Q A's_06-10-13.docx

1. Past Performance – As we have requested Past Performance on key programs that are pertinent to this program, in some cases the response from our customer is that they don't respond to those requests as they receive so many of them. As such, they request that we simply utilize the internal ratings they provide to us. Will that response affect our past performance score or will it be considered complete? Is there another way you would suggest we respond to this?

If you cannot get a vendor to fill it out the questionnaire then it is fine as long as the salient issues identified in the questionnaire are addressed in the narrative in your past performance volume and meet the guidelines of the pp volume.

2. Non-recurring Costs – As the solicitation currently stands, the non-recurring costs, and all other costs, are to be loaded into the cost of parts. The concern is twofold: 1) The contractor will be burdened with non-recurring startup/implementation costs that it will not recoup until parts are sold, and 2) The contractor will be procuring parts and waiting to burn down the existing government-owned inventory before the parts can be sold and the contractor will realize any revenue on the program. Has any consideration been put into creating a separate CLIN for non-recurring startup/implementation costs? This could be handled via milestone payments during only the implementation phase. While we understand that the option for progress payments exists, from our experience it can take 6 months or more to work through DCMA and DCAA for progress payments.

We have considered performance based payments, and have decided that progress payments are the best way to go.

3. Stock on Hand – Will it be possible to receive an updated analysis of stock on hand? We'd like to utilize that as we look at the forecast for parts.

The updated version of Stock on Hand will be submitted with contract award.

4. First Article Testing – We understand the requirement to price in First Article Testing for any parts where we foresee the need. That said, our concern is with regards to the cost of First Article Testing when the need arises to introduce a new supplier. In other words, we may select a supplier today for the 8 years of the program. If that supplier drops off and no longer supplies the part and we have to qualify a new supplier, First Article Testing will be required. In theory, this could happen on any number of parts and that would require us to price in First Article Testing on all parts. Will we have the ability to add the First Article Testing costs to those parts for these situations.

The price of the first article test price will be submitted at the beginning along with the pricing spreadsheet. The test price should remain the same unless there is a significant change to the part itself such as and engineering change. If this is the case then we can consider new FAT pricing submission and this will need to be determined fair and reasonable.

5. Velocity Data on Parts – Will the velocity data on parts be provided? While we have the annual demand data, it would be of great benefit to see the peaks and valleys in the movement of the parts and would allow us to gain a better understanding on the movement of parts, the stocking requirements, etc. We are aware that this has been requested, but wanted to ask one more time to see if this may be available.

6. Relative to Progress payments it was stated that the Government will pay the contractor 90% of the cost of material. Is it correct to assume that the Government will pay the contractor 90% of the costs for parts delivered to the store front and the balance of 10% when the part is issued? The term material does not refer to only raw material, but also the costs incurred relative to parts fabrication.

Requests for progress payments will be handled in the manner prescribed at FAR 52.232-16. Because this is a small business set-aside, progress payments will be set at a rate of 90% of the awardee's total costs incurred under the contract whether or not actually paid, plus financing payments to subcontractors, less the sum of all previous progress payments made by the Government under the contract. See FAR 52.232-16(a). Note that the awardee must possess an adequate accounting system, as judged by the Administrative Contacting Officer, before the Government will initiate progress payments. See FAR 32.503-3.

7. The limit of 35 pages for the Volume 3 Technical proposal may be insufficient to adequately address all the sub factors. Would the Government consider increasing the page limit to 50 or 60 pages?

The volume will remain at 35.

8. Solicitation page 61 of 73 Para. L.6. 4.1 is used twice. Should the second paragraph be revised to L.6.4.2? this will eliminate any confusion relative to Cross Reference Matrices.

Yes the second L.6.4.1 should be L.6.4.2

9. In Attachment A, Schedule B, Pricing Matrix “Replacement Factors” have been added for each part number, in addition to the Estimated Annual Demand (EAD). What is the relationship between the EAD and the replacement factor?

For the first item, 16W265-30, the EAD is 12 and the replacement factor is 30%. Does the 30% mean that based on past history this part was replaced on 30% of the wings and we would expect that this would result in the EAD of 12?

If the part is 1 per that means that the 12 EAD is based on a projection of 40 wings per year (12/.3=40). The second item, 16W253-13, has an EAD of 16 with a replacement factor of 70%. This calculates to a projected 22.6 wings (16/.7=22.6) per year. The third item, 16W253-14 has an EAD of 14 and a replacement factor of 30%. Using the same calculations (14/.3=46.7) yields 46.6 wings per year.

If our interpretation of the EAD and replacement factors is correct, we would expect the calculations to yield the same number of projected wings. Please clarify. There are several wing configurations and not all use the same parts. The replacement factor is “how often the part will be replaced” … the EAD is the replacement factor times the estimated number of that configuration of wing that is expected to be inducted. RF was added based on questions from the conference. The EAD is our best estimate of the expected demand.

10. Solicitation paragraph C.10 describes a requisitioning process and use of EDI transactions. It appears that the requisitioning procedure described pertains to Operational Customer Support and not the 309th CMXG F-16 Wing Shop requisitioning process. Is it the Government’s intent to have the 309th submit a requisition to DLA and the contracting officer who then issues a delivery order to the contractor? It would seem that a direct requisition procedure be established whereby requisitions in support of the wing line go directly to the store front. Please advise as to the intent of paragraph C.10. Are offerors to prepare a methodology for the daily requisitions, fulfillment of the requisitions and billing? Requisitions will flow from all customers to DLA and be converted to delivery orders (via EDI) to the contractor. The contractor will then deliver the material to the Wing Shop or ship to the location directed by the DO.