N6134018R0905_Questions_to_Govt_TH-57_11.13.17.pdf

Q#

Reference

Question

Government Answer

DPWS 5.0.2.3 “These personnel shall not be assigned collateral duties.”

Is it the Governments intent that the

Contractor hires additional employees to handle collateral duties normally assigned to the flight line employees?

(i.e., NAMP 4790.2_ Fuel Surveillance and Plane Captain Programs, etc.)

a. It is the Government’s intent that Plane

Captains and Flight line Supervisors will not have collateral duties such as mechanic, trouble- shooter or technician. Other duties associated with the NAMP 4790.2 Program compliance are acceptable.

DPWS 5.6.1 The CAR process will be administered by the Government in accordance with

DCMA-INST 1201 series and

CNATRAINST 4355.4 series.

a. If there is a conflict between

DCMA-INST 1201 series and

CNATRAINST 4355.4 series, which document takes precedence?

a. The documents do not simultaneously apply. The applicable document is the document belonging to the organization issuing the CAR.

DPWS 5.14

Conditional

Maintenance

Conditional maintenance is often beyond the control of the Contractor and aircraft returning to a “Ready for Issue” status could be a lengthy process following the required government investigations and funding approvals.

a. Will conditional maintenance repairs due to over-limit conditions, fire, uncontrollable acts of nature, sudden stoppage, hard landings or catastrophic failure result in the aircraft being placed on Government Hold until after the Aircraft Mishap Board has completed an investigation?

Will the Government provide relief towards the penalties of a Maintenance

Cancellation or Incomplete for aircraft

a. The decision to sequester an aircraft for an Aircraft Mishap Investigation is made by CNATRA. Not all instances of the conditions noted in the question would result in an Aircraft Mishap

Board.

To give industry a picture of the number of mishap investigations each year the following history is provided.

2017: TH-57B Class D (repaired)

2016: TH-57C Class C (repaired)

TH-57B Class B (repaired)

2015 TH-57B Class C (repaired)

TH-57B Class B (struck)

TH-57B Class B (struck)

TH-57B Class B (struck)

An adjustment is made to aircraft required not available due to conditional maintenance, Government Hold, AMB, and/or awaiting funding?

is made based on the % Not Mission

Capable (NMC). (PWS Paragraphs 5.4.6.1 and 5.4.6.2)

DPWS 5.5.5;

5.5.5.1

A. What is the percentage of TH-57

B-Model and C-Model aircraft that can be scheduled for Cross

Country Flight Operations?

B. What is the maximum amount of

TH-57B aircraft that can be scheduled for Cross Country flight operations?

C. What is the maximum amount of

TH-57C aircraft that can be scheduled for Cross Country flight operations?

D. Are the Cross Country Flight

Operations limited to Weekend flying?

a. i.e.: Departing on Friday’s flight schedule and returning to NAS

Whiting on Sunday?

A. Only the TH-57Cs are scheduled for cross country flights. There is no contractual maximum. The number of

TH-57Cs scheduled for cross country flights varies with CNATRA’s training requirements. Currently, CNATRA schedules as many as 20 TH-57Cs per week.

B. Up to 10 TH-57Bs may be pre-positioned to other local airfields for weekend exercises.

C. The number of TH-57Cs scheduled for cross country flights varies with

CNATRA’s training requirements.

There is no maximum number.

D. No. Cross country flights are not limited to weekend flying.

a. If cross country flights leave on Fridays, they normally return on Sunday.

DPWS 5.30.5 AMARG; Desert Aircraft. The

Government recently retrieved five TH-

57 aircraft from AMARG, which are currently located at NAS Whiting Field as pointed out during the industry day site tour.

a. What is the status and future of the desert aircraft?

Is the Government including these aircraft in the count of 118 aircraft at Whiting Field?

The Government is determining the cost of reactivating those aircraft. The intent is to reactivate those TH-57Cs and return them to the flight line. (Note: The manning model was based on 113 TH-57s).

a. Aircraft are currently being evaluated for reactivation. Yes, the five aircraft are counted in the 118.

Section C.2, CLIN

0X15AB

Material –

ACI

Description states “Procure all material

(consumables and repairables) required to support Depot level maintenance of the TH-57 IAW PWS paragraph 5.9.1 –

5.9.8.”

