para 3.4.2 states "The Contractor's name shall be clearly visible on

Contractor owned vehicles. Contractor vehicles shall display a valid state license plate and station decal, as required by existing installation instructions and state regulations, and other requirements as stated in the schedule."

Question: Please define what is meant by "in the schedule".

PWS Para 3.4.2

The Government will delete "as stated in the schedule" from the PWS.

Para 3.6.2 states "Security Clearances. shall possess a current SECRET clearance or an interim SECRET clearance with a favorable adjudication for access to classified information to at least the SECRET level. One‐third (1/3) of all manning dedicated to avionics technicians, ordnance technicians, and maintenance controllers shall have a background investigation that supports a clearance higher than SECRET." Question: Please define exactly how many require greater than a SECRET clearance and what the higher levels of clearances are to be (i.e. TOP SECRET, SSBI, ..)

PWS Para 3.6.2

The manning is provided in the L‐6 manning attachment. 1/3 of the whole heads proposed for the labor categories in 3.6.2 shall have a background investigation that supports a clearance higher than SECRET. At this time the Government cannot disclose the exact clearance level.

There are no security guards listed in Att_L_6.

Question: Please clarify if contractor is required to provide security guards for period of time when maintenance is not being performed.

PWS Para 3.6.4

Security Guard requirements are in review.

Please confirm that all contractor repairs made IAW instructions from the F‐

16 Fleet Support Team will be charged as over and above to CLIN 0X08 per

PWS 4.3.

PWS Para 4.1.4

It will depend on a case by case basis as to if a directed maintenance action is D level as specified in paragraph 4.3. References to O&I level maintenance in para 4.3 of the PWS will be deleted.

Para states "This partial aircraft painting requirement includes application of

Low Observable Coatings (LOC), which requires special training and a security clearance."

Question 1: Please explain what security clearance level is required to perform this work.

Question 2: Are there special facility requirements for performing this work?

PWS Para 4.2.9

Question 1: SECRET

Question 2: No special facility requirements.

Para states"Note: Some NAWDC and VFC‐13 staff who are not in a flying status are authorized by their Commanders to wear a flight suit as a uniform while assigned to their units and Contractor shall consider these individuals as part of the overall Staff/crew number." Question: Please define approximately how many NAWDC and VFC‐13 staff the contract will need to support so offerors can determine if the Govt minimum manning is sufficient.

PWS Para 4.2.14

Estimated 90 personnel. The note will be removed from the PWS.

Para states "The Contractor shall perform O‐level maintenance on F‐

16A/B/C/D AAE and I‐level suspension maintenance."

Question 1: Please clarify if the CLS contractor will perform this work at NAS

Fallon or if this work will be performed by the 162nd Airforce Wing?

Question 2: If the work is to be performed at Fallon, please confirm that the

Govt will provide sufficient spaces and will provide the tools and equipment for this work.provide the space and equipment to do the work? Also, the training required.

Question 3: Please confirm that the Govt minimum manning includes the requirement for an I level QA program.

PWS Para 4.2.17

Question 1, 2, & 3: This requirement will be removed from the PWS and all this work will be performed by the 162nd airforce wing.

2.1.c states, "Performed at two (2) or more sites simultaneously with detachments".

Question: Please clarify if this means (2) or more permanent operating locations with detachments from those permanent locations, or does the detachment site count as one of the sites. For example, would one permanent location supporting a simultaneous single detachment site suffice for a relevant contract reference?

Recommendation: The Governement should consider the current operations at NAWDC as highly relevant to the next period of performance.

As such, the corporate experience requirement should consider simultanteous ops at home station and detachments as meeting the requirement of "performing at two (2) or more sites simultaneously with detachments."

RFP Section L Part B 2.1.c (Corporate Experience)

The Goverment will update the final RFP to change this requirement to one site with detachments.

To the degree that the Government intends to provide mandated or minimum manning, request the Government consider providing the required skill level mix for each position. For example, rather than specifying a certain number of total "Aircraft Mechanics", recommend the

Government specify number by skill level (Mech I, Mech II, Mech II, Helper, Worker). This will ensure the Government receives a properly skilled and priced workforce for the unique maintenance effort for a complex, multi‐ site maintenance effort.

RFP Section L Part B 4.2.1.a

The current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) does not delineate between labor category skill levels. The Offeror shall proposed the skilled workforce mix for successful performance.

