Synopsis Posting_28Oct09.xls
XLS spreadsheet 269 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Fielded Training Systems Support (FTSS) III Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- N61339-09-R-0016
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment_004.zip | ZIP file | |
| Amendment_003.zip | ZIP file | |
| Amendment_002.zip | ZIP file | |
| Amd01_N61339-09-R-0016.doc | DOC document | |
| N61339-09-R-0016_FTSSIII_Official RFP.doc | DOC document | |
| FTSSIII_E-2C.zip | ZIP file | |
| FTSSIII_GENERAL.zip | ZIP file | |
| FTSSIII_NASTP.zip | ZIP file | |
| Q107 - Multi-part question Rev 1_28Oct09.doc | DOC document | |
| Synopsis Posting_14Oct09.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Att 3_MOPAS QASP_FINAL_DRAFT.doc | DOC document | |
| Synopsis Posting_22Sept09.pdf | ||
| FTSS III pre-solicitation conference brief_FINAL1.ppt | PPT presentation | |
| Jax_Information.pdf | ||
| Norfolk_Information.pdf | ||
| SynopsisQ A_Posting_7Aug09.pdf | ||
| FTSSIII_PreSolAgenda.pdf | ||
| CherryPoint_Information.pdf | ||
| PtMugu_Information.pdf | ||
| UNRESTRICTED_MAC_FILES.zip | ZIP file | |
| GENERAL_RFP_DOCUMENTS.zip | ZIP file | |
| SBSA_MAC_FILES.zip | ZIP file |
Show all 22
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
Q&A
| Control # | ||||||
| (if assigned) | Topic | Question | Question Reference | Response | Date Released to Industry | Amendment/ |
Correction Required?
| 001 | CIS Chart question | Old version CIS chart had hours per week CIHWP, new chart has Type CI Req’t twice. | |
| Please verify if this chart is in error. | Attachment L-3 CI Manning Charts | The Attachment Columns in the DRAFT version are incorrect. The Final RFP version will replace the second column with CIHPW. |
| The Government may add a third and fourth column for offerors to show CI hours per month and hours per quarter in order to denote the cyclic nature of the once-per-quarter scheduled surge requirement. This element is in work. | 8/7/2009 | Yes | |||||
| 002 | CIS Chart question | Paragraph 2.2.1.b indicates we have to do one manning chart per LOT. Manning Chart Notes state we can combine LOTS into one chart where there are no changes. I. E. LOTS III-V. Please verify which is correct | RFP Paragraph 2.2.1.b | RFP Section L 2.2.2.b is correct, one chart is required for each Lot/FY period. The Attachment L-3 Note has been revised for issuance in the Final RFP. | 8/7/2009 | Yes | |
| 003 | NFO Stair Step | Chart 2.2.1.a-1 states 48 hrs/week for NFO. However, Appendix A does not show same hours in Table 5.2-2. Table shows 12, 24, 36 hour blocks. Please clarify which number we are to use. | RFP Paragraph 2.2.1.a and Appendix A chart 5.2.-2 | The chart in RFP L 2.2.1.a will be revised in the Final RFP release. The format in the chart should have read hours per day, versus hours per week, and should have used 36 as in the associated CIS Appendix A. |
| The Government is working to finalize the user requirements for the late FY10 period. For purposes of this temporary Question response, the three hourly availability periods are 12, 24 and 36 hours per day. However, the Government may choose to revise both the Section L 2.2.1.a table and the CIS Appendix A to provide pricing and support for 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours per day, or change the format to represent the flexibility desired by requesting hours per week, per month and/or per quarter. | 8/7/2009 | Yes | |
| 004 | 9F2C Serial Numbers | PBW shows same serial number for Cherry Point and Jacksonville for 9F2C S/N 2 Parachute-in-Water Release Trainer | |
| Please clarify Serial Number for Cherry Point and Jacksonville. | PBW | 9F2A SN 2 located at Cherry Point |
9F2C SN 2 located at Jacksonville
| SN 4 located at Norfolk | 8/7/2009 | No | |
| 005 | Additional Instruction | Section G.2 states “Additional instruction in excess of 15% per week per line item must have contractor concurrence.” The example given is 8 hr/day x 5days = 40 HPW x 15% = |
6 additional hours instruction per week.
In Appendix A to Addendum B, Table 5.2-1 & 5.2-2, the Additional Instruction column exceeds the 15% on all stair steps except the 36 hr/day stair step in Table 5.2-2.
Please clarify this discrepancy. Does Section G.2 relate to the MAC and Appendix A to Addendum B tables relate only to the instant task order? PAGE NUMBER: 23 of 129 PARAGRAPH: Section G.2 PAGE NUMBER: Appendix A to Addendum B, pgs A-3 & A-5
| PARAGRAPH: Table 5.2-1 & 5.2-1 | RFP Schedule G.2 is correct as written and applies at the MAC level. Within Appendix A to Addendum B, paragraph 5.2 and tables 5.2-1 and 5.2-2 will be revised in the Final RFP to state that they supersede the Schedule G.2 and establish the specific Additional Instruction limitations for this task order (that may be unilaterally implemented by the Government). | 8/7/2009 | Yes |
| 006 | CTT | Table 2.2.1.a-1 in section L lists NFO at 48 hours/week; Table 5.2-2 shows the NFO at 12, 24, and 36 hours/day. Based on a 5 day work week, none of the hours/day shown equal 48 hours/week, 48 hours /week would equal 9.6 hours/day. | |
| What “hours/day” should be used to build our staffing plan? | PAGE NUMBER: 98 of 129 |
PARAGRAPH: L. Part B, Volume 2, Sect. 2.2.1.a PAGE NUMBER: Add. B, App A, pg A-5
| PARAGRAPH: Table 5.2-2 | Reference the Government’s answer in “DRAFT_RFP_003 Response”. | 8/7/2009 | Yes |
| 007 | CTT | Table 2.2.1.a-1 in Section L lists Pilot hours/week at 20; Table 5.2-1 has 2 hours/day “bold.” | |
| Should the 4 hours/day be “bold” to match the 20 hours/week? | PAGE NUMBER: 98 of 129 |
PARAGRAPH: L. Part B, Volume 2, Sect. 2.2.1.a PAGE NUMBER: Add. B, App A, pg A-3
| PARAGRAPH: Table 5.2-1 | The Government did not intend to have any bold text in the Addendum B table. The Final RFP will provide correlated requirements. | 8/7/2009 | Yes |
| 008 | CTT | Table 2.2.1.a-1 in Section L lists the PRISim device at 8.5 CTT. |
Appendix M lists the PRISim device at 8 CTT.
