N3220519R2012_Questions1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 17 KB Posted
- Attached to
- VERTREP DET A LANT Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N32205-19-R-2012
About this file
Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 21
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
General Q&A
| Item # | Subject | RFP Reference | Question/Comment | USG Response |
| 1 | CLIN/TEP | ITEM No 1001, p4 | Item No. 1001 Option for 2nd helicopter states 365 quantity but only requires aircraft to be delivered NLT 01 March. How is Total Evaluated Price calculated? Is TEP based on two aircraft for 1 year starting 01 October? If so, how will delivery of the 2nd aircraft prior to 01 March 2020 be evaluated? | As shown in the Pricing Spreadsheet (Attachment 9), the Total Evaluated Price is established by adding all Base-Firm CLINs and all Option CLINs. This includes the pricing for two aircrafts for two years to allow for flexibility in option exercising. The timeframe of 01 October 2019 - 29 February 2020 is incorporated into the 365 days and therefore will be evaluated in the total evaluated price. |
| 2 | CLIN/TEP | ITEM No 1001, p4 | Item No. 1001 Option for 2nd helicopter states 365 quantity but only requires aircraft to be delivered NLT 01 March. As this solicitation is LPTA and CLIN 1001 is Firm Fixed Price, in theory, an offeror could calculate the price by averaging cost of aircraft from 01 March to 30 September over 365 days and not deliver the 2nd aircraft until 01 March This would drastically reducing TEP and significantly limit mission support for the government and thus penalize the offeror delivering the 2nd aircraft early. How will this significant degradation in capability be evaluated? | To avoid this pricing strategy, the Government has now changed CLIN 1001 on the Pricing Spreadsheet (Attachment 9) to auto-populate based on the Offeror's pricing for CLIN 0001. The Offeror is now required to have the same per-diem rate for each helicopter. |
| 3 | Mission Fuel Definition | 5.6.1.a., p18 | Conditions for mission requirements specifies “mission fuel” times. Does "mission fuel" combine scheduled flight time fuel plus VFR reserve fuel? Please define "mission fuel". | Mission fuel includes VFR reserve of 20 minutes. Contractor must also operate in compliance with FAA Part 135.209. Fuel planning shall be in accordance with CNAF M-3710.7 Para 4.8.5. |
| 4 | Detachment aircraft requirements | Section 7.6.8.a., p25 | Aircraft performance requires minimum 9,630 lbs. at 30 Deg C SL and 1.0 hour of fuel. 5.6.1.(a)a., (a)b, and 7.6.8.b. requires 9,600lbs. Please clarify discrepancy. | Paragraph 7.6.8 b of the PWS has been modified to read 9,630 pounds instead of 9,600 pounds. |
| 5 | Instructions to Offeror's | 52.212-1(b)d., p49 | Instructions to Offeror states “Volume I and Volume II SHALL NOT CONTAIN ANY PRICING DATA.” Volume I is Price Proposal. Please clarify. | The language has been changed to state, "Volume II and Volume III SHALL NOT CONTAIN ANY PRICING DATA." |
| 6 | Instructions to Offeror's | Section 52.212-1.f.i.7, p51 | Page 51 i.7 & 8. requires submission of documentation certifying aircraft is fully capable of operating in IMC per Paragraph 6.2 and 6.3. However Para 6.2. and 6.3. have no IMC stipulations. There are furthermore no specific requirements for pilot instrument currency requirements. Please clarify IMC certification required by the aircraft. | The Contractor shall possess all applicable FAA certificates and shall be under FAA regulatory and safety oversight during the entire contract performance period including IMC certification. Pilot curency requirements shall be in accordance with CNAF M-3710.7 series per Para 6.4. |
| 8 | Instructions to Offeror's | Section 52.212-1.f.i.7, p51 | P51. Para f.i.7. mentions “medium lift requirements”. I.8. speaks to “heavy lift”. Please clarify this soliciation is for heavy lift only. | This solicitation is for heavy lift only. Delete 'medium lift' reference |
| 9 | Instructions to Offeror's | Section 52.212-1.f.i.9, p51 | P51. Para f.i.9. requires FAA approved Flight Manual for medium and heavy lift aircraft. Please clarify this solicitation is for heavy lift only. | This solicitation is for heavy lift only. Delete 'medium lift' reference |
| 10 | Instructions to Offeror's | Section 52.212-1.f.i.10, p51 | P51. Para f.i.10. requires “documentation showing at least two years’ experience flying Part 135 IFR Hover In Ground Effect (HIGE) and Hover Out of Ground Effect (HOGE) performance charts”. Please clarify requirement for HIGE/HOGE charts is unrelated to Part 135 IFR experience. | Missed line item return; this should be read as 2-lines: |
10. Documentation showing at least two (2) years’ experience flying Part 135 IFR
11. Hover In Ground Effect (HIGE) and Hover Out of Ground Effect (HOGE) Performance Charts and sample performance calculation sheets showing the proposed aircraft meets the lift capacity per Paragraphs 7.6.8(a) and (b);
Renumber lines 11-15 as lines 12-16.