Please clarify the requirement for a Management Information System. The

PWS only talks about NALCOMIS. What is the requirement for a contractor‐ provided MIS if any?

PWS Para 5.1 There is no requirement for a contractor‐provided MIS. The Goverment will remove RFP/PWS references for a contractor MIS.

Att_L_6 manning does not show any positions with the CBA title of Material

Expeditor.

Question: Please clarify why there are no Material Expeditors on Att_L_6 since the P+D22+D20:D23+D19:D23+D20:D23+D21:D23

PWS Para 7.1.4 and Att L 6 The Government will update the PWS to change Material expeditor to supply personnel

States "Deliver and pick up parts from/to supply from/to designated squadrons."

Question: Please define which squadrons are considered "designated squadrons."

PWs Para 7.1.5.k Designated squadrons are considered wherever the contractor is directed to pick‐up from/to or supply from/to.

Para states "The Contractor shall provide warehousing functions for program related Material.

Question: Please provide clarification on what the specific requirements are for "related Material".

PWs Para 7.2

Any GFP that is under the Viper Maintenance Group ORG code.

Base Ordering Period 1 and Transition Period overlap.

Question: Will the contractor be responsible for potentially providing all requirements in the CLIN structure for Base Ordering Period 1 during the two month Transition Period? Recommend Base Ordering Period 1 be reduced to 10 months to begin after the Transition Period.

RFP Section F

The periods specified in Section F are ordering periods. The period of performance will be specified on the individual task orders. The

Government does not intend on ordering the base ordering period 1 and transition period simultaneously.

Question: Will the Government please exclude Key Personnel resumes from the Volume 4 page count?

RFP Section L Part B

Section 2.1.6 There are no page counts for proposals.

Recommend the Government be as specific as possible as to the skill set/labor category desired for all billets, with particular emphasis on aircraft mechanics. Be vague on labor category requirement opens the door to offering a lower skilled labor force as a means to offer lower price. In execution, this imparts significant risk to the Government through possible labor disruptions and/or under‐qualified workforce. Examples include:

‐ Specify offerors propose all Mechanics at the CBA wage rate

‐ Specify all Mechanics must be actual Mechanics and not Helpers or

Workers

‐ Consider specifying number by skill level (Mech I, Mech II, Mech II, Helper, Worker)

ATT L_6_Minimum Manning

In accordance with RFP Section L, Part B, Para 4.2.1.a, Offeror's proposed manning included in L‐6 shall be consistent with the manning a labor categories used in the Pricing attachment (L‐8)

‐Offeror's are required to propose the CBA or AWD rate for the positions inluded in L‐6 as applicable.

‐Attachment L‐6 is the Government's minimum manning estimate.

Posistions and number of whole heads included in the L‐6 attachment specifies that the postions are mechanics and the offeror is required to propose these at a minimum. The Offeror shall propose the skilled workforce mix for successful performance.

‐The current CBA does not delineate between labor category skill levels.

The Offeror shall proposed the skilled workforce mix for successful performance.

PWS 1.1 and Attachment L6. In order to develop an effective manning structure at NAS Lemoore, recommend the Govt provide details on the workflow and staffing requirements such as:

a. Projected flight operations days of the week

b. Daily flight operations hours

c. The number of shifts (1st, 2nd, 3rd, weekend)

d. The number of working holiday/weekend days per year

e. The expectation for contractor overtime, for Government overtime is support of weekend flight operations.

f. Number of dets from Lemoore

PWs Para1.1 and ATT_L_6

a. Flight operations are scheduled for five (5) days per week (Monday through Friday).

b. Approximately 0700 to 0030 hours and are typically scheduled 52 weeks per year.

c. 1st & 2nd shift.

d. 15 holidays or weekends (total days) during a typical year.

e. The Contractor may, at its own discretion, perform maintenance outside of the regularly scheduled working hours/flight operations;

however, the Government is not responsible for the Contractor’s costs for any overtime associated with such work beyond what the Government has directed.

f. 0 detachments from Lemoore.

Government minimum manning includes (6) Maintenance Controllers (CBA) and (1) Material Control Supervisor (exempt). This appears insufficient to support PWS requirements. Recommend the Governement review this manning requirement and consider increasing the number of controllers and "Maintenance Control" Supervisors to a number that would appropriately support multiple shifts while supporting simultaneous detachments.

NA

The Government views this as the minimum required to cover the shifts and detachments covered in the PWS. It does not intend to increase the minimum.