Which is correct? PAGE NUMBER: 98 of 129 PARAGRAPH: L. Part B, Volume 2, Sect. 2.2.1.a PAGE NUMBER: Add. A, App M, pg M-4
| PARAGRAPH: 4.1 | The Appendix M is correct. Section L Table 2.2.1.a-1 will be revised in the Final RFP for 8.0 CTT. | 8/7/2009 | Yes |
| 009 | Provisioning | Paragraph 4.12 tasks the contractor to buy new spare parts for new devices or modified devices. The statement at the end of the paragraph says the contractor is responsible for all costs associated with procurement and delivery, so we understand we are responsible for the cost. | |
| Is it correct that the Government will reimburse the contractor? | PAGE NUMBER: Add A, page II-25 | ||
| PARAGRAPH: 4.12 | The Government anticipates that procurement of spares as described in SOW 4.12 would be accomplished as an Over and Above Work Request (OAWR), for which the Contractor would be funded. However, the specific process, mechanisms and funding considerations have not yet been fully developed and offerors should not assume the OAWR approach is the final position. Regardless of the process or mechanism, it is not intended for offerors to propose a price in this solicitation for anything associated with this provision. |
| Separate from the above response, the Government is also developing an approach to address the rapid obsolescence of spares for some COTS products, such as PC video cards. The Government is aware that the historically stable material and spares baseline established at a training device initial delivery is becoming more dynamic as COTS product increase in the overall content of the training device. The Government anticipates inserting new language, potentially within this paragraph, to define a process to maintain the Government’s inventory value as the content within the inventory changes. | 8/7/2009 | Yes | |
| 010 | Contractor Responsibility | Paragraph 4.5.3.2 and 4.11 of Addendum A state that the contractor will be responsible for devices during change or modification. | |
| Will this statement apply if the line item becomes unfunded ? | PAGE NUMBER: Add A, pg II-18 |
PARAGRAPH: 4.5.3.2
PAGE NUMBER: Add A, pg II-25
| PARAGRAPH: 4.11 | The Contractor is not required to support line items that are not funded. | 9/22/2009 | No |
| 011 | Trainer Operations Support | According to the referenced sections of Addendum A (4.2.1.8.a and 4.8.1), the contractor is to have operation support personnel available throughout the CTT for the duration of the scheduled training event. In the event that all 8 devices are operational at Norfolk (for example), the implication is that our staffing plan would have to ensure 8 operations support personnel are on-site; or that there needs to be at least one operator on site for each trainer during each trainer’s CTT. | |
| Is this a correct interpretation of the operations support requirement? | PAGE NUMBER: Add A, pg II-9 |
PARAGRAPH: 4.2.1.8.a PAGE NUMBER: Add A, pg II-20
| PARAGRAPH: 4.8.1 | It is not the Government’s intent to direct a specific level of staffing, but only to state what the offeror would be responsible for if awarded the task order. The Government will assess offerors proposed staffing, price and risk considering all of the RFP requirements including those specified here. The Government is aware that there may be economies available in any of the FTSS III future tasking (including this specific requirement) that relate to the physical distribution of the training devices, number of devices, number of separate buildings, rate and pace of utilization, type of training community being supported, associated responsibilities such as access control, and numerous other variables. The Government assumes that offerors consider those variables, the degree of risk in each choice and their pricing approach when developing their proposals. The Government, in its evaluation of each proposal, seeks the overall best value solution from among the offerors, all factors considered. | 10/28/2009 | No | ||
| 012 | Experience Summary Table | Although the requirements are to include only those contracts which are relevant to the FTSS tasks which the contractor/subcontractor are going to perform, there are no time constraints set for what contracts to include in the Experience Summary Table. Should we include all contracts within the past 5, 10, or 15 years? | PAGE NUMBER: 102 of 129 | ||
| PARAGRAPH: 3.0 | While there are no time constraints, page 109 of the Draft RFP states that "in general, recent experience will be considered more relevant than older experience." | 9/22/2009 | No | ||
| 013 | Executive Summary – Offeror Summary Table | The requirement states that “the offeror should include all subcontractors and team members who will be involved with the performance or management of the program work and should list all sites where the work will be performed.” | |||
| This sounds like an FTSS MAC-level requirement vice a task order-level requirement. But until we bid on individual Task Orders and are awarded the contracts for those Task Orders, we have no idea where the place of performance will be if we are required to have personnel on site (COMS and CIS for example). Or is this requirement related to the Instant Task Order contained in the RFP? | PAGE NUMBER: 90 of 129 | ||||
| PARAGRAPH: L, PART B, 1.0(i) | The final RFP will change the table to reflect that the data provided be at the task order level. A separate table will be required at the MAC level only if the offeror proposes any teaming arrangements or other subcontractor business relationship that will carry through the life of the MAC contract. | 9/22/2009 | Yes | ||
