USG Response to Industry Feedback.pdf

F-15 Repair Return Services (RRS) to Support RSAF Pre-award Synopsis:

USG Response to Industry Feedback

Industry Question/Feedback USG Response Can the Gov't. provide a list of components? Components will be provided in the Government

Furnished Property (GFP) list as part of the RFP.

Will there be any locations other than Riyadh and Dharan? If so, what are they?

Yes, Jeddah. Infrequent meetings may be conducted at locations to be determined (PWS para 4.1.2).

Are warehouse and packaging duties performed in KSA to be completed at RSAF Depot Supply or at a Contractor facility?

PWS para 4.2.3 updated. The contractor is not responsible for packaging at the RSAF depot. The contractor is responsible for packaging material for return after repair is complete. (IAW PWS para 4.2.3)

Can you confirm that the Government Freight Forwarder (GFF) is responsible for providing all packing materials consistent with RSAF/contract packing & shipping standards, for assets being shipped for Third Party Repair?

No, Government Freight Forwarder does not provide packing materials consistent with packaging standard (PWS para 4.2.3).

Does the Offeror need to highlight the prime Repair Agency with the part number combination at the RFP stage?

No, the offeror does not need to highlight the prime Repair Agency with the part number combination at the RFP stage.

Can only the Prime Repair Source be used for repairs or are Alternative approved sources also to be established at contract inception?

See PWS para 4.18 and 4.19.1.

If shipping containers are deemed unsuitable, is Contractor to bill the Customer for the replacements containers meeting the requirements of AFMC Form 158?

If shipping containers need to be purchased or replaced, cost should be included in repair cost as required (PWS para 4.2.3).

Please confirm that Volume I is also due concurrently with these noted Volumes. In addition, can you please allow 2 weeks for all offerors to complete the PPQs, and allow sufficient time for the references to supply the required information and submit the completed PPQs to the government within the allotted 30 days prior to proposal due date.

Yes, Volume I is due concurrently with the other volumes noted. The Past Performance Questionnaire is due with Volume III, 30 days prior to all other Volumes.

Would the Gov’t. allow for 9 pt font for graphics? Font size of 12 is required. (Section L II. A.2) Would the Gov’t. allow for 10 pt font for tables, charts or spreadsheets?

Font size of 12 is required. (Section L II. A.2)

Please confirm that an 11 x 17 page submitted will count as only 1 page, and that only double-sided printed pages, no matter which specified size, will count as 2 pages.

11 x 17 page would be counted as one (1) page. Double sided printed pages will count as two (2) pages.

(Section L II. A.2)

However, it appears that no requirement as to margin size, structure and content has been included that will need to be "verified." Please provide whatever requirements and restrictions apply to the document margins.

1-inch margins apply to all Volumes (Section L II. A.2)

In order to sufficiently respond to PWS requirements, would the Gov't. please increase the page limit to 50 for Vol. 2?

35 pages is adequate to address the three technical subfactors. (Section L II. A.3)

Please clarify what “initial proposal packages” is referring to, since it discusses only hard copy submittal requirements, allows no “electronic submittals” and makes no mention of the upload to

SAFE.

The initial proposal package is all the document Volumes listed in the table in Section II. Volume Organization, Secton A on page 2 of Section L. Section L has been updated to specify the initial proposal package shall either be mailed, hand delivered or delivered electronically via encrypted email or DoD

SAFE.

This paragraph appears to require that the prices associated with the “Vol 4, Cost/Price Model” also be included as part of Volume 1, Completed RFP, although completion and submittal of Section B is specifically excluded. Please clarify if the “Proposed Prices” shall be included in both Volume I and Volume IV, or only in Volume IV.

“Proposed Prices” shall be included in Volume IV only.

Schedule B is not to be filled in. (Section L II. B.1)

The table presented in Sec L, page 3, indicates that Volume V is for submittal of the SBPP. However submittal of the SBSP required for large businesses has not been included in the table of submittals.

Please clarify. Also, while large businesses are required to submit a SBSP, small businesses are specifically excluded from this requirement.

However, please clarify if small businesses are required to submit the SBPP and, if so, where that document should be included in the proposal.

