FBO_Final_2nd_set_of_Q_and_A_transport_7_APR_2016_2.pdf

No# Document from

W58RGZ-15-R-

RFP

Reference

PWS

Reference Title Issue or Reason Question or Discussion RFP Revision

Required Y/N Gov Response Sections to be revised

1 PWS 4.8.5 In response to Mod 01 released in FBO on 30 Mar 16 regarding the subject RFP

Please clarify if the engine MRO must be an OEM authorized maintenance facility. N Yes N/A

2 PWS 4.8.5

Please clarify if the specifications require that the Engine MRO service provider to have an OEM licensed and correlated test cell for engine testing, including the IP Moment test for PT6A- 68 engines.

N Yes N/A

3 RFP

over and above material costs excluded from the FFP, does the Army require or desire pricing in the form of “List Less” discounts to be provided?

N

The proposal will not include any pricing associated with potential O&A material costs. O&A costs will be provided as O&A's are encountered.

N/A

4 Attachment 0025 Sec M4

Please clarify the weighting factors or adjectival rating for all of the 4 evaluation criteria set forth in M-4.

N

M-3 gives the overall value of relative importance across all factors. Adjectival ratings for Factor I is in section M-3. No adjectival rating will be utilised for Fator II. Adjectival ratings for Factor III are located at M-5 3.(f)(3). Adjectival ratings for Factor IV are located at M-5 4.

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions table.

N/A

5 Attachment

Sec L Para 2.3, Page 3

In the "Note" section following paragraph 2.3, the second note indicates that manpower charts are excluded from the page count.

Are the Manpower Charts referred to in section L- 27, paragraph 2.3 referring to the Manning Table in Solicitation Attachment 48?

Y Yes section L has been revised to change manpower charts to manning table.

Sec L Para 2.3, Page 3

6 Attachment

PWS

Appendix F

In the FFIT overview, several functional modules described are referred to as "optional modules." For example, the Shipping, Receiving, and In-Transit Shipment Tracking optional module; the Calibration optional module; the Preventive Maintenance optional module; the Due in from Maintenance (DIFM) optional module; etc.

Please clarify the term “optional.” Will all the modules described in this attachment be included as part of the FFIT system for the TA LCS contractor’s use?

N

The term "optional" in this instance means available to be purchased if needed. All modules in FFIT are active, which are necessary for the performsance of the PWS. Not all modles will be available based on everyones roles and responsibilities.

N/A

Attachment

0030, 0031 &

GFP

The GFP listed in Attachments 0030 and 0031 of the RFP do not identify the physical location of the items. Based on this data, it is impossible for the offeror to determine which GFP items are located at each beddown base, which items are located at the "L-3 Madison MS Warehouse," and which items are located at the "M7 San Antonio, TX Warehouse" as referred to in Attachment 0037 Government Transition Schedule.

Can the Government provide location information for each GFP item so the offeror can

(1) determine what level of GFP is currently at each beddown base, (2) determine what level of GFP is at the warehouses located in Madison MS and San Antonio, TX, and (3) determine the approximate warehouse square footage for GFP transfer/ transportation/ storage.

N

The government cannot provide the GFP locations for each item. The GFP listings are all inclusive and many parts may be moved around to different locations between the proposal due date and contract award. It is up to the contractors to propose how they will manage the GFP inventories based on the total aggregate of GFP identified.

N/A

8 RFP Section B CLIN 1001

The definition of CLIN 1001 in Section B has been changed from 9 months in the original RFP to 12 months in Amendment 001 despite the Transition Phase-in remaining at 3 months and the Base Year ending 365 days after contract award.

Will the Government please clarify the length of time to be priced for the Base Year? Y

The period of performance for the base period has been revised to reflect 9 months while the 3 month transition period has been revised to include pricing for the transition of all of the Beddown bases and full performance at those sites as each site is transitioned in accordance with the Transition plan during the initial 90 days after award. This will allow a clear distinction between the transition period (first 90 days whether the site has been fully transitioned or not) and the full performance period of all sites (275 days) combined.