| 014 | Mobilizing Personnel | Paragraph 3.2.b Addendum A states that the contractor shall have all proposed personnel on-board no later than 10 working days prior to each CSD. If the winning bidder is hiring incumbent personnel, how would they be on board with the new contractor 10 days before the current contract ends? Could the wording be changed to offer letter acceptance showing that personnel will start on CSD as we normally do? | Paragraph 3.2.b Addendum A | Revised language for Addendum A, paragraph 3.2.b will be included in the Final RFP. The new text is shown below: | |
| New: “The Contractor shall have all new proposed personnel on-board at the training site, qualified with security clearances, or with pending clearances no later than ten (10) working days prior to each training system and equipment CSD. If the Contractor uses any of the incumbent personnel to meet this requirement, evidence of planned employment can be demonstrated by providing the COR the Contractor’s Offer Letter and the planned employee’s Acceptance Letter (or candidate employee signed Offer Letter).” | 9/22/2009 | Yes | |||
| 015 | OHPD PRISim Device | Appendix M, Contracted Training Time for PRISim specifies 8.0 OHPD |
The Price Breakdown / Price Evaluation Worksheet, Task 17A lists 8.5 OHPD as does Table 2.2.1.a-1 in section L Draft RFP pg. 98 of 129
| Please clarify the OHPD requirement and start/stop times. | PAGE NUMBER: Appdx M, Page M-4 | ||||||
| PAGE NUMBER: PBW, Task 17A | Reference Government Control Number 008. | 9/22/2009 | Yes | ||||
| 016 | OHPD PRISim Device | Task 17B Specifies 10 OHPH. Can we assume that this is a typographical error that should be OHPD? | PBW, Task 17B | The Offeror is correct; the PBW for Task 17B in all LOTs will be revised to read 10 OHPD. | 8/7/2009 | Yes | |
| 017 | FAR Reference 52.204-9; Personal Identity Verification of Contractor Personnel | The subject clause states: “(a) The Contactor shall comply with agency personal identity verification procedures identified in the contract…” What are the ‘verification procedures’ in this contract? | PAGE NUMBER: RFP; pg 49 of 129 | The verification procedures are being researched and will be identified in the final RFP. | 10/14/2009 | TBD | |
| 018 | Past Performance Data Requirements and Relevant Contract Data | Required information is to be provided in MS Word on a CD. Is it the Governments intent that these CDs will be separate from the proposal volumes and price data CDs? Can the data required from both paragraph 4.2 and 4.3 be included on the same, separate CD? | PAGE NUMBER: RFP; pg 105 of 129 |
PARAGRAPH: 4.2
PAGE NUMBER: RFP; pg 106 of 129
| PARAGRAPH: 4.3 | Yes. The solicitation is clear on it's face | 9/22/2009 | No | |
| 019 | Offeror Summary table | Does this table only apply to the Offeror’s team members and subcontractors for the Instant Task Order? | PAGE NUMBER: Section L, Page 90, PART B | |
| PARAGRAPH: 1.0 i | See answer to control #13 | 9/22/2009 | Yes | |
| 020 | Past Performance proposal instruction | Section L4.4 requires information identified (by Section L paragraph numbers 4.4.1 through 4.4.4) to be “organized by contract”. This instruction contradicts Section L 3.0 that states “Proposal information must be structured such that its paragraph number/letter is identical to the Proposal Instructions paragraph number to which it is responding”. |
Section L4.4 requires organization as shown;
4.4 Evaluation
4.4.1 Contract #1
4.4.1.1 Contract #1 Relevancy
4.4.1.2 Contract #1 Past Performance Information
4.4.1.3 Contract #1 Demonstrated Systemic Improvement
4.4.1.4 Contract #1 Small Business Concerns
4.4.2 Contract #2
4.4.2.1 Contract #2 Relevancy
4.4.2.2 Contract #2 Past Performance Information
4.4.2.3 Contract #2 Demonstrated Systemic Improvement
4.4.2.4 Contract #2 Small Business Concerns
Section L3.0 requires organization as shown;
4.4 Evaluation
4.4.1 Relevancy
4.4.1.1 Contract #1 Relevancy
4.4.1.2 Contract #2 Relevancy
4.4.2 Past Performance Information
4.4.2.1 Contract #1 Past Performance Information
4.4.2.2 Contract #2 Past Performance Information
4.4.3 Demonstrated Systemic Improvement
4.4.3.1 Contract #1 Demonstrated Systemic Improvement
4.4.3.2 Contract #2 Demonstrated Systemic Improvement
4.4.4 Small Business Concerns
4.4.4.1 Contract #1 Small Business Concerns
4.4.4.2 Contract #2 Small Business Concerns
| Which instruction takes precedence? | PAGE NUMBER: 86 PARAGRAPH:L 3.0 | ||
| PAGE NUMBER: 107 PARAGRAPH: L 4.4 | Instructions for L4.4 is correct as is your interpretation of what is desired in accordance with L4.4. Section L.3.0 will be revised to add the words "unless otherwise stated." Note that L4.4 is the only place where there needs to be some deviation from the L3.0 instructions. | 9/22/2009 | Yes |
| 021 | Parts Consumption Data | Does NAVAIR plan to provide parts consumption and repair data for FTSS III training devices and support equipment? The following specific information would be helpful in estimating the cost of spares and repairs. |
a. 6-12 months of maintenance action forms detailing what maintenance repairs were required and the corrective action.
b. A listing of equipment in the maintenance support package.
c. A listing of tools and support equipment that is to be supported under the E-2C contract.
| d. A list of spares for any modified equipment. | REFERENCE: Addendum A – E-2C COMS SOW |
| PAGE NUMBER: PARAGRAPH 4.3, pages II-15 through I-16 | a. The Government is making available a one-year history of maintenance actions performed, as recorded by the incumbent. This data is planned to be provided at each site during the site visits phase. It may be posted later in the Government’s solicitation Technical Library. |
b. The Government is making available the most recent material, spares, tools & test equipment and Government Furnished Equipment inventory in the format required by CDRL on the current contract. This data is planned to be provided at each site during the site visits phase. It may be posted later in the Government’s solicitation Technical Library.
c. See item b above.