A. Will repairable components be issued out of TH-57 prime’s warehouse stock and retrogrades turned in for repairs?

B. Will the depot facility be given stock level allowances for repairables?

A. The CLS Contractor would be responsible for managing repairable components and maintaining the provisioned spares.

B. No, the Government will not be giving stock level allowances for repairables.

The CLS Contractor is responsible for providing all material for the depot facility from the provisioned spares.

The number of allowed spares is listed in CDRL A020 in the Competition

Library.

PWS 6.5

Cost

Reporting

The contractor shall systematically collect and report actual contract costs in accordance with the Contract Work

Breakdown Structure (CDRL B002), Cost Data Summary Report (CDRL

B003), and Sustainment Functional Cost-

Hour Report (CDRL B004).

A. What are the frequencies of these three CDRL’s?

Who will provide the CSDR software?

A. Refer to Attachment L-10 Vol 4 CSDR

Plan, TH-57 CLS DD Form 2794, page

2 for reporting dates based on the contract beginning 01 June 2018 not including a Transition Period. Please note the CSDR plan will become

Attachment 9 to the contract.

On these CDRL deliverables, instructions are provided on how to submit the data. In addition the corresponding DIDs provide instruction on how to submit the data. No additional software is provided.

DPWS 5.2,

5.2.1.1, Government response to

Q&A #107

The DPWS states 6,500 flight hours per month. Based on a 235 days available for training (planning factor), which equates to approximately 325 hours per day. The Government response to Q&A

#107 states the offeror should plan for

400 flight hours per day (8000 per month). Based on the DRFP PMF structure, it appears the contractor will be graded against the number of flight hours scheduled instead of a sortie completion rate. In order to meet the demands of the daily schedule and minimize risk to meet the Customer’s daily flying requirements, the contractor will need to plan and staff the program accordingly to be successful

A. Planning factors are not relevant. CLIN

0X01 is for 6500 scheduled hours

B. The DFS would average 325 hours per day for 20 fly days per month. If

CNATRA requires more scheduled hours than 6500 per month, they will be ordered under CLIN 0X02.

C. Disincentives will be per missed event as described in Clause H.5.

D. The Government will provide the history of the hours flown since Jan

2016 within the competition library.

TH-57B/C scheduled flights have already been posted to the competition library. Future scheduling requirements will depend on CNATRA training requirements.

in meeting daily mission requirements.

A. What is the daily flight hour planning factor to get 6500 hours per month? I.e., is it 400?

B. In order to execute 400 flight hours per day, does the government intend to schedule to a higher number, or is 400 the maximum flight hours the offeror should expect to be scheduled?

C. Is it the government’s intent to apply disincentives when scheduled flight hours exceed average daily rate that equals

6500 hours a month (325 per day)?

D. Will the government provide the breakdown of flight hours expected to be scheduled and flight hours expected to be flown daily for the TH-57B and TH-57C fleets?

DPWS 5.7;

5.7.1; 5.5.5, Clause H-5

Under Sustainment, the PWS discusses the impact of Class A or Class B mishaps which are excused from the

SLMM. Additionally, Par 5.5.5 refers to decrements in the H-5 Clause for aircraft released late to the time required in the

DFS. The H-5 clause refers to disincentives for incomplete events due to maintenance.

A. Will the government please explain how mishap aircraft

(Class A, B, C, & D) count against the offerors requirement to meet the DFS during the time between the mishap and when the aircraft is returned to service?

B. Will the Government explain how

Mishap aircraft (Class A, B, C, &

D) will affect the H-5 decrement for maintenance cancellations and aircraft released late to the time required to meet the DFS?

A/B. The PWS has been updated with paragraphs 5.4.6.1 and 5.4.6.2 to address mishaps.

Section C.2, CLIN

0X06AA

thru

0X06AG

Unscheduled

Depot

Replace TH-

57 Cabin

Roof, Forward and

Aft Lower

Shell replacements during ACI

IAW PWS

Paragraph

5.9.1.1 and

Quality

Requirement s in 5.6.1-

5.6.10

Currently there is no government specification or PWS direction regarding what tasks are to be included in the firm fixed prices for cabin roof, forward and lower shell replacement.

A. Does the government plan on posting a specification to be used for replacement of these structural panels or does the government plan on delineating what tasks should be included?

