Attachment_0010__Draft_RFP_Questions_and_Government_Responses.pdf

Sectio n A

Section B Section C Section D Section E Section F Section J

Questi on #

RFP Area PWS Page Reference

PWS Paragraph Reference

Additional Cross Reference

Discussion Question Response

1 Section M N/A N/A Section M: Factor III

Past Perf. (A-4-di)

Evaluation of past performance relevance per the following stipulation, "The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall include similarity of service/support: complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming."

If offerors submit past performance citations for task orders, rather than Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts, will the Government assess the dollar value relevancy against typical Logistics Support Facility Management Activity (LSFMA) Task Orders instead of basing its evaluation on the overall value of the IDIQ?

The Government will not assess just dollar value relevancy. We will evaluate Past Performancet that is recent and relevant for the same or similar products or services as compared to NAICS

336411.

2 Section L N/A N/A Volume III : Past Perf., Section 1 (L-5-d3) Clarification of the following statement, "Government’s technical representative/COR and current e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers."

Does the Government require the e-mail address, telephone and fax numbers for the Technical Representative, Contracting Officer's

Representative (COR) or both individuals?

Provide both names if available

3 Section L N/A N/A Volume III Past Perf., Section 3 (L-5-d1)

Clarification of the appropriate volume for the following requirement, "Offerors shall provide an outline of how the effort required by the solicitation will be assigned for performance within the offeror’s corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors..."

The referenced requirement does not align with the other requirements of the past performance volume or its evaluation factors. Is the requirement intended for a different volume?

Section 3 -Subcontracts is in line with the rest of Past Performance and is written according to the Army Source Selection (AS3) Guide,. The required information pertaims to the subcobtract solicitation outline for the Past Performance being submitted.

4 Section L N/A N/A Volumes I-IV (L-4-c) "NOTE: The table of contents for each volume is not included in the page count and should be numbered with roman numerals."

Please specify if the cover page and table of contents will count against the page counts of Volumes I-IV.

The Table of Contents for each volume is not included in the page count.

5 Section A 2 A-1 g Over the past 15 years the size standard has increased in employee count Under NAICS 336411,with an employee count in 2002 and 2007 of 500. In 2012 the employee count was increased to 1000, and currently the Draft RFP released last month has increased under the same NAICS code the employee count to 1500.

The governments’ continuous growth in employee headcount under NAICS 336411 allows for the perception that it is favoring an incumbent contractor. As defined by the Small Business Administration, the purpose of a Small Business Set Aside is to help Small Business capture work and grow to a large business, and given the fact that there are currently small businesses with the same or superior capabilities desiring to compete at the lower employee count of 500, Why does the LSFMA continue to change the size standard?

LSFMA does not change size standards. The size standards are set by the Small Business Administration and are reviewed every 5 years. According to Small Business, this size standard has been

1500 since 2011. It should be noted that the size standard was 1500 when LSF4 was awarded..

6 Section A 2 A-1 h

Previous releases of the draft RFP met stiff resistance from industry and increased Congressional scrutiny because of the establishment of an arbitrary 60 NM radius around Redstone Arsenal. The current Draft has removed the reference to 60 NM, however established an arbitrary restriction to competition by requiring awardees to possess facilities in a geographical region identified by counties that essentially encompass the previously identified 60 NM radius.

With the growth of the contract customers outside the Offices of the Program Executive Office-Aviation, to include Navy, Air Force, Customs, Department of State, and numerous International Governments, how can a geographical restriction be justifiable?

The LSFMA contract is intended to provide a contractt vehicle that offers a quick reaction capability for evolving modifications and associated logistic support requirements. Key features of the LSFMA contract include its ability to provide the flexibility to rapidly respond to evolving requirements at the lowest possible cost. Due to personnel and financial limitations, LSFMA can neither support or afford routine TDY of Government personnel as a program performance requirement.

7 Section L 19 d)2.3 Volume III Past

Performance PPQ Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) Will the Government please clarify if the PPQ is required to be included within the Past Performance Volume submission?

If received before the proposal due date, the PPQ is required with the Past Performance Volume Submission.

8 Section L 19 d)2.3 Volume III Past

Performance PPQ Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) IF the PPQ is to be included within the Past Performance volume, is it considered to be outside of the page count?

The PPQ does not count against the page count.

9 Section L 19 d)2.3 Volume III Past

Performance PPQ The offeror shall e-mail the Contracting Officer a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire.