| d. See item b above. | 9/22/2009 | No | |||||
| 022 | Requested Submittal Date of Volume 3, Experience, and Volume 4, Past Performance | During Industry Day, it was mentioned that volumes 3 and 4 of the FTSS III proposals would be requested two weeks prior to the proposal submittal date. However, the draft RFP states that NAVAIR requests submittal of the volumes two weeks after the final RFP is issued. Please confirm the requested submittal date. | REFERENCE: Draft RFP | ||||
| PAGE NUMBER: Section L, Paragraph 4.0, page 89 of 129 | Please comply with Page 89 of the draft RFP which states that Volumes 3 and 4 are requested 2 weeks after RFP release. | 9/22/2009 | No | ||||
| 023 | Tech Req | Page 98 of the solicitation states 20 hours / week versus hours / day. Please provide clarification of this requirement. | N/A | Please see the answer to control number 3. | 9/22/2009 | Yes | |
| 024 | PBW Possible Error | The solicitation states that a PBW Format error must be reported to Government; contractor cannot fix. It appears that SLINS 18c & 18D of PBW for Norfolk 1H177 are missing total price calculation for all years. Please clarify. | N/A | The offeror is correct; Tasks 18c & 18D of the E-2C COMS/CIS PBW for Norfolk 1H177 are missing total price calculation for all years. This will be corrected in the final RFP. | 9/22/2009 | Yes | |
| 025 | PRISim | The solicitation include a requirement for the PRISim training system. Did the Government intend to include this in the task order with 2 additional years on the OEM warranty? Please clarify. | N/A | 1. The Government does intend to include the PRISim device in the Task Order. |
2. The Government will continue to maintain warranty coverage by the OEM for the duration of the Task Order period of performance
| 3. In general, the warranty coverage provides for repair of material shipped to the OEM. The OEM does not have an on-site presence and does not typically come to the site for maintenance support. The COMS contractor receiving the Task Order award will be required to provide the on-site operations support requirements and any maintenance activity not covered by warranty. Appendix M will be modified in the FINAL RFP release. | 10/14/2009 | Yes | |||||
| 026 | PPIRS | The solicitation states that the “Past Performance Information Reporting System (PPIRS) shall be the primary, paperless, method used when conducting evaluations and / or source selections.” What is this system? Does the contractor team have access to it? Please provide additional information and guidance. | N/A | Per PPIRS.gov, "PPIRS is a web-enabled, enterprise application that provides timely and pertinent contractor past performance information to the Department of Defense and Federal acquisition community for use in making source selection decisions. Contractors may view only their own data. A contractor must be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) system and must have created a Marketing Partner Identification Number (MPIN) in the CCR profile to access their PPIRS information." | 9/22/2009 | No | |
| 027 | Small Business | The title of paragraph 2.1.5 (Unrestricted MAC Task Order Small Business Participation Strategy and Subcontract Plan) would lead you to believe that all the subparagraphs that follow apply to the Unrestricted competitors only and do not apply to the small business competitors. Yet, subparagraph 2.1.5(a) indicates in bold that all competitors both large and small must submit a Small Business Participation Plan. Which is correct? |
| Also, under Section M paragraph II.A, Technical, there is no mention of a Small Business Participation Plan being evaluated. Only the Small Business Plan is being evaluated for the Unrestricted MAC. | PAGE NUMBER: 94 and 95 PARAGRAPH: 2.1.5 | ||
| PAGE NUMBER: 125 PARAGRAPH: II.A | If a small business is proposing to the Unrestricted MAC, that small business must provide a Small Business Participation Plan as indicated in paragraph 2.1.5.(a). Paragraph 2.1.5 does not apply to the Small Business Set Aside MAC. Section L, Paragraph 2.1.5(a) will be clarified to reflect "Small Business Participation Strategy." | 9/22/2009 | Yes |
| 028 | Small Business | a. The value for items to be subcontracted for the instant Task Order will vary depending on the OHPD awarded. Therefore, may we assume that offerors should use the same OHPD stepladder (Table 2.2.1a-1 E-2 COMS/CIS) that the Technical Volume utilizes for the manning, to develop the Small Business Subcontracting values & goals and Small Business Participation Plan; Attachment L-6. |
b. Attachment L-6 instructs “insert the amount of your proposed price from Section B”, may we assume that the total price equates to the sum of the PBW CLINs/Tasks that correspond to offeror’s Technical Proposal, & manning in accordance with RFP Table 2.2.1.a-1 E-2 COMS/CIS?
c. Reference: Attachment L-6 states “For each firm identified, enter the amount that the firm will receive in performing the contract under the column heading “Amount ($).” This amount must match the corresponding amount stated in your price proposal. If it does not, we will use the lower amount for evaluation purposes.” Question: Please identify where the RFP instructs offerors to provide “subcontracted prices” and in what section of offerors price proposal are they to be stated in order to meet the requirement “correspond to your price proposal”. At present, only understand prices to be provided in the PBW by CLIN/Task with Monthly Supply Support all of which may include subcontracted prices, but may not correspond by 100% or “one-to-one” to the prices to be subcontracted. REFERENCE: Section L.2.1.5.a & b & L.2.2.1.a & Attach L-6
PAGE NUMBER: 94--95
PARAGRAPH: a & b
PAGE NUMBER: 98
PARAGRAPH: Table 2.2.1.a-1 E-2 COMS/CIS PAGE NUMBER: Attachment L-6 PARAGRAPH: 1 & 2 a. Offerors shall use the same OHPD stepladder (Table 2.2.1a-1 E-2 COMS/CIS) that the Technical Volume utilizes for the manning to develop the Small Business Subcontracting values & goals and Small Business Participation Strategy; Attachment L-6.
b. The total price shall equate to the sum of the PBW CLINs/Tasks that correspond to offeror’s Technical Proposal, & manning in accordance with RFP Table 2.2.1.a-1 E-2 COMS/CIS.
| c. There is no requirement to provide "subcontracted prices" within the Price Volume. Therefore, the following language will be removed from Attachment L-6 in the final RFP: "This amount must match the corresponding amount stated in your price proposal. If it does not, we will use the lower amount for evaluation purposes.” | 10/8/2009 | Yes | |
| 029 | Small Business | REFERENCE: RFP Section L.2.1.5a states that the Small Business Participation Plan shall “Provide targets, expressed as dollars and percentages of total contract values for Small Business Participation.” & Attachment L-6 requests data as a “% of Acquisition”. |
Section I references clause 52.219-9.d.1 which states that “(d) The offeror’s subcontracting plan shall include the following: (1) Goals, expressed in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars”.