| 11 | Price evaluation | Section 52.212-2, p53. | RFP states "Price analysis techniques will be used to determine price reasonableness". Please describe the price analysis techniques and how they are applied. | |
| The Government will utilize price analysis techniques found in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price. | ||||
| 12 | Source Selection Process | Section 52.212-2(a) Page 67. | RFP states “This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures”. Title VIII, Subtitle C, SEC. 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (and re-iterated in the 2018 NDAA and again in the 2019 NDAA Section 880) outlines policy for DOD to avoid using lowest price technically acceptable source selection criteria in circumstances that would deny the Department the benefits of cost and technical tradeoffs in the source selection process. Sec 813.b. mandated that the FAR be revised within 120 days to require solicitations using LPTA be used only in very specific instances. Para (813.c.3) specifically directs DOD to avoid use of lowest price technically acceptable source selection criteria in procurements that are predominately for the acquisition of logistics services in contingency operations or other operations outside the United States. TRANSCOM has recently modified many of its historically LPTA contracts to Best Value, especially overseas. Will the source selection process for this contract be amended in accordance with this policy, signed into public law on 23 Dec 2016, 12 Dec 2017, and again 13 Aug 2018 and solicited under other than LPTA? If not, what is the justification for soliciting this contract under LPTA? | In accordance with FAR 51.101-1(a), A tradeoff process is appropriate when it may be in the best interest of the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror. Further, the DoD Source Selection Procedures state that LPTA is appropriate when there is no value, need, or willingness to pay for a higher performance. Because the VERTREP requirement is well-defined and the Government does not find it necessary to pay more for higher performance, LPTA is appropriate for this procurement. There is not a need at this time for the Government to receive any services above and beyond the minimum requirements stated in the PWS. |
| 13 | Instructions to Offeror's | 52.212-1(b)f.ii | The Government states, “All supporting documentation, such as foldouts, charts, figures, tables, is included in the 100-page limit” and “The Performance Plans shall be prepared on 8 ½ x 11-inch paper.” These requirements appear to conflict. Will the Government confirm that 11x17 foldout pages are permissible In Volume II and count as a single page? | The Performance Plans themselves are required to be prepared on 8 ½ x 11-inch paper. Supporting documents for the performance plans may utilize foldouts, charts, figures and tables. 11X17 foldout pages may be utilized for the supporting documents and will count as a single page. |
| 14 | Instructions to Offeror's | 52.212-1(b)f.ii | The Government states, “Letter size and spacing requirements for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the Offeror...” Are Offerors allowed to use fonts other than Times New Roman in illustrations and tables? | No. Offerors may make changes to the letter size and spacing as long as the content remains legible. Changes to the font shall not be made. |
| 15 | Instructions to Offeror's | 52.212-1(b)f.i. | If a company did not have the second aircraft on its OpSpecs until a short time after submission of the proposal, would MSC accept a detailed timeline showing anticipated delivery schedules for the second aircraft? The schedule would also show when all requirements listed in the reference would be expected to be complete. | MSC will accept a detailed timeline for the second aircraft as long as the Offeror's proposal meets all solicitation requirements, all required documentation is submitted (or explained in the plan), and all required certifications/documents and other required submittals are received by the awardee no later than 01 February 2020 for the second aircraft. 'Anticipated' delivery dates must be thoroughly explained, along with contingencies (if required). The plan must be submitted with the Offeror’s proposal. |
| 16 | ||||
| 17 | ||||
| 18 | ||||
| 19 | ||||
| 20 | ||||
| 21 | ||||
| 22 | ||||
| 23 | ||||
| 24 | ||||
| 25 |
&8Page &P
Sheet1
(2) The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to, the following:(i) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403-1(c)(1)(i)).(ii) Comparison of the proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial items including those “of a type” or requiring minor modifications. (A) The prior price must be a valid basis for comparison. If there has been a significant time lapse between the last acquisition and the present one, if the terms and conditions of the acquisition are significantly different, or if the reasonableness of the prior price is uncertain, then the prior price may not be a valid basis for comparison. (B) The prior price must be adjusted to account for materially differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors. For similar items, the contracting officer must also adjust the prior price to account for material differences between the similar item and the item being procured. (C) Expert technical advice should be obtained when analyzing similar items, or commercial items that are “of a type” or requiring minor modifications, to ascertain the magnitude of changes required and to assist in pricing the required changes. (iii) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry. (iv) Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements. (v) Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates. (vi) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items. (vii) Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the offeror.
File details come from the government source that posted it.