Will the Government please clarify if the POC table that is emailed to the Contracting Officer also needs to be included in the Past Performance Proposal Volume for submission purposes? The PPQ POC table shall be emailed to the Contracting Officer and submitted in the Past Performance Proposal volume

10 Section L 19 d)2.3 Volume III Past

Performance PPQ The offeror shall e-mail the Contracting Officer a list of all the POCs who were sent a questionnaire. If the PPQ table is to be submitted within the Past Performance Volume, is it considered to be outside of page count?

The PPQ POC table does not count against the page count.

11 Section A 2 of 53 N/A A-1 (G) NAICS Code 336411-"The Government anticipates that NAICS code 488190 may describe the principal purpose of approximately 5% of the goods and services to be acquired under the awarded contracts."

The application of the NAICS code and the Government's intent is unclear. Will the Government clarify that, if an awarded offeror exceeds the 488190 size standard of $32.5M, they will not be eligible for award of individual task orders issued under that NAICS?

The decision has been made to remove the secondary NAICS Code - 488190 from the requirement. Thus, the requirement will be a 100% Small Business Set-Aside based on NAICS Code 336411 - Aircraft Manufacturing; Size Standard - 1,500 (Size Standard in Number of Employees).

12 Section A 2 of 53 N/A A-1(J) Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), POCs. Will the Government please clarify by title "which contractual, technical, and administrative" are requried to be listed on PPQ?

Reference the title of the POC for the contract that is submitted for Past Performance review for example Contracting Officer, COR, Technical COR, etc.

13 Section A 3 of 53 N/A A-2 d) Selection of sample task orders Will it be the intent of the Government to issue sample task orders that are not being, and have never been, performed by either of the incumbent contractors? The Sample Orders are representative of what could be awarded and are intended to be used for evaluation purposes only.

14 Section I 32 of 53 N/A I-87 thru 92, and I-

172/Section L (page 10)

Value Engineering; "Objective is a DCMA certified EVMS system for >$100M Will the Government clarify the difference between a $20M to <$100M EVMS and a >$100M EVMS? Is it the Government's intent for offerors to price and operate a comprehensive EVMS system? What percentage of LSFMA 4 task orders require or required EVMS? Please refer to DFARS 234.201(1)(ii), 234.203(2), and 252.234-

7002, EVMS (DEVIATION) (SEP 2015).

15 Section L 3 N/A L-5 b) "...Offeror shall include a summary of the team composition to include the prime contractor, partners and/or "any" subcontractors…".

Will the Government please clarify what the difference is between a "partner" and "subcontractor"?

It depends on the arrangement, A company could team with a contractor and become a partnership. In general a partner is considered a synonymous term to team member (i.e., a company expected to perform at least 10% of the labor effort). A subcontractor is used in this context as a generic company that is not anticipated to perform at least 10% of the labor effort.

16 Section L 7 N/A L-5 (2) "The offeror's facility shall have the ability to moor an additional 10 aircraft on-site"

Mooring points at MDQ, Huntsville International and other similar airports are an airport and/or port authority (common use) asset provided as common use to airport hangar tenants, ie., an individual company operating a hangar does not necessarily exclusively "own" the mooring points. In some cases multiple offerors may plan to use these common mooring points. We assert that the mooring points requirement can be meet by sustantiating "access" to the mooring points required by this solicition regardless of exclusivity? Does the Government concur?

Can an offeror use the common use airport provided mooring points to meet the requirements for this solicitation for additional on-site mooring since if these mooring points are not allowed to be owned/leased exclusively by the offeror due to airport or port authority and/or

FAA regulations?

IAW para 4.4 of the SOW - "the contractors facility shall have the ability to moor an additional 10 aircraft on-site. The mooring capability shall include the CH-47, AH-64, UH-60, and OH-58 mooring requirements." The offeror is only required to demonstrate to the Gov't how it complies with the requirement.

17 Section L 17 N/A

d) Volume III-Past

Performance "This volume shall not exceed 25 pages plus five pages for each team member." We believe this conflicts with pg 2, c)

"III-Past Performance-Maximum Pages 25 (5/TM**) **Note: Five pages per each Team Member"

Will the Government provide clarification? Is the page count a total of 25 pages, or 25 pages plus 5 additional pages for a Prime and 5 additional pages for each "major" team member (subcontractor)? Is a "major" team member (subcontractor) someone who is estimated to perform at least 10% of the workshare requirements under this soliciation.