The proposal submission requires a Small Business Participation Proposal (SBPP) from all offerors. This is why it's listed in the required volumes table. Large businesses must also submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP), which is a separate requirement from the SBPP.

Would the Gov't. please confirm that Offerors are not required to submit an SPRS assessment with their proposal?

Offerors are not required to submit an SPRS assessment, however, the offeror must have a current SPRS in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) (Section L, II.B.4)

Would the Govt exclude the Quality and Safety & Health Plans from Vol. II page limit?

PWS para 4.24 and 5.5.1 updated. Removed the requirement to submit Quality Requirements and Safety and Health Plan with proposal. Vol II page limit remains 35 pages.

Would the Gov’t please clarify the number of PP efforts we can site? Is it 3 total or 3 for prime and 3 for each critical subcontractor?

No more than three (3) total active or completed efforts. (Section L II. D.2)

Would the Gov’t please allow for past performance citations that are five (5) years from the issuance date of RFP?

Past performance citations must be three (3) years from the issuance date of the RFP. (Section L II. D.2)

Would the Gov’t please confirm that the maximum number of past performance citations for each proposal is 3?

The maximum number of past performance efforts for each proposal is 3. (Section L II. D.2)

However, the actual record of the tracking completed by each Offeror has not been identified as one of the proposal submittal requirements.

Please identify if the Record of PPQ Tracking” is to be submitted, and if so where it should be included in the submittal.

No, the Record of PPQ Tracking should not be submitted in the proposal package.

Once Section L is clarified by the government with regard to these 2 separate documents and submittals, Section M should be aligned with the Section L requirements, to ensure a smooth, consistent evaluation.

Concur

The Draft RFP documents cite a number of Attachments (13). Will the customer provide the Attachments (13) prior to Final RFP release so we may review and respond with any clarifications needed?

No, the attachments will be included in the release of Final RFP.

The Draft RFP identifies a requirement to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with various FAR / DFARS requirements. Will the customer consider Saudi suppliers, who would otherwise meet the definition of those same requirements, as valid participants within a Small Business Subcontracting Plan?

No, if the foreign supplier does not have a “place of business located in the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor,” then the supplier is not considered a valid participant.

The Draft RFP requests a Small Business Participation Proposal (Volume V), in addition to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The same question applies as above, namely, will the customer consider Saudi suppliers, who would otherwise meet the definition of a small supplier if they were a US company, as valid participants within the Small Business Participation Proposal (Volume V)?

No, if the foreign supplier does not have a “place of business located in the United States, and which operates primarily within the United States or which makes a significant contribution to the U.S. economy through payment of taxes or use of American products, materials or labor,” then the supplier is not considered a valid participant.

Does the customer intend to distinguish between, penalize, or otherwise take into consideration the difference in proposals between offerers who believe they are bound by Saudi laws and regulations to propose a Saudi localization plan vs offerers who may choose to ignore these requirements (which are absent from the Draft

RFP)?”

No, this will not be evaluated as part of the technical evaluation nor will special consideration be given for such requirements.

The Draft RFP makes no specific mention of prioritizing local sources of repair within Saudi Arabia, however that is the stated policy, regulation and law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Contractors with qualifying contracts for defense and security goods and services ultimately paid for by the Kingdom are subject to those laws, regardless of whether the origin of those contracts was funded through Government to Government channels (e.g.

FMS) or through Direct Commercial Contracts (DCS). It is recommended that the Final RFP provide guidance on this point. In addition, the Final RFP should state that localization of repair sources is either required or encouraged, and would be taken into consideration positively in the evaluation of offerors proposals. Finally, the RFP should recognize that offerors will be subject to the

There is no requirement for prioritization of local sources of repair within the Kingdom of Saudi Ara-bia.

This contract will be 100% FMS in which DCS is not applicable. As such, the final RFP will not state that localization of repair sources is required, encouraged, nor will special consideration be given to offerors whose proposals include such details. The potential offerors are expected to be aware of and have knowledge of the Industrial Participation Program (IPP) instituted by Saudi Arabia's General Authority for Military Industries (GAMI) and any other in Kingdom commercial or business regulations.

requirements of the Industrial Participation Policy as promulgated by the Saudi Arabia General Authority for Military Industries (GAMI).