QUESTION: Section M.II.A indicates an evaluation will be performed for consistency in the Small Business Participation Plan (strategy) and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. However, Section M does not state if evaluation will be based on “percentage of subcontracted dollars” or of “total contract value”. Are there specific targets/goals that contractors are required to meet for either or both of these documents in the Government’s evaluation factors for award? REFERENCE: Section L.2.1.5.a, Attachment L-6, I-52.219-9 & M.II.A
PAGE NUMBER: 94, 95 PARAGRAPH: L.2.1.5.a
PAGE NUMBER: 56 PARAGRAPH: I 52.219-9.2.1
PAGE NUMBER: Attach L-6 PARAGRAPH: 2
| PAGE NUMBER: 125 of 129 PARAGRAPH: M.II.A | Section M, paragraph IIA will be clarified to reflect "Small Business Participation Strategy" is being evaluated. Regarding goals, the final RFP will be revised to include a 7% minimum goal for total small business participation for the E-2C COMS/CIS task order (i.e., 7% goal of task order value performed by small business(es)). | 10/8/2009 | Yes |
| 030 | Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors | Section L, Paragraph 3.0 discusses the submission of information in Annexes, to include plans. The instructions also limit Annexes to the two shown in the Table on pages 86 and 87 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Task Order Manning/Staffing). |
Throughout the instructions for Volume 2 – Technical, there are requirements for numerous “plans”: e.g., Personnel Resources (2.1.2), Cross Training (2.1.2), Training and Retention (2.1.2), COMS Back-up Support (2.2.2.1a), COMS Operations and Maintenance Support Plan (2.2.2.1a), CIS Back-up Support Plan (2.2.2.2a), CIS Instruction Services Plan (2.2.2.2b), Mobilization Plan (2.2.2.3), and Transition Plan (2.2.2.3).
Please clarify if any of these plans, or any additional plans presented to substantiate our approaches, can be provided as Annexes with unlimited page count. REFERENCE: Section L
PAGE NUMBER: 86 PARAGRAPH: Part A, 3.0
| PAGE NUMBER: 91 PARAGRAPH: Part B, 2.0 | The only 2 Annexes are as stated. References to "plans" in Volume 2 and throughout the RFP (unless referencing the Annexes) will be changed to "approaches" to avoid confusion. These "approaches" will not be provided as Annexes. | 9/22/2009 | Yes |
| 031 | Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors / Evaluation Factors for Award | Paragraph 2.1.2 states: |
2.1.2 Personnel Resources – Provide a plan for the instant Task Order and a plan for future Task Orders.
a. Approach to retaining a stable workforce, and maintaining workforce proficiency and expertise.
Is it the Government’s intent that the offeror provide two separate plans to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 2.1.2? REFERENCE: Sections L & M
PAGE NUMBER: 93 PARAGRAPH: 2.1.2
PAGE NUMBER: 125 PARAGRAPH: II.A As stated in Control #30 above, "plans" will be changed to "approaches" (unless referencing an Annex). Paragraph 2.1.2 shall be clarified in the final RFP. The intent of this paragraph is to demonstrate the linkage from the overall approach described, how that approach is tailored to the instant task order, and then how the approach is applied in paragraph 2.2.1 (Manning/Staffing).
| Paragraph 2.1.3 shall also be modified to clarify the intent to connect the approach to paragraph 2.2.1 (Manning/Staffing). | 9/22/2009 | Yes | |
| 032 | Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors | With respect to the contents of Annex B – Task Order Manning/Staffing: |
The table in Paragraph 3.0 (Part A) shows the suggested page limit for Annex B to be unlimited.
Paragraph 2.2.1 (Part B) states: Manning/Staffing – Information provided in accordance with this paragraph should be provided in a separately bound book as Annex B.
Please confirm that all information provided in response to 2.2.1 (subparagraphs a, b, c, d; including the rational, illustrations, substantiation, manning charts, etc.) is considered part of Annex B and has no page count limitation. REFERENCE: Section L
PAGE NUMBER: 87 PARAGRAPH: 3.0
| PAGE NUMBER: 96–100 PARAGRAPH: 2.2.1a through 2.2.1d | Yes, the offeror is correct – all of an offeror’s response to paragraph 2.2.1 and its sub-paragraphs will be contained in a separate Annex B. | 9/22/2009 | No | |
| 033 | Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors | Request the page count for Volume 2 – Technical, be increased to 150 pages to accommodate the content necessary to respond completely to the three different aspects of the program (i.e., MAC, Instant Task Order, and Future Task Order). | REFERENCE: Section L |
PAGE NUMBER: 86 PARAGRAPH: 3.0 The Government has re-evaluated and the suggested page counts shall be revised as follows:
Volume 2 (Unrestricted) suggested page count: 90 pages Volume 2 (SBSA) suggested page count: 60 pages
| Section L paragraph 2.1.5 in its entirety shall be included in Annex A | 9/22/2009 | Yes | |
| 034 | Price Proposal -- Excel Spreadsheet | a. Offerors are instructed to provide an Excel spreadsheet. Is this spreadsheet essentially a “rate table” that shows all direct & indirect rates, also showing the calculation of how cost elements are burdened (the applicable base with the rate applied)? Or, is the Government looking for a spreadsheet that shows all the labor categories, hours, direct material, etc. burdened with indirect rates, through profit that is the detailed cost buildup rolling up to the prices in the Price Breakout Worksheet by year? |
b. Please clarify the “Material” element that is instructed to be in the Excel spreadsheet. Is the spreadsheet supposed to show the method/calculation by which material is burdened? Or, to show the material items and their costs that are included in the PBW prices?
c. Please clarify the information requested by the sentence: “Spreadsheets will show the pool and base utilized to calculate the direct or indirect cost elements.” For example: a) Is it the sum of all labor categories and hours that make up the total direct labor “base” to which the indirect labor overhead rate is applied?
Or, b) Is it the “pool” or sum of all of the indirect costs, such as taxes, workers comp., corporate allocations, etc., that make up the “pool” of costs that is in the indirect labor overhead rate? REFERENCE: Section L.5.3.b
PAGE NUMBER: 110 of 129 PARAGRAPH: b (a) Offerors shall provide a spreadsheet that is essentially a “rate table” that shows all direct & indirect rates, also showing the calculation of how cost elements are burdened (the applicable base with the rate applied. It shall also include how the work-year is calculated at each site as well as the requested premium time/additional instruction information requested.