RFP

Section B and Section H-11 of

Attachment #45

9 RFP Section B CLIN X001

The definition of CLIN X001 in Section B has been modified to include the requirement that “The Offeror shall provide the firm fixed price cumulative total from Attachment 0035 in CLIN X001AA”. However, Attachment 35 has not been modified in a manner to facilitate this requirement. Attachment 35 as designed computes a monthly and annual cost per aircraft. The attachment does not have a column to compute the total cost at any given site, which does not accommodate the pricing of sites with more than 1 aircraft.

Will the Government please clarify? Y Attachment #35 has been revised.

CLIN B and Attachment

#35

10 Attachment

CLIN X005

Section B

Attachment 0052 Section B CLIN X005 Matrix appears to request rental rates for engines on a per flying hour basis. The “**” in the “Est. Number of Occurrences” column provides an assumed quantity. However, the “Total Price” column appears to be blacked out and no extended price is required.

Will the Government please confirm that no extended price is required and is not to be reflected in the cumulative totals for CLINs

X005AA?

Y CLIN X005 Section B has been revised. Cumulative totals for engine rentals are not required.

CLIN B

XOO5AA

and Attachment

#52

The formulas in the column headings of the Attachment 0050 Section B CLIN X002 Matrix appear to have left the number flying hours (column G) out of the equation for determining the total cost.

The amounts for column H appear in the formulas for both columns I and J. It would seem that the formula for column I should be column F x column G to determine the number of flying hours flown for each site and that column I should require a number without a $.

Will the Government please clarify the column definitions for Attachment 0050 Section B CLIN X002 Matrix? Please also, clarify that whether column K for the Base Year should only be multiplied by 9 instead of 12 since the Base Year if it is only 9 months in length.

Y Attachment 0050 Section B CLIN X002 Matrix has been revised.

Attachment

The formula in the heading for column H of Attachment 0051 Section B CLIN X003 Matrix for CLIN 1003 indicates that Column G should be multiplied by 12.

Will the Government please clarify whether column H for CLIN 1003 (Base Year) should only be multiplied by 9 instead of 12 since the Base Year if it is only 9 months in length.

Y Attachment 0051 Section B CLIN X003 Matrix has been revised.

Attachment

The Attachment 0052 Section B CLIN X005 Matrix has no line item for “INTERIOR REFURBISHMENT” (unit price or quantities) for the UC-35A on the CLIN 4005 and 5005 worksheets as it does for the worksheets of other periods of performance.

Will the Government please clarify whether this was intentional? Y Attachment 0052 has been corrected.

Attachment

#52

14 The “Government Plug” CLINs – X004 and X006 to X013 no longer appear in Section B.

Will the Government please clarify whether this was intentional? N

Only revisions to the origional RFP will be shown in the corresponding amendment. All other terms and conditions remain un-changed.

N/A

In Section B, there are inconsistencies in the CLIN narrative/descriptions and the CLIN Contract Types (see table below) related to CLINs X021, X0023, and X024 from period to period.

CLIN / Base / OY1 / OY2 / OY3 / OY4 / OY5 X021- FFP / Cost / Cost / Cost / Cost / Cost X023- Cost / Cost / FFP / Cost / Cost / Cost X024- Cost / Cost / FFP / Cost / Cost / Cost Please verify or Clarify

Y Section B has been corrected. Section B

16 Sec H Clause 24 & it appears possible to receive liquidated damages or reduced payments of $1,000/day for an aircraft that is below the 80% FMC threshold in a given month under H-26, but still meet the 80% FMC threshold by Groupings defined in H-24, if the average for all aircraft in the same Grouping meets the requirement each month for the incentive quarter.

Are H-24 and H-26 mutually exclusive as noted above in Background? N Yes they are exclusive from each other. N/A

SF-33, Amend 001 Block 12

SF-33, Block 12, does not stipulate any number of calendar days, thus the sixty day acceptance rule would apply.

It is the Goverments intent for the Contractor’s to only make their proposal valid for sixty days, or will the Government provide a period of time the Contractors proposals shall remain valid, e.g., Contractors proposals shall remain valid for a period of 180 days.