Section E Volume IV Cost Price Proposal within Section, L…item 3 Total Resources Volume. Total Resources BOE Labor Summary makes reference to "clear depiction of all hours proposed on CLIN X002". Is the "X" meant to depict ALL 002 clins (meaning 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002 and 5002)?...Section M makes clear references to ALL individual clins.

Yes, X is meant to depict all 002 CLINs (0002, 1002, 3002, etc).

Section E Volume IV Cost Price Proposal within Section, L…item 3 Total Resources Volume. Total Resources BOE Labor Summary makes reference to "clear depiction of all hours proposed on CLIN X002". However, according to Section L clin structure the "002" series clins the clin title refers to "shall propose material costs to include major subcontractor costs". So is this series of clins supposed to include BOTH labor and material or just material? If just material, then where is labor to be captured on the "001" series clins?

Material costs per the FAR include “raw materials, parts, components, assemblies, and services to be produced or performed by others”; as such, labor proposed by major subcontractors must be accounted for within the prime’s proposed material costs if applicable to CLIN X002. For this RFP, major subcontractor is defined as having a proposed value equal to or greater then $2M for CLINs X002, X003, X004, X005, X006, and 5008. Since CLIN X001 Operations and Management is FFP, the prime contractor is not required to provide a cost elemental breakout of proposed pricing.

The "Defect Free Repair" block states that repaired assets shall pass inspection on the first attempt 98% of the time, and the remaining 2% shall pass on the second attempt. Does this refer to inspection at the supplier or inspection at the customer depot? What is the contractor action or consequence if a failed asset does not pass on the second attempt?

Inspection occurs at the supplier (PWS para 4.16). If an inspection at the supplier fails on the second attempt, an Unsatisfactory Contractor performance will result in the Contract Officer Representative issuing a negative Performance Assessment Report (QASP para 2.1 and 2.3)

The packaging section states: "The contractor shall ensure that all packages leaving the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for repair are packaged and labeled

IAW MIL-STD-129, AFMAN24-204_IP, 49 CFR

and other model regulatory documents. The contractor shall perform all warehouse duties necessary for the successful operation of this contract". Is the intent of this contract that the contractor is responsible for all packaging at the Dhahran depot? This would require a significant change to labor from the current contract, as the contractors at the depot currently inspect, but do not package parts for shipment. The RSAF is currently responsible for packaging.

PWS para 4.2.3 updated. The contractor is not responsible for packaging at the RSAF depot. The contractor is responsible for packaging material for return after repair is complete IAW PWS para 4.2.3.

"PMI performance" is a required parameter to be reported in the Monthly Trend Analysis (MTA).

PMI performance is not referenced elsewhere in the PWS or other draft documents.

Can the customer please define PMI performance?

PMI performance has been removed from PWS.

The Draft RFP makes no specific mention of prioritizing local sources of repair within Saudi Arabia, however that is the stated policy, regulation and law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Contractors with qualifying contracts for defense and security goods and services ultimately paid for by the Kingdom are subject to those laws, regardless of whether the origin of those contracts was funded through Government to Government channels (e.g.

FMS) or through Direct Commercial Contracts (DCS). It is recommended that the Final RFP provide guidance on this point. In addition, the Final RFP should state that localization of repair sources is either required or encouraged and would be taken into consideration positively in the evaluation of offerors proposals. Finally, the RFP should recognize that offerors will be subject to the requirements of the Industrial Participation Policy as promulgated by the Saudi Arabia General Authority for Military Industries (GAMI).

There is no requirement for prioritization of local sources of repair within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

This contract will be 100% FMS in which DCS is not applicable. As such, the final RFP will not state that localization of repair sources is required, encouraged, nor will special consideration be given to offerors whose proposals include such details. The potential offerors are expected to be aware of and have knowledge of the Industrial Participation Program (IPP) instituted by Saudi Arabia's General Authority for Military Industries (GAMI) and any other in Kingdom commercial or business regulations.