(b) For materials, offerors shall provide their basis of estimate and shall include, as appropriate, a consolidated bill of materials and their costs with extended prices that are included in the PBW prices.
| (c) For each indirect rate, offerors shall provide the cost elements and amounts that comprise the indirect pools as well as the base total amount. | 10/8/2009 | TBD | |
| 035 | Price Proposal – Show Traceability | REFERENCE: RFP L.5.3.a states: “Show traceability with the Price Breakout Worksheets, the SOW for each task, proposed effort, proposed manning levels, and the proposed prices.” |
Is it sufficient for the Price Volume to provide the page numbers in the Technical Volume that show that the SOW requirements are being met and the proposed manning levels, as shall be shown in completed RFP Attachments L-1 thru L-4?
Or, is the Government expecting separate charts in the Price Volume that:
a) show traceability between the RFP PBW and the RFP SOW;
b) show manning levels at a more detailed level than the completed Attachments L-1 thru L-4, that the RFP requires to be included in the Technical Volume, by showing manning at the CLIN Task level by device; or
c) Show a full detailed cost build-up of manning levels & hours by PBW CLIN/Task level to prove traceability? REFERENCE: Section L.5.3.a
| PAGE NUMBER: 110 of 129 PARAGRAPH: a | Offerors shall show traceability between the RFP PBW and the RFP SOW and shall include a more detailed level than the completed Atts L-1- L-4, that aligns the proposed manning/resourcing to CLIN/task pricing. | 10/8/2009 | Yes | ||||
| 036 | Past Performance | See Note 1 to the table under paragraph 4.3 (Place of Performance should be the same as being proposed in this solicitation. If different please include an explanation.). What does “same as being proposed in this solicitation” mean? The way we read this only the Unrestricted and SBSA instant task order incumbents would qualify for this and everyone else would have to include an explanation. | PAGE NUMBER: 106 and 107 PARAGRAPH: 4.3, Relevant Contract Data | The phrase “same as being proposed in this solicitation” is intended to capture that the past performance information provided is from the same offeror location (i.e. CAGE code) as the offeror performing the work. The Government will re-phrase this sentence to clarify it’s meaning. | 9/22/2009 | Yes | |
| 037 | Device 15F8H Days of Operation | Appendix B indicates Monday - Friday as CTT; however the paragraph above the CTT chart indicates Monday - Thursday. Request clarification on which is correct. | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC.) Appendix B | ||||
| PAGE NUMBER: B-5 | The Appendix shall be revised in the final RFP to state Monday - Friday in both locations. | 9/22/2009 | Yes | ||||
| 038 | Device 2F166 Location | Appendix G indicates the 2F166 device is located in building SP-366; however the device is physically located in SP-362. Please clarify. | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC.) Appendix G | ||||
| PAGE NUMBER: G-3 | The devise 2F166 is located in SP-362. Appendix G will be revised accordingly. | 9/22/2009 | Yes | ||||
| 039 | Site Visits | In reference to the Draft RFP paragraph below, will we be able to visit the Norfolk and Pt. Magu sites after the official RFP release or should we make our request before the official RFP release? |
5252.237-9509 INSPECTION OF SITE (NAVAIR) (JAN 1992)
| Offerors or quoters are invited to inspect the site where services are to be performed for each MAC. For appointment call TBD prior to official RFP release. | N/A | All offerors were presented with the opportunity to visit each site during the planned site visits in August. No further site visits are planned. Clause 5252.237-9509 will be removed from the final RFP when it is released. | 9/22/2009 | Yes |
| 040 | E2-C COMS NS Norfolk CBA | The E2-C COMS Collective Bargaining Agreement at NS Norfolk expired 31 July 2009 | ||
| Does the government intend to include the latest agreement between Fidelity and the IAM Union in the RFP? | N/A | The latest effective Collective Bargaining Agreements will be included with the final official RFP when it is released. | 9/22/2009 | Yes |
| 041 | Site Manager | Addendum B, Paragraph 4.5.1 seems to dictate: '...only one Site Manager and may select between COMS or CIS senior personnel at contractor discretion." Addendum A, Paragraph 4.8.2 implies a separate or dedicated COMS Site Manager. Appendix A to Addendum B, Paragraph 4.4 implies a separate or dedicated CI Site Manager (also states not necessarily a CI). | ||
| Please clarify whether a sole Site Manager or dual Site Managers are required at NBVC Point Mugu. | PARAGRAPH: Addendum A, Paragraph 4.8.2 |
PARAGRAPH: Addendum B, Paragraph 4.5.1
| PARAGRAPH : Appendix A to Addendum B, Para 4.4 | The winning offeror shall establish site management with not less than one Site Manager defined. The offeror may define the Site Manager independently from the specific COMS & CIS functions, as a member(s) qualified and capable of performing as a COMS technician or CIS instructor, as two personnel with one from each major function, or in another format that provides for the effective and efficient execution of the Site Manager functions. Regardless of the approach, the Site Manager(s) shall be designated in writing on Company Letterhead to the COR and PCO. As a Key Employee(s), Site Managers are subject to review and approval in accordance with the contract provisions. | 10/14/2009 | Yes |
| 042 | CPAR Questionnaires | Section L, Part B, 4.0 Volume 4 – Past Performance asks if CPARs are recent (within the past six months) on the Past Performance Data Requirements and Contract Data table and asks for the specific CPAR completion date on row 10 of the Relevant Contract Data table. Past Performance Attachment 1 (PPA-1) CPARS Update Questionnaires are to be submitted for any CPAR older than six months. | |
| Is it acceptable for contractors to simply submit PPA-1’s on all contracts that have had CPARS at some time in the past? | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC.) Section L, Part B, | ||
| PAGE NUMBER: 103 PARAGRAPH: 4.0 Volume 4 – Past Performance | No. As stated in Section L, for contracts that have CPARs that are more than 6 months old, i.e., the completion date is more than 6 months before the due date for this proposal, the offeror will forward a copy of Attachment PPA-1. | 9/22/2009 | No |
| 043 | Deleting Training Devices | It is noted that FTSS III Draft RFP does not include a clause in Section H addressing Deleting Training Devices. Request you consider inserting the H.2 clause from FTSS II (shown below). |
FTSS II - H.2 5252.211-9500 DELETING TRAINING DEVICES (OCT 1994)
(a) The Government may desire to delete support for any training devices under this contract due to changes in Government requirements. Pursuant to the Changes Clause of this contract, the Government may delete the requirement for Contractor Operation and Maintenance Services (COMS) and/or Contractor Maintenance Services (CMS) support for training devices and equipment using the procedures set forth in this text. Deletion of any device incorporated in the contract on a Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) basis will be effective on the first day of the month following the desired deletion data.