B. Is it the government’s intent to include provisions and replacement of all associated glass under the FFP CLINs?

C. If not, will broken cockpit glass be treated as an over and above (labor and material)?

A. The Bell Helicopter Standard Repair Manual

(Chapter 6 contains the tasks to remove and replace the roof and shells) is a copyrighted and proprietary document. The Government does not have permission to post the document. The

Government does not own this data (as noted in paragraph 5.31.1 of the PWS.) The successful offeror will contact Bell Helicopter after award and establish the relationships to obtain the required maintenance publications. The

Government will include the general tasks that should be included in the removal and replacement of the cabin roof, forward and lower shell.

B. Yes, replacement of the transparencies

(skylight, windscreens and chin bubbles) should be priced in the firm fixed prices for cabin roof, forward and lower shell replacement. This will be noted in the PWS.

C. Please see the answer to B.

Section C.2, CLIN 0X05

(ACI) and

0X06AA

thru

0X06AG

(Unschedule d Depot

Replace TH-

57 Cabin

Roof, Forward and

Aft Lower

Shell replacements during ACI)

These CLIN descriptions state they are to be performed IAW

Quality Requirements in 5.6.1 –

5.6.10. However, only 5.6.9

addresses subcontractors and vendors.

Is it the government’s intent that

5.6.1 – 5.6.10 will apply to these

CLINs only if the Prime

Contractor self-performs CLIN

0X05 and 0X06. However if the work is subcontracted, will 5.6.9 apply to these CLINs?

Yes, it is the Governments intent that 5.6.1 –

5.6.10 will apply to these CLINs only if the

Prime Contractor self-performs CLIN 0X05 and

0X06. All quality requirements are flowed down to sub-contractors per clause 52.246.11

Attachment 4 does not have nomenclatures.

a. Please clarify if this data will be provided before or on contract award.

a. Attachment 4 will be updated to provide the nomenclatures no later than formal RFP release.

RFP page 27, Section M, Other

Evaluation

Definitions

1. Past Performance Relevancy provides definitions for Very Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not

Relevant. Noticeably missing is the

Relevant category. DoD Source

Selection Procedures dated 31 Mar

2016, (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/ policyvault/USA004370-14-

DPAP.pdf ), section 3.1.3.1.2 states the four levels of relevancy (Very

Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat

Relevant, Not Relevant) should be used for source selection requiring greater past performance discrimination. The section also states the for source selections requiring less discrimination should use acceptable or unacceptable ratings.

a. We recommend the

Government add a “Relevant” past performance category of relevancy in keeping with

DoD Past Performance

Relevancy Ratings to allow for greater evaluation stratification. We further recommend the “Relevant” category be defined as follows:

Relevant (R) -

Present/past performance effort involved essentially

The DoD procedures are structured such that it allows the Government to take into consideration the complexity of the acquisition in determining the levels of relevancy based on the level of discrimination necessary during evaluation, providing up to four definitions which may be used. For this acquisition the

Government determined that the tailored definitions of Very Relevant, Somewhat

Relevant, and Not Relevant as provided in

Section M of the RFP afford the necessary level of discrimination to determine the contracts to be used in the evaluation of each Offerors Past

Performance. Contracts that meet the definition suggested would currently meet the definition of Somewhat Relevant and would be included in the evaluation of Past Performance and any positive/adverse information associated with that respective contract would be a part of the consideration in determining the Past

Performance Confidence rating. The

Government does not see added value in included an additional level of relevancy.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

For this solicitation, a contract reference is considered to have essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity if the Offeror has demonstrated performance as the Prime

Contractor or JV Team

Member in a high

Operational Tempo environment: (1) in

Aircraft Flight

Operations/Coordination on rotary wing aircraft

AND (2) in Aircraft

Maintenance on US Navy student training aircraft.

PWS 7.5 and

Q&A question 204 state;

“The Government will not provide office furnishings, office supplies, or office equipment.”

a. The evolution of the old contractor moving furniture and equipment out of the facilities and the new contractor moving furniture

i. The “hard time” is established by the transition period. It is expected that the outgoing and incoming contractor will fully complete the transition within the

45 day period.

ii. There is no requirement in the current contract for the current contractor to clean all spaces prior to the incoming contractor moving in.

and equipment into of the facilities will take time that may impact maintenance operation and potentially flight operations.

b. Since an incoming contractor does not control the phase out timeline for the outgoing contractor and to assist in transition planning, please clarify the Government’s intent to allow time for the moving in and out of Government spaces.

i. Will the Govt establish a hard time for the outgoing contractor to have all furniture and equipment removed so the incoming will have time to move in? Any delays by the outgoing contractor could significantly impact the incoming contractor’s ability to fully support operations.

ii. Is the new contractor correct in assuming that the outgoing contractor will clean all spaces prior to the incoming

iii. It is not anticipated that there will be any slowdown that will reduce operations.

1. The Government cannot guarantee this. The Offeror should propose its transition phase-in plan to meet the 45 day requirement to ensure that it is prepared to begin support on the first full day of contract performance.

contractor moving in?

iii. Will there be reduced flight operations during the move-in / move out period to allow for this potential 2-3 day evolution?

1. Will the move in/move out occur on the last weekend or the transition period in order to minimize the impact on flight operations?

PWS 5.24

and Q&A

Question

198.

The Government stated that the

Government will not provide facilities, office equipment, or access to the aircraft to support transition activities for training, for obtaining pilot waivers, or for conducting transition activities.

Question: Will the government consider excluding the transition costs (including office furniture, office equipment, and contractor provided tooling, safety equipment, etc) and from the solicitation evaluation Total

No. It is not expected that the transition phase-in costs should contribute significantly to the

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and they will be included in the TEP.

Evaluated Price to ensure that all offerors have equivalent transition requirements?

DPWS

5.6.11

Supply

Support

Please provide a complete list of the current vendors providing component repairs, calibration services, materials, mod kits and supplies to this program.

CDRLs A020 (Repair-Vendor-SN tab) and

A022 in the Competition Library has the current vendors listed for providing component repairs, calibration services and materials. The kits for AFC-43 and AFC-44 are currently from

South East Aerospace.

CLIN

0017AB

requires the

CLS

contractor to purchase 11

TH-57B

ADS/B kits.

Government response to question 147 stated that each offeror is expected to negotiate procurement prices with potential suppliers. Since the Navy has already paid non-recurring costs for engineering work for prior kits, it does not appear to be cost effective for the

Navy to pay twice for engineering work already completed.

a. In order to reduce costs, we request the Navy provide wiring diagrams which include wire lengths, dimensioned drawings of metal racks/shelves, decal drawings, edge lit panel overlay modifications, and anything else required to manufacture the kits. Offerors can use these items to obtain reduced pricing based on manufacturing costs alone.

b. There are not documents in the technical library that define the material requirements for the

TH-57B ADS/B modification.

Please provide this data.

c. Please confirm that the items the CLS contractor is required to purchase for the TH-57 “B”

ADS/B kits are the same as those listed in the AFC-44 TH-

57 “C” Avionics Upgrade

a. All the drawings for the TH-57C are in the data package provided in the competition library, under “Current

ECPs”. Wire lengths and dimensions are included in the data packages. The drawings for the TH-57B will be provided by the time the Final RFP is released.

b. The material requirements are available in the Current ECP folder. TH-57B drawing data is available in the competition library.

c. That is correct.

d. That is correct and they are annotated in the drawings as well.

e. The Government believes there will be little to no difference in pricing regardless of who orders it.

Installation Data Package document.

d. As part of the materials to be purchased by the CLS contractor, please confirm that the CLS contractor is required to purchase 11 sets of the items added listed under Weight and

Balance on pages 5 and 6 of the AFC-44 TH-57C Avionics

Upgrade Installation Data

Package document as shown below.

i. GDL-88DH UAT

ii. GTX-33H Mode S

Transponder

iii. GTN-650H

GPS/NAV/COM

iv. AT130 UAT Antenna

v. GAD 42

e. We believe it is in the best interest of the Govt to procure the remaining 11 kits from the current manufacture to avoid paying twice for recurring manufacturing costs.

Govt response

#158

Please explain the difference in productive hours from a proposal technical section perspective versus the pricing volume perspective.

Please refer to the “Manning to FTE Translation” document in the competition library. Attachments

L-4 and L-11 have been updated and will be provided with the Final RFP.