Y Proposal validity time frame has been revised. RFP

18 Attachment 024 and 0025

Section L-

3.3.III

Under the requirements of Attachment 024, Section L-3.3.III, and given an individual Contractors history and the quantity of contracts they (and their subcontractors) have performed in the last five years under NAICS code 488190 or similar, it is physically impossible to comply with the current requirement and stay within the new page limitations. For example, 25 Contracts for the prime with 4 to 5 pages of contract descriptions and relevant narrative provided for each, will result in a total page count of 100 - 125 pages; subcontractors that have 3-5 contracts, which fall within these parameters, will equate to approximately 20-25 pages per subcontractor. Additionally, Section 5 (Ref. Section L, 3.3.III, Section 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire) requires that the offeror send two Past Performance Questionnaires to every contract listed in Section 1 - Contract Descriptions. This would mean that the Government could receive 50-60 Past Performance Questionnaires back from the listed contracts for a single offeror.

In place of providing Section 1 - Contract Descriptions and Section 2 - Performance narratives on all contracts that perform under NAICS code 488190 or similar, would the Government consider allowing the Contractor and Subcontractors to provide a listing of all qualifying contracts containing basic contract data such as contract name, contact number, contract type, NAICS code, and period of performance at the beginning of the volume and provide the required information identified in Sections 1 and 2 for only those contracts most relevant to the scope, magnitude, and complexity evaluation criteria in Section M?

Y

Attachment 0024 Section L-3.3.III was revised and published in Amendment 001 to the solicitation and is dated 03/09/16. This revision changed the submission requirement to submission of requirements to state… "Offerors shall submit upto the five most recent Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past five years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation."

Attachment 0025 has been revised to at M-5,3,(c) to clarify the submission requirements.

Attachment 0025 - M-

5,3,©

19 Attachment 024:

L Narrative, L-27.3.3

The scenario outlined in Attachment 024: L Narrative, L-27.3.3 states that "the subject aircraft is a pressurized FAA 25 aircraft.”

Neither the C-12 nor the C-26 aircraft are certified under FAA FAR Part 25.

Will the government confirm/clarify the type of aircraft required to be repaired in the scenario response?

N

This is a hypothetical scenario.

While it may be similar to programs in the Transport inventory or in development, it does not directly relate to any actual aircraft.

N/A

21 Attachment

Transition Schedule

IAW RFP, the new Transport Contractor will incrementally take over the BBs listed in Attachment 0037 - Transition Schedule, but does not take over the warehouse mission i.e. supply chain (SC) until an estimated date of November 10, 2017, or at the end of transition period of 90 days. It is unclear how the new contractor can be responsible for the transport aircraft at the BB site, incrementally accepted when control of the warehouse or parts (SC) does not occur until the end of the transition.

Can the Government clarify how the new contractor, taking over a BB site incrementally, can be responsible for the maintenance of the aircraft at these transitioned BBs while the outgoing contractor is still responsible for providing parts ( issue, repair, and return to service) for all the BB sites?

N

Once the site is transitioned, the new contractor will be responsible for the Full maintenance and the parts required. As each site is transitrioned the GFP located at the site will be able to be used as necessary to maintain the aircraft.

Parts and equipment needed, which are not available for use between the transitioned sites are the responsibility of the new contractor performing maintenance. The Government will assist the contractor in acquiring critical obsolete parts and components, if the part/component is available in the GFP inventory not yet transitioned.

22 RFP

Respectfully request an amendment to the RFP as soon as possible reflecting the changes created by Questions and Answers received on March 15, 2016.

When does the Government anticipate issuing an amendment reflecting the recently released Questions and Answers?

N Amendment #1 was issued on 15 Mar 2016 and Amendment 2 was issued on 24 Mar 2016.

23 Attachment 53 Question 65 4.7.8.2.2

Question 65, received on March 15, 2016, referencing PWS

4.7.8.2.2 states: “At aircraft return to the BB, the Transport contractor shall conduct… a Functional Check Flight (FCF) to identify and document all discrepancies in the aircraft logbook…”

Does this mean that a prime who performs Heavy Maintenance on an aircraft at another location requiring an FCF does not have to perform a second FCF at the BB?

Y

No the contractor does not have to perform asecond Functional Checkflight. The PWS has been revised to clarify the Functional Check Flight requirement at the BB will be the responsibility of the Government.

PWS

407.8.2.2

24 Attachment 53 Question 65 4.7.8.2.2

Question 65, received on March 15, 2016, referencing PWS

4.7.8.2.2 states: “At aircraft return to the BB, the Transport contractor shall conduct… a Functional Check Flight (FCF) to identify and document all discrepancies in the aircraft logbook…”

If a Transport Prime possesses the appropriate FAA certifications to perform Heavy Maintenance, and execute an FCF, at a location other than the aircraft BB site, will a second FCF need to be accomplished at the aircraft BB site if a major subcontractor and not the Prime accomplishes the Heavy Maintenance and an initial FCF at a location other than the aircraft BB site?

Y

No a second Functional Check Flight FCFat the BB by the Prime or sub will not be required. The PWS has been revised to clarify the Functional Check Flight requirement at the BB will be performed by the Government.

PWS

407.8.2.2

In the original RFP the Government requested individual cost per flying hour rates for the C-12 (composite for C-12U, C-12J, C-12R, C-12C, C-12V, C-12S, C-12D, and RC-12G models), C-26, UC-35 (composite for UC-35A and UC-35B models), and T-D6 aircraft. In Amendment 1 the Government appears to offer the opportunity to provide different cost per flying hour rates for all aircraft types (C-

12U, C-12J, C-12R, C-12C, C-12V, C-12S, C-12D, C-26E, UC-

35A, UC-35B, RC-12G, and T-6D).

Is it the Government’s intent to obtain different cost per flying hour rates for all aircraft types (C- 12U, C-12J, C-12R, C-12C, C-12V, C-12S, C- 12D, C-26E, UC-35A, UC-35B, RC-12G, and T- 6D)?

N

Yes

N/A

Attachment 34, Attachment 53

The RFP did not have usage data for the C-26 Aircraft and in the response to questions the Govt had indicated the data was not available.

Since the usage data for this fleet is not available and bidder's library has not been established, it makes it difficult to project a FFP Cost for CLIN 2 and 3. In this situation the OEM and/or the current service provider would have an unfair advantage. Would the Govt consider making the C-26 zero flying hour and CPFH CLINs a plug number or determine some other way of making the data available to reduce risk and support credibility in the proposal offerings.

N Currently historical usage data is not available to the Government for the C-26.

N/A

Attachment 53

In responses to questions the Govt had indicated they could not provide manuals for the C-26 airplane and we should seek them through the OEM. When we requested to purchase the manuals from the OEM we were told they will not provide the manuals until notification of the award.

Since the manuals are not available and a bidder's library has not been established, it makes it difficult to project the proper manning for BB sites. In this situation the OEM and/or the current service provider would have an unfair advantage. Would the Govt consider making these manuals available or remove this element from the Cost evaluation. Another alternative could be directed manning based upon the Govt's history at these sites or determine some other way of making the data available to reduce risk and support credibility in the proposal offerings.

N

The Government does not have the license to release the OEM Maintenance Manuals for the C-26 aircraft that would allow us to provide them to an offeror.

N/A

Attachment 35

There is a column on the B-1 document called "Price Adjustment To(+ or -) One A/C". It is unclear what the intention of this column is particularly with a single aircraft site as the Govt would have to provide direction to shut a site down via another contract action. In addition at multiple aircraft sites the reduction of a single airplane may not reduce BB operating cost. Changes in aircraft quantities, regardless of site size or aircraft type, is a non-linear cost driver.

How will column I and J be used during contract evaluation and during execution? What is it supposed to represent as when one aircraft is removed from a single aircraft site there is no reduction in costs for maintaining the site, until the Govt directs the contractor to shut down the site. In multiple aircraft sites the reduction is not necessarily linear. Should this column be deleted? if it can't be deleted can you provide example calculations?

N

Understand that site closure is not applicable to the single aircraft increase decrease. If an aircraft is added or subtracted the government needs to know the price for each beddown base.

Which will apply to aircraft movement after contract award.

The offeror shall include a comment in the appropriate section.

N/A

Sheet1