(b) COMS/CMS and Supply Support for the training devices priced on a FFP basis will be deleted from the contract, including all options, at the unit prices established, less a percentage adjustment for recurring costs, to be determined through negotiations.
(c) Training Devices incorporated on a Time and Materials Pricing basis will be deleted effective on the Government’s desired deletion date.
| (d) The Government reserves the right to remove a training device from contractor responsibility on a temporary basis for review including, but not limited to, trainer changes, modifications and relocations, etc. If the device is removed for a period that is longer than two months, the contractor’s monthly invoice for the period in excess of two months will be reduced in accordance with the provisions set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) above | N/A | The referenced clause will not be included in the basic RFP because the Section I clause 52.249-2 Termination for Convenience of the Government (Fixed-Price) would provide guidance for the deletion of training devices. | 10/28/2009 | No |
| 044 | 11H177 CMS Status | According to App L for the 11H177, the device is listed as CMS in para 3.1.1. However, in para 4.1, it states that the contractor is to respond to maintenance support within one minute. In addition, the contractor is responsible for power up, checkout, daily readiness testing, initial prep, post op readiness testing and power down. The contractor shall perform all preventive maintenance according to the PM schedules. | ||
| Should this device be listed as COMS vs CMS? | PAGE NUMBER: L-5 PARAGRAPH: 3.1.1 |
| PAGE NUMBER: L-5 PARAGRAPH: 4.1 | This device is correctly listed in Appendix L as CMS. | 9/22/2009 | No |
| 045 | Stepladder Requirements | The draft PBW/PEW includes stepladder requirements for CIS NFO of 12, 24, and 36 HPD with COMS support on the associated 15F8H of 3, 6, and 9 OHPD. The 15F8H has three instructor stations. Although we realize that the three instructor stations do not represent a requirement for three NFO instructors (per Appendix A, paragraph 1.1), the majority of training does require at least three NFO instructors. Using the 24 HPD stepladder option with a 6 OHPD COMS support, there is a disparity in hours of support between CIS and COMS. The 6 OHPD equates to 18 instructional hours (using a three instructor average for training) to support 24 hours of NFO instructor time per day. Brief and Debrief times are included in training events/missions of up to three (3) hours duration for NFO. |
Please explain this disparity of hours. REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC.) PWB PARAGRAPH: Appendix A, Paragraph 1.1
| PARAGRAPH: Appendix B, Paragraph 4.1 | 1. The COMS OHPD defines the window within which the simulator usage can occur. The CIS HPD (or other timeframe, TBD) includes all the time within which CIS tasking can occur, whether or not the use of the 15F8H (or other device) is used for training. Further, in a Fleet user training environment, scheduling and how training resources (manpower, training aids, training devices, etc.) are more dynamic and less predictable than in an FRS environment (which the NBVC Point Mugu CIS resources could also be called upon to support). The CIS HPD element (as shown in the Draft RFP) used in the PBWS represents a quantity of instruction support the user community may draw upon to meet its needs, within the general confines of the Addendum B SOW and its Appendix A structures. | ||||
| 2. As noted in earlier Question and Answer Responses (reference control numbers 1, 3 and 7), the Government’s final determination of requirements (for purposes of establishing best estimated requirements for offerors to develop staffing approaches) has been in work. The Final RFP release will have revised requirements. | 10/14/2009 | Yes | |||
| 045 (con't) | 3. The Government’s goal is to structure its support requirements over a Fiscal Year Quarter, allowing the winning contractor to manage its workforce to flexibly meet the daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly training requirements. The Government minimizes the contractor’s risk by setting maximum CI utilization requirements (and maximum Additional Instruction levels) in direct personnel and total daily, weekly or monthly hours of instruction. The Government does not establish a defined CI physical presence requirement where there is no training requirement (within the notification of training requirement limits) in order for the contractor to optimize resources around user training needs and in recognition of demand fluctuations related to squadron deployments and similar factors (and Federal and California labor laws). | ||||
| 046 | Proposal Paragraph Numbering | Do we need to follow the paragraph lettering as shown in Section L, or can we use paragraph numbers for the topics shown? (reference page 91: after “2.1.1 Management Approach” there are a number of topics listed from a. to e.; can we substitute “2.1.1.1” for” a.”, etc.? | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC.) RFP Section L |
| PAGE NUMBER: 91 PARAGRAPH: Part B, 2.1.1 | Page 86 states that : ”Proposal information must be structured such that its paragraph number/letter is identical to the Proposal Instructions paragraph number to which it is responding, although the Offeror may add lower tier sub paragraphs”. | 9/22/2009 | No | |
| 047 | Device 2F92B SN #5 | Appendix D mentions a Device 2F92B SN #5, but it is not described in any of the provided appendices nor listed as one of the devices to be maintained. Is this device to be included in the FTSS III Task order? If so, please provide documentation describing it. If not, please remove from the Appendix. | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC.) Appendix D |
| PAGE NUMBER: D-1 PARAGRAPH: 1.1.1 | The Offeror is correct; there is no S/N 5 device for the program. Appendix D will be revised accordingly. | 10/14/2009 | Yes | |
| 048 | Hydraulics | Appendix D re Device 2F92B SN 2 states that “Hydraulic control loading components are mounted on the underside of the metal frame on the left and right sides, and in the forward compartment of the cockpit nose.” However, it appears that the pump room is empty and that the flight platform is fixed. Is it correct to assume that there are no hydraulic control loading components? Have they been replaced by electrical control loading components? | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC.) Appendix D |
| PAGE NUMBER: D-2 PARAGRAPH: 1.1.2.1.2 | 1. The offeror is partially correct. The motion system is being deleted and it’s associated large hydraulic pump and reservoir system. However, the hydraulic control loading system is still planned to be used with a new appropriately sized hydraulic pump system to meet the reduced need. Offerors should price support accordingly. | |||