The total page count is 25 pages for the prime.. A major team member in this context is synonymous in meaning to team member (i.e., >= 10% of worksh06127684are labor). Each team member can only use a maximum of 5 pages, in addition to the 25 pages for the prime.

18 Section L 2 N/A L-5 Proposal Volumes

a) FORMAT.

Proposal instructions at Draft Section L-5, Page 2, para a, limits page size to 8.5"x11"; however previous solicitation Q&A made allowances for 11x17 page sizes although such allowance was not formalized into the Section L instructions.

Are 11"x17" tabloid size pages acceptable for a larger graphic? If yes, will they count as one or two pages?

11X17 size pages are not acceptable..

19 Section C 5 4.6 Armaments and DD

Form 254 "The contractor facility shall have a vault for the storage of COMSEC equipment and armaments"

Will the Government define "Vault" or provide a specification or regulation that meets the minimum requirements for COMSEC storage?

Will the Government provide a summary of the type and quantity of armament systems that will require COMSEC storage? What types of

COMSEC equipment/armament is the Government responsible for storing, according to the DD Form 254? What types of GFE is the Government providing as a security container to store CCI equipment/COMSEC, according to the DD Form 254? What are the minimum

"vault" size and/or internal square footage space requirements for a COMSEC vault to be considered compliant under this solication?

A vault is defined in DoD 5220.22-M. The Gov't is requiring a capability within the local cummuting distance and not a minimum or maximum size. COMSEC gear refers to standard Army aviation COMSEC equipment. Armaments refer to aviation related guns, munitions, and squibs. Again this is a capability based requirement, not a known size requirement.

20 Section C 6 4.8 Aviation Ground

Power Unit (AGPU) Aviation Ground Power Unit (AGPU) Will the Government provide the performance requirements associated with the AGPU?

AGPU is a defined term based on the aircraft supported, which the Gov't has provided. Additionally the Gov't is allowing military or commercially rated AGPUs.

LSF5 COMMENT / QUESTION FORM

Logistics Support Facility (W58RGZ-16-R-0070)

Please use this format for the submission of questions. Submit questions via e-mail to the address listed in Section A of the RFP.

State question as clearly as possible, giving as much information as needed. If a certain answer will generate a follow-on question, try to anticipate this so the entire subject can be addressed initially. If the question is marked proprietary, please explain what makes your question proprietary and include a company POC so that the answer can be provided.

PLEASE DO NOT MERGE / ALTER THE CELLS.

21 Section C 7 6.1 Security; Facility

Clearance "The contractor shall receive, generate, fabricate, modify and store classified material, as required"

An assumption is made that the Government does NOT require that a Possessing Facility and offeror have the ability to store classified documents within the hangar facility, but can meet this requirement by having the ability to store classified documents at any facility location proposed by the offeror that meets the requirements for SECRET storage, ie., Corporate Office or other. Does the Government concur in this assumption?

Classified storage will meet the requirements as defined DoD 5220.22-M. The classified storage is a required capability within the local cummuting distance.

Attachment 0005, Labor Categories, Hangar Ops

Tab

Cell C3 Maintenance Test

Pilot "Must be a graduate of the Army Maintenance Test Pilot Course (UH-60)"

Is the contractor only going to conduct test flights on UH-60s and not on AH-64s, OH-58s and/or CH-47s? If required for all, please provide additional tab for individual requirements.

Updated labor category

23 Section M M-2,page 1 N/A Competitive Range

Determination

"If the contracting officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, then the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals"

It is unclear the process by which the Government "may limit the number of proposals". Will the Government provide the process and basis of evaluation by which the KO will determine, of the proposals received, which offerors will be considered and which will be removed from the competition as not eligible for award of this multiple award IDIQ? Please explain process of potential elimination from the competition if an offeror provides a compliant highly rated proposal.

f an offeror provides a compliant and highly rated proposal, that offeror's proposal will likely proceed to the competitive range. If, however, the contracting officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. See FAR 15.306(c). In this latter instance, the most highly rated proposals as identified in accordance with the evaluation criteria in Section M (RFP attachment 0007) would be selected to proceed to the competitive range. n

24 Q&A #3 Answer to Q&A # 3 from the DRFP Solicitation states: "The awarded contractors shall have the ability to support action that may occur OCONUS." However, no such language or capability requirement is identified in the RFP, PWS, and

SOW.