Section M, Evaluation

Factors for

Award

RFP Section M.1, I General information states “Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the

Government’s estimation provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.” In contrast and in conflict with this statement, Section M.1, II.A Technical 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 on only the Technical Rating definition of

Acceptable and Unacceptable will be used to evaluate proposals.”

These statements are in conflict. The definition of best value itself allows for tradeoffs between price, technical, past performance and performance risk factors, with combined non-price factors being

The best value decision will consider the underlying findings and associated benefits and risks which result in the Technical Rating, the Technical Risk

Rating, the Past Performance Confidence

Assessment, and Price. The RFP’s best value evaluation structure provides for the Government to pay a price premium for a technically superior offer.

An LPTA evaluation structure does not allow for the consideration of Technical Risk or for the

Government to pay a price premium, as such, this is not an LPTA source selection.

significantly more important than price. This trade-off provides a solution that best meets the Government’s program requirements and ensures a solid working relationship between the Government and the contractor while reducing the Government’s associated risk.

An “Acceptable/Unacceptable” Technical rating scale is not synonymous with a best value acquisition. Although the draft RFP states this is a best value, it is written and could be awarded much like an LPTA.

Question:

What best value methodology will the

Government use to defend and assure a best value award?

Recommendation:

Based on the sheer complexity and magnitude of the TH-57 flight-training mission, L-3 recommends a best value tradeoff approach that considers strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and associated proposal risks that result in a combined technical/risk rating (Color ratings). We believe the inclusion and subsequent evaluation of strengths in the evaluation will ensure the capability to meet high performance standards with flexibility; a superior technical approach with innovations that can save time and money; and allows for continuous process initiatives. The evaluation of strengths and the inclusion of separate color ratings will ensure a true best value acquisition. Furthermore, benchmarking successful best value awards will help in developing a robust best value trade-off methodology and assure a defendable award.

Discussion:

It is our understanding that the Government’s goal is to acquire and field the TH-57 replacement helicopter within the first two years of the follow-on contract. Aircraft transitions (sun-up/sun-down) introduce many new and different risks to the Navy mission and success of fielding the new aircraft at a single site with limited real-estate.

a) When does the Government intend to field the TH-57 replacement aircraft?

a) That information is not yet available. Offerors should not consider TH-XX when proposing the

TH-57 effort.

b) When the acquisition strategy for the TH-XX helicopter is approved, the Government will address the transition. Offerors should not consider TH-XX when proposing the TH-57 effort.

c) When the acquisition strategy for the TH-XX helicopter is approved, the Government will address the transition. Offerors should not consider TH-XX when proposing the TH-57 effort.

d) When the acquisition strategy for the TH-XX helicopter is approved, the Government will address the transition. Offerors should not consider TH-XX

b) How does the Government plan to mitigate the risks of overlapping integrated logistics support elements between the TH-

57 and TH-XX aircraft?

c) What role does the Government anticipate the TH-57 follow-on contractor plays in the transition to the TH-XX (sun-up/sun-down)?

d) Will the USG consider a sole-source J&A based on the high risks of a transition to a new platform at a single site?

Recommendation:

Historical lessons learned show that aircraft transitions (sun-up/sun-down) present many risks to the operational mission and the success of the fielding the new aircraft. In addition to high op-tempo rotary wing experience, include aircraft transition requirements and experience in the PWS and technical evaluation.

when proposing the TH-57 effort.

a) Why did the Government remove the incentives from the contract and increase the disincentive penalties?

b) Is it the Government’s intent that the contractor could meet and surpass the mission requirements, yet be penalized millions of dollars over the course of the contract due to broad definition of maintenance cancellation and application across multiple events per flight/sortie.

(Refer to question #1 of L3 questions submitted on 17 October.)

c) Will the USG please define what a maintenance cancellation is and the requisite ramifications to the overall disincentive program and the general intended behavior of the CLS provider sought after by the USG.

d) Will the Government revise the incentive/disincentive structure to ensure the contractor is not penalized in scenarios wherein the contractor meets or exceeds operational requirements? (It is understood that a quality/safety escape could result in a penalty even when other operational metrics are achieved.)

a) The Performance Management Framework

(PMF) did not produce the desired results.

b) There are not requirements with respect to the Daily Flight Schedule that can be exceeded. If the contractor meets the DFS requirements, there will be no penalties.

c) An incomplete event due to maintenance has been defined in PWS paragraph 5.4.1.

d) Operational requirements are defined by the

Daily Flight Schedule. Safety of Flight is an operational requirement. Neither is prioritized over the other.

DPWS

5.30.5;

Government response to

Question #57

Discussion: AMARG; Desert

Aircraft. The Government recently retrieved five TH-57 aircraft from

AMARG, which are currently located at

NAS Whiting Field as pointed out during the industry day site tour.

Question:

a) What is the status and future of the desert aircraft?

b) Is the Government including these aircraft in the count of 118 aircraft at

Whiting Field?

a) Aircraft 081 is currently being inspected and assessed by the incumbent so that the

Government can accurately determine the cost of reactivating the five AMARG TH-

57C aircraft into the CNATRA fleet. That report is due to the Government in the April

2018 timeframe. After the Government reviews the report, a determination will be made on whether to activate the five aircraft.

b) Yes; however, the Minimum Manning

Estimate was developed using 113 aircraft at Whiting Field.

PWS 5.4.6 For aircraft down due to Government induced maintenance or non-routine conditions outside of 200 miles (including cross-country and other flights): If the aircraft cannot be recovered and made ready for the following day’s DFS (consecutive days only), it will be considered that the Government uses the aircraft for the next two (2) consecutive days. If the cause of the aircraft maintenance is due to the non-routine conditions in paragraph 5.14.2, then the Contractor can count that aircraft towards the DFS for the next two (2) consecutive days after the aircraft is downed. The Contractor will not be decremented for missed or incomplete

The Government has added days for any aircraft recovered outside of 400 nm from NAS Whiting

Field (PWS Paragraph 5.4.6).

training events for two days if the aircraft is down for Government induced or non-routine maintenance.

0X09 OFF-SITE EMERGENCY

REPAIR SERVICES

Dispatch a Contractor team and supplies to perform the required off-site maintenance or recovery of downed aircraft in accordance with

PWS paragraphs 5.8 and 5.12.1-5.12.7.

Aircraft break for many reasons beyond the control factors of any maintenance department without regard to geography, which comes into play during every weekend cross-country evolution.

CLIN 0009 refers to DPWS 5.8 and 5.12.

Everything in 5.12 says after ACO authorization the contractor shall . . . The response to question #62 says the contractor is expected to recover the aircraft under CLIN 0009 over the weekend and have it ready to support the flight schedule on Monday morning (See

PWS 5.5.5). PWS 5.5.5. doesn’t address aircraft recovery.

This is contradictory in that 5.12 says the contractor must have ACO authorization but the question response from the government says the contractor is expected to recover the aircraft over the weekend when we don’t usually get ACO authorization until Monday at the earliest.

Given the aircraft is almost 40 years old and this is not a reliability based contract will the government please explain the rationale behind not allowing the contractor time to recover the aircraft when the aircraft is down for unscheduled maintenance other than

Government induced or non-routine conditions and outside of the local area (50

Miles)?

Recommendation:

Due to the extent of travel time and dwell time while awaiting ACO authorization to perform the recovery the following recommendation is provided:

For aircraft down outside the local area but within 200 miles (including cross-country and other flights): if that aircraft cannot be recovered and made ready for the following days flight schedule, it will be counted that the Government retains the aircraft for the next day IAW 5.4.3.

For aircraft down outside of 200 miles

(Including cross-county and other flights): If the aircraft cannot be recovered and made ready for the following days’ flight schedules, it will be considered that the government retains the aircraft for up to the next 2 consecutive days IAW 5.4.3.

For aircraft down outside of 400 miles

(including cross-country and other flights): If that aircraft cannot be recovered and made ready for the following days flight schedule, it will be counted that the Government retains the aircraft for up to the next 4 consecutive days IAW 5.4.3.

The TH-57 is an aging aircraft yet the

SLMM requirement neither adds measurable or empirical additional fatigue life to the airframe. However, this metric does increases the cost of maintenance, increases the overall maintenance level of effort and further negatively reinforces business decisions over mission requirements without a commensurate life extension.

Why is this a metric for a presumably candidate aircraft - in the near term – for

“Sundown”.

CNATRA requires the fleet to be maintained and utilized in a uniform way. The SLMM measures the level utilization of the CNATRA fleet. When a

Sundown plan is approved, the Government will examine if the SLMM metric needs to be adjusted.

