Amendment_008.pdf

Page 1of 4

SAQMMA14R0319

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE RATING

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

A008

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

10/30/2015

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE

OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT

LMAQM 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE LMAQM

OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT (A/LM/AQM)

1038 S PATRICK DRIVE

ATTN: INL AIRWING

PATRICK AFB, FL 32925

(A/LM/AQM) NAME

6767 NORTH WICKHAM ROAD, SUITE 214 Patrick Murphy

TEL.

MELBOURNE, FL 32940 321-783-9860

EMAIL

murphypj@state.gov

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, country, state and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

SAQMMA14R0319

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

07/18/2014

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CONTACT DUNS

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods: (a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment;(b)By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

See Attached Pages

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Patrick J. Murphy

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

By (Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of is extended, is not extended, E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing x x

Amendment 008

1. Under Section H, H.13 Contractor Personnel, H.13.2; delete Site Manager – Pakistan.

2. Under Section J, List of Attachments, Replace previous version of Attachment J.6.3, Facilities List, with the revised Attachment J.6.3, Facilities List.

3. Revised proposals are due on or before November 16, 2015 at 2:00 PM Eastern Time.

4. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Questions and Answers

1. Request clarification of an apparent staffing inconsistency in the aircrew requirement for the S-61 aircraft in Cyprus, as indicated in Amendment 5, J.1.1, Aviation Services PWS. While, paragraph 9.A.1, Scope of Work, Operations, and the table in J.21, Aircraft and Flight Hours, state that, “INL/A has been tasked to maintain up to five S-61 (5 to fly 2)currently located in Cyprus,” or the provision of two air crews, Paragraph 9.A.4, Aircraft Assigned / Crew Availability, states requirements that suggest that four aircrews are needed: “1. Provide current and qualified aircrew for all airframes to 70% of assigned aircraft listed in Attachment J.21, 365 days a year. Note; As directed, crew chiefs may be required to perform PMD.” “2. The minimum aircrew required per aircraft for flight will be IAW INL/A Operations Directives.”

Accordingly, 9.A.4 would indicate a requirement for 4 aircrews, (.70 X 5 = 3.5 or 4 full crews).

Based on current program requirements, we believe the correct staffing level is for two aircrews and not for four aircrews. Will the Government confirm that two aircrews is the correct requirement for these PWS staffing levels?

Response: Correct, staffing should be for two (2) crewed aircraft as “Boots on the Ground

(BOG)”.

2. Request clarification of the apparent discrepancies in Amendment 5, J.1.1, Aviation Services PWS concerning the aircraft assigned to Peru. Paragraph 6.A.3 indicates that a PC-6 is included in the assigned aircraft however, the table at J.21, Aircraft and Flight Hours, includes no PC-6 aircraft assigned to Peru.

Additionally, PWS paragraph 6.C.21, Nationalization and Host Nation Training, indicates that the training plan should address 22 UH-1 II aircraft, but the table in J.21 indicates only 16 16 UH-1 II aircraft assigned.

Please clarify that there are no PC-6 aircraft and only 16 UH1 II aircraft assigned to Peru.

Response: The PC-6 aircraft in Peru is not germane to the requirements of this solicitation and proposal. DOS Air Wing does own a PC-6 located in Peru, which is owned by and operated by INL-Lima under separate contract.

Regarding the UH-1 aircraft in Peru, contract requirements under this solicitation are for 16 aircraft to fly 12. DOS Air Wing owns 22 UH-1H-IIs assigned to Peru however, only the 16 are active while 6 are out of service for PDM.

3. The workload provided in Attachment J.1.1 PWS for Cyprus Logistics (Paragraphs 9.C.101 - 9.C.106) appears to be the same workload as provided for Iraq Logistics in Paragraphs 10.C.101

- 10.C.106. However, because the quantity of aircraft flying in Cyprus is significantly less than the quantity of aircraft flying in Iraq, one would expect that the logistics workload for Cyprus would be proportionately less than the levels for Iraq. Accordingly, will the Government confirm that the Cyprus workload found in Attachment J1.1 PWS Paragraphs 9.C.101 - 9.C.106 is correct for pricing purposes in offerors’ proposals or whether the workload should be lower?

Response: Correct, logic and proportionality would indicate that the requirements in Cyprus may require less levels of effort than would more complex country programs in other locations.

4. Amendment 5, Paragraph 2.b states that the J.6.3 Facilities List will be replaced. However, no replacement has been posted on fbo.gov. Will the Government please provide the updated J.6.3 Facilities List?

Response: Yes, we issued a revised attachment J.6.3 (Facilities Rev 10_30_15) at FBO. Replace any previous version of Attachment J.6.3 (Facilities List) with the revised Attachment J.6.3 (Facilities Rev 10_30_15) posted at FBO under this amendment #008.

5. Amendment 6 states: “70) For pricing purposes, offerors shall nationalize Pakistan by the completion of transition period of performance. The C208s will be transferred to the Embassy and the Hueys will be retrograded out of country. The incumbent contractor will be responsible for the nationalization of Pakistan. The Pakistan requirement will be removed at the completion of the transition. Offerors shall not price the nationalization of any other locations.”

Will the Government confirm that the requirement for a Pakistan Site Lead as key personnel should be removed from Section H.13.2, and that offerors should remove all references to PWS 7 in their revised proposals?

Response: Yes, confirmed. As defined previously in Amendment #006, the Pakistan requirements in chapter 7 of the PWS (attachment J.1.1) are removed. Accordingly, the Pakistan Site Lead as key personnel should be removed from Section H.13.2. Further, offerors should remove all references to PWS chapter 7 (Pakistan) in their revised proposals.

6. The EN package provided with the Contracting Officers letter of 13 October 2015 contained forms that were identified as “Evaluator Rating Sheets” and “Clarification Requests”.

Please confirm that despite the title on the actual forms, all items received are considered Evaluation Notices and that a response thereto as well as any subsequent proposal revision are required.

Response: No, there is a distinction between the two. Clarification Requests were issued seeking the offer to clarify a matter so the technical panel understands what the offeror proposed in that instance. These do not inherently require a change to the proposal. Exhibits provided to you as Evaluation Notices (EN) indicate we understood what you proposed but took issue with the approach. You should respond to each, as well as represent their consideration in your subsequent proposal revision.