What is the historic location, size and scope and frequency of OCONUS taskings?

Historic OCONUS locations are Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Sweden, Jordan Netherlands, Iraq, Pakistan, Less than 10% are OCONUS requirements..

25 Q&A #25 As of May 2016, there were no plans to host another industry day, but the USG reserved the right to conduct one if required.

Given the 1+ year delay between Draft solicitations, does the Government plan to host another industry day for this $2.44B program? We would like another industry day or prebid conference.

At this time, the Government does not intend to host another Industry Day or pre-bid conference, but reserves the right to do so should it deem necessary.

26 SOW 4.4 and 4.8 The Government identifies the required minimum for tools and equipment to support 12 helicopters per month at paragraph 4.8 and the 10 mooring points for CH-47, AH-64, UH-60, and OH-58, but lacks definition with regard to the simultaneous use of tools/equipment and mooring points by type of aircraft.

In order for offerors to properly scope their tool/equipment needs as well as mooring point requirements, will the Government please provide the simultaneous support requirements for the 12 helicopters per month? For example, will one set of each item listed in the tools/equipment listing at paragraph 4.8 suffice? Do offerors need to provide mooring for 10 Chinooks simultaneously? Are offerors expected to host 12 aircraft on-site simulataneously each month? Does the 10 correspond to the mooring capability, or some other number or blend of aircraft? Will the Government please provide the ancipated type of Aircraft and tool/equipment items required to support any anticipated simultaneous requirements, e.g. offeror will have sufficient AH-64 work stands and jacks to repair 4 aircraft simultaneously, etc?

Offerors assume the Government has a DCMA or other "checklist" of how an offeror will be evaluated as compliant under this requirement, can the Government provide that detailed list?

The Gov't has defined that the offeror must be able to support 12 aircraft per month based on UH-60, AH-64, CH-47, and OH-58 individual airframes utilizing a combination of fueled and unfueled hangars. However, the Gov't has intentionally not defined any associated percentage or mix of aircraft because of the variability of the efforts that the LSF supports. The Gov't will evalute the offeror's proposal to assess its level of compliance with the requirement.

27 SOW 1.O Scope

The Government identifies Logistics Support Facility (LSF) contract in support of PEO Aviation and its program offices:

PM- Utility (Blackhawk Helicopter and Light Utility Helicopter), PM-Cargo (Chinook Helicopter), PM-Attack (Apache Helicopter), PM-Non-Standard Rotary Wing Aircraft (this excludes Mi Series and Md Series aircraft), PM-Unmanned Aircraft Systems, PM-Aviation Systems and PM-Fixed Wing programs, PM-Improved Turbine Engine/Future Vertical

Lift. LSFMA also supports PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare, and Sensor (IEW&S), PM-Aircraft Survivability Equipment (ASE) Program, the Air Warrior Program, the Aircrew Integration Systems (ACIS), the Special Operation

Command, and numerous other customers.

Will the offerors support requirements include other service component aircraft (USN/USMC, USAF, DOS, DOJ, etc.), such as the V-22 Osprey?

There are requirements for other service component aircraft, however there has been no requirements for the V-22 Osprey.

28 SOW 5.6

The contractor shall possess and maintain Ground and Flight procedures in accordance with the applicable version of the document "Contractor's Flight and Ground Operations", (DCMA 8210.1; AFI 10-220; AR 95-20; NAVAIRINST 3710.1;

COMDTINST M13020.3) at time of contract award.

Does the Government's use of AFI, NAVAIRINST, and COMDTINST signify that the LSFMA program will include Navy, Marine, and/or Air Force maintenance requirements? If so, what additional types of aircraft, engines, or "other" assets should offerors anticipate to support that are either fixed or rotary wing?

The Gov't is using DCMA 8210.1 as the requirement. DCMA

8210.1 is a quad-Service document that encompasses the AR, AFI, NAVAIRINST, & COMDTINST and allows all Services to accept each others efforts. This is an Army requirement; therfore, the Service specific document is the AR.

29 Section E SOW 5.5 Attachment 0004/SOW, paragraph 5.5 requires AS9017 compliance; yet RFP Section E-7 does not identify the AS9017 requirement or compliance.

Will the Government please clarify the Section E compliance requirements for AS9017 and any additional instructions under Section L or evaluation items under Section M? Also, will the Government clarify the order of precedence for compliance to documents that are published with conflicts, e.g. the RFP takes precedence over Attachment 0004/SOW, which takes precedence over the PWS, etc? Is the AS9017 requirement identified for special Army assets that would require the AS9017 process or is it meant to apply for all assets serviced under the LSFMA contract?

This RFP will follow the Order of Precedence provided in FAR 52.215-8. Critical Safety Items (CSIs) are defined IAW DFAR 252.209-7010 and AS9017 directs the offerors on how to appropriately manage hardware that have CSIs.

30 Section L Attchmet 006, pg 7

(2) (a) The contractor’s facility shall have a dedicated minimum of 32,256 square feet of aircraft hangar space designed, constructed, and protected for fueled aircraft work as defined in National Aerospace Standard (NAS) 3306 Rev 3. The objective requirement for hangar space is 64,512 square feet.

An assumption is made that the definition of "dedicated space" is defined as being "dedicated for the intended purpose of meeting this requirement. Example, an offeror must show minimum of 32,256 square feet "dedicated" for fuel aircaft and that space can not be counted twice or dedicated to "unfueled space". Does the Government concur? If this is an incorrect assumption, will the Government further define what is meant by 'dedicated' space and if it is the Government's desire to pay for unused "dedicated space" as a direct charge to this contract? Does the Government intend this to be "dedicated space available at Task Order award" or basic IDIQ contract level? Does the word "dedicated" apply to only "facilities space" or other items like mooring points, tools, etc.?

Concur - The space cannot be counted twice. in this context dedicated refers strictly to satisfying the the requirement of 32,256 SQFT of NAS 3306 Rev3 defined fueled aircraft hangar space. The Government does not intend to pay for unused space as a direct charge. The space must be available for IDIQ contract award

31 Section C C-5, C-9, C-10 Multiple Attachment 0008, Section C clauses identify Arming Requirements, Medical/Vaccination Screening, and Cargo

Movements related to Afghanistan and/or Iraq.

Does this imply that contractors must be prepared to deploy forward to support operations, manufacturing, modifications or repairs in Iraq and Afghanistan and that contractor employees may be armed while doing so? Do these clauses also suggest a requirement for contractors to processes through a CONUS Replacement Center (CRC)? If so, which CRC should contractors plan for?

Correct the contractor must possess the capability to support forward. Correct the contractor may be required to be armed.

Correct the contractor may be required prrocess through CRC.

Unknown at present, will be defined as part of a specific Delivery Order.

32 Section M M-3 A.2.a.ii Under Facility and Equipment Requirements, the phrase offeror's "primary" facility must be located within the

Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville Combined Statistical Area was refined by adding the work "primary" to evaluation criteria.

Will the Government please clarify this statement? Does the 60 mile radius from Redstone Arsenal still apply to primary facilities? Does this language imply that offerors who have a primary facility in the area could also use alternate/ancillary facilities outside the area to meet minimum/objective requirements? If so, what defines the offeror's "primary" facility and what capability and minimum/objective standards must the primary facilities meet? What minimum/objective standards can be shifted to alternate/ancillary facilities that are outside the specified areas of OMB Bulletin #13-01? We believe the Government wants all fueled and unfueled minimum space within the 60 miles of Redstone Arsenal or as written the Huntsville/Decatur-Albertville Combined Statiscal area, do you concur?

LSFMA no longer has a 60 mile restriction. All minimum requirements ( Fueled and unueled) must be within the Combined Statistical Area.

33 Section A The RFP is silent on the Response Time desired by the Government for Task Order Proposal. The 2012 Solicitation included a 21-day response time in Section A.

Does the Government have a desired time-frame for awarded contractors to respond to Task Order/Delivery Order Requests?

Presently the desired response time for DO/Tos is 21 days. LSFMA is reviewing the proposal turn around time and it will be provided in the RFP.

34 Section A M-3 Factor III g) A secondary NAICS code of 488190 was added to the solicitation for 5% of the $2.44B ceiling for the Support Activities for Air Transportation with the size standard of $32.5M. Furthermore, Section M-3, Factor III will evaluate Past Performance relevant to NAICS Code 336411 and not 488190.

Will the Government please clarify how bidders will be evaluated on meeting the requirements of NAICS 488190? Does the potential 5% contract value of $122M under NAICS 488190, require all small businesses to meet EVMS requirements considering the annualized value is over $20M but less than $100M? Are there any relevancy determinations for the 5% value, e.g. would a proposed team be evaluated as either more or less relevant if their composition included a small business that meets the NAICS 488190 size standard with proven experience based upon that size standard? See Response provided in Number 11 above.

35 Section A M-3 Factor II A-1, c) Section A and Section M language nods to CPIF requirements, however we noted other CPIF language governing

Incentive Type language is not included in the solicitation.

Will the Government please clarify CPIF requirements, e.g. if CPIF is called for in a Task Order, would that Task Order then identify all the Incentive Type arrangements and FAR clauses required? Does the basic IDIQ contract need to identify Minimum and Maximum Fee structures for bidders? Should bidders anticipate that a CPIF Task Order requirement would be very rare or is CPIF heavily used on the current LSFMA 4 contract?

Currrently LSFMA has no CPIF arrangement on LSF4. CPIF is included in the Acq Planning in the event there is a need for this type incentive arrangement.

36 Section I I-173 (d) Section I-173 includes the following clause: "The small business size standard for a Contractor providing a product which it does not manufacture itself, for a contract other than a construction or service contract, is 500 employees."

Will the Government please clarify the NAICS code and monetary value associated with this extra small business requirement, as well as the parameters governing how the small business will be evaluated for staying below or exceeding the standard?

The quantity provided in this clause cannot be changed. The clause refers to the Manufacturing/Non-Manufacturing rule per FAR 52.219-4 and 52.219-27, 12 CFR 121.406, and FAR 19.001.

37 Section H H-17 The Government anticipates the inclusion of OCI information at a later date and in the Final RFP.

It is estimated that approximately 40% of SETA work performed under AMCOM Express has or will migrate to OASIS. Will the Government please clarify whether any of the work previously performed under AMCOM Express contractors that subsequently migrated to GSA OASIS, constitutes an OCI? Why is only GSA AMCOM Express BPA identified as a potential OCI? Does the Government plan to add OASIS or other language addressing the potential for OCI to AMCOM Express/OASIS supporting the PEO Aviation or similar AMCOM support organizations (AED, etc.)?

Not sure where the informataion was obtained that only GSA AMCOM Express BPA was a potential OCI. No names were provided in H-17.

38 Section J In the previous LSFMA RFP, Section J provided bidders with the historical volume of orders on the preceeding contract. Will the Government please provide the historical volume of orders on the current LSFMA contract?

No this information will not be provided.

39 Section L 9 b)a)(3) Personnel Resumes Please clarify if all personnel resumes are within or outside of the 500 page count? Resumes are outside of the 500 page count.

40 Section L L-5(d) page 17

Factor III Past Performance limits references to contracts awarded and/or completed during the past three (3) years (from the issue date of this RFP). Due to the specific nature of work required by the LSF, we believe a slightly broader window of past performance recency will provide the Government a more comprehensive picture of each offeror's history of directly relevant work to the LSFMA SOW, without increasing evaluation risk. A five year period of past performance relevancy will provide a more complete picture of each offeror's experience, and can be directly relevant to LSFMA work.

We request the Government increase the period of past performance relevancy from three to five (5) years in Section L and M criteria to allow for submission of Past Performance contract references that clearly demonstrate an offeror's full history of performing similar work.

The Past Performance will remain at 3 years.

41 Section L L-5(b)(a)(2) page 7 Section L states "The contractor’s facility shall have a dedicated minimum of 32,256 square feet of aircraft hangar space…" for both fueled and unfueled aircraft work. The government's meaning of the word "dedicated" in this context is unclear.

Will the government please clarify whether offeror's fueled and unfueled aircraft facilities must be set aside solely for the LSFMA-5 program for the full period of performance, or whether the term "dedicated" means something different in this context? Dedicated only pertains to the space designation as defined in

NAS 3306, Facility Requirements for Aircraft Operations.

42 Section H H-2 Proprietary Information Recommend the “or” be deleted between (services, and for) in the first sentence The "or" is necessary in this instance.

43 Section H H-7 Safety Item h If office personnel are required to wear hearing protection while in a production area are they also subject to the medical program?

Yes they are subject to the medical program as noted in H-7(h).

44 Section H H-12 (a) Over and above Is an email from the Contracting Officer defined as, in writing, approval? Under normal circumstances a letter is issued. For emergency instances, an email