Would the USG accommodate “unlimited

Hot Seating” which proved effective on the last contract enabling the contractor-increased flexibility to maximize aircraft utilization and student throughput opportunities while minimizing cost per flying hour?

Unlimited Hot Seating does not allow for level utilization of the CNATRA fleet. Unlimited hot seating also does not meet CNATRA’s training requirements. The Government is not considering the use of unlimited Hot Seating.

Draft RFP

N61340-17-

R-0905, released on

9/19/17, M.1

Evaluation

Factors for award

Will the Government consider changes to the definition of Somewhat Relevant Past

Performance to:

For this solicitation, a contract reference is considered to have some of the scope, magnitude, and complexity if the Offeror has demonstrated performance supporting

10,000 flight hours annually AND greater than 50 aircraft at one site in either: (: (1)

Aircraft Flight Operations/Coordination

OR (2) Aircraft Maintenance.

The final RFP will be updated to reflect a change in the number of flight hours for the somewhat relevant definition.

N61340-17-

R-0905, released on

9/19/17, L.1

Proposal

Instructions, Volume 2 –

Technical, para 2.2

Operational experience

Will the Government consider modifying paragraph as 2.2,3 follows:

“Utilizing Naval Aviation Maintenance

Program NAMP) processes (as outlined in paragraph 5.6, “Quality” of the PWS), demonstrated through the use of CNAF

4790.2, Original Equipment Manufacturer

(OEM) programs, FAA-approved programs, Army Aviation Maintenance FM 3-04.500, or equivalent procedures.”

The Government currently requires:

“Utilizing Naval Aviation Maintenance Program

(NAMP) processes (as outlined in paragraph 5.6, "Quality" of the PWS), demonstrated through use of the CNAF 4790.2, or equivalent procedures.” The

Offeror can certainly cite OEM, FAA and Army maintenance procedures as equivalent procedures (if that is the Offeror’s assertion) in its proposal.

Section L, Paragraph 2.3 will not be changed.

N61340-17-

R-0905, released on

9/19/17, L.1

Proposal

Instructions, Volume 2 –

Technical, para 2.3

Supply

Support experience

Will the Government consider modifying paragraph2.3 as follows:

“The Offeror shall provide a list of reference contracts, within this section, that demonstrates its supply support experience associated with approximately 3,000 part numbers on a single contract ordering parts and managing a CLS program for military derivatives of commercial aircraft. “

No, not only is experience desired in ordering over

3,000 part numbers, but also in ordering a large quantity of part numbers annually on a single contract. Supply Support Experience will consider any contract that meets the number of parts specified for either military or commercial derivative aircraft.

Will the entire team’s Past

Performance, Operational Experience and Supply Support Experience be evaluated for this effort?

As per Section L, Part A, 1. General “The following entities are defined as principal entities and only principal entities will be considered in the evaluation of the Technical, Operational Experience and Supply Support Experience elements and the

Past Performance evaluations: (a) the prime contractor; and (b) JV Team Members.” Further, Section M describes that “Contracts from any entity other than a principal entity” will be considered not relevant (NR).

Govt.

question 217.

The numbers provided add up to 117 total aircraft not the 118 aircraft in the PWS. Which is correct?

The total of 118 is correct. The revised answer for Q217 is listed below.

For planning purposes, the Government assumes that 10% of the aircraft will be in

Aircraft Condition Inspection (Depot) at any given time. Historical inventory data will be provided in the competition library. Please note that the inventory may fluctuate;

however, the current inventory is provided below:

a. The current inventory is 41 TH-57Bs at

NAS Whiting Field

b. The current inventory is 72 TH-57Cs at

NAS Whiting Field. 5 more TH-57Cs are planned to be re-activated from AMARG and added to the inventory.

d. Currently 20 of the TH-57Cs have cockpits that are Night Vision Device compatible.

Govt.

question 215.

It is unclear if the Ground Flight Risk clause applies to ACI vendors as well as the CLS vendor. Please confirm the clause applies to ACI vendors.

The ground and flight risk clause applies to ACI and CLS vendors.

When will the new ACI specification be provided to bidders?

Change six to the ACI specification is posted in the competition library.

Please explain the disconnect in the answer provided between Q132 and

Q178.

The answer to Q132 is the correct answer

“CLIN 0X15AA”