| 2. The Government may, at its discretion, opt to replace the hydraulic control loading system and replace it with an electronic version if it proves to be necessary during installation at Point Mugu. If so, the winning offeror and the Government will negotiate an appropriate adjustment (either up or down) to the offeror’s proposal. | 10/14/2009 | TBD | ||
| 049 | Hydraulics #2 | Appendix D re Device 2F92B SN 2 states that “Hydraulic control loading components are mounted on the underside of the metal frame on the left and right sides, and in the forward compartment of the cockpit nose.” However, it appears that the pump room is empty and that the flight platform is fixed. Have thehydraulics been replaced by electrical control loading components? | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC.) Appendix D |
| PAGE NUMBER: D-2 PARAGRAPH: 1.1.2.1.2 | See Control Number 48 | 10/14/2009 | TBD | |
| 050 | Missing Historical COMS data – 2F92B #2 | The historical COMS data for Point Mugu does not include any data for the 2F92B #2 OFT; if this device was actually used please provide the historical maintenance hours expended to support it. If this device will not be used and does not need to be supported please state this. | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC.) E-2C CPF Pt Mugu 01-2009 - Sanitized.xls |
| PARAGRAPH: Sheet “HRS DIST” | The Government does not have historical data to make available at this time. All training device associated documentation is in transit between NAS Jacksonville and NBVC Point Mugu and will not be available until some time into the installation effort. The Government will make available appropriate data when it is located. Offerors should base their proposals on the data in the Appendix D and use the device 2F110 as a comparative basis of estimate. The primary differences are the SPX-500 Visual System on the 2F92B and the removal of the motion system. | 10/14/2009 | No | |
| 051 | Missing Historical COMS data - EDRT | The historical COMS data provided thus far for both Norfolk and Mugu did not include any hours to maintain the EDRT. Please provide the historical data. | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC.) E-2C CPF Pt Mugu 01-2009 - Sanitized.xls, also CPF Norfolk 01-2009_sanitized.xls |
| PARAGRAPH: Sheet “HRS DIST” (Mugu) and “CPF_ALL (Norfolk) | Devices 15F16 EDRT #02 and #03 were not supported under the COMS contract through FY09. Support for these devices on the current COMS contract commenced 1 October 2009 in a limited capacity. No historical data is available. | 10/14/2009 | No | |
| 052 | Missing Historical COMS data - PRISim | The historical COMS data for the PRISim at Norfolk noted the number of students trained but not the number of hours expended to provide maintenance. Please provide the historical maintenance data for PRISim. | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC E2C_SUM_01-2009_sanitized.doc |
| PAGE NUMBER: 4 PARAGRAPH: Sheet “CPF_ALL (Norfolk) | 1. Reference Control Number 25. The PRISim device has been under continuous warranty support by the OEM since its acceptance. | ||||||
| 2. Full maintenance recording, including the reporting of maintenance under the warranty provisions, will be required for the PRISim device in this task order. | 10/14/2009 | No | |||||
| 053 | Missing Historical CIS data | How many simulators did the Contract Instructors service at Point Mugu? | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC CDRL A008 01-2009 - Sanitized.xls | CIS at NBVC Point Mugu has evolved over the course of the current contract. Devices supported were the 2F110, the 15F8A and the 15F8H. The 15F8A device has been decommissioned, leaving the two remaining devices receiving CIS. | 10/14/2009 | No | |
| 054 | CIS Requirements | The CIS SOW specifies that the Contract Instructors must perform briefings and debriefings, but we were informed during the site visit that the Navy performs these functions, and that the CI are used primarily as console operators. Please clarify. | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC Addendum B (CIS SOW) | ||||
| PAGE NUMBER: 5 PARAGRAPH: 4.3.1 | 1. CIS personnel may directly provide briefings and debriefings, may support or participate in briefings and debriefings conducted by active duty instructors, or may not have any involvement in briefings and debriefings at the discretion and needs of the users. CI’s shall be fully prepared to provide briefings and debriefings or any level of support or participation desired and appropriate for all missions. | ||||||
| 2. The manner in how CIS is used at NBVC Point Mugu is variable by function (CIP and CIN) as well as by the needs of the user community. The user community may conduct any level of FRS training for their entry level community as well as the fleet users at the community’s discretion and the Point Mugu CIS team shall be prepared to support such requirement, or other similar type requirement as appropriate | 10/14/2009 | No | |||||
| 055 | MSH Definition | The metric “MSH” (Maintenance Support Hours) is used in the RFP Section L without any time unit. Is it per day, per week, or per month? | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC RFP Section L |
| PAGE NUMBER: 98 PARAGRAPH: Part B, 2.2.1.a | MSH is typically a daily level of support; however, under certain circumstances (such as the S-3B 2F92B device) the time unit may be a different period, such as hours per week or hours per month. The RFP will be revised to establish the appropriate time units for the E-2C COMS & CIS program tasking. | 10/14/2009 | Yes | ||
| 056 | CIS Historical Data Discrepancies | The CIS historical data shows that on average 590 hours per month were contracted for CIS, yet only 147 hours per month were utilized. Does this mean that CIS support was available for 590 hours but utilized by the Navy for only 147 hours per month? If this is correct, please explain why so many available hours were not used. | REFERENCE: (SOW, SCHEDULE, ETC CDRL A008 01-2009 - Sanitized.xls | 1. The Government cautions all offerors that historical data is not a reliable indicator of future needs. Contractors are to base their proposals on the specific requirements within the RFP. The RFP requirements are the Government’s best estimate of its future needs at the time the RFP is posted. | |
| 2. The Government has restructured the support requirements for the E-2C COMS & CIS program so as to allow offerors to optimize their resources to meet training needs as they are defined by the scheduling authority, while also ensuring their staffing approach provides the appropriately qualified and skilled resource when required. | 10/14/2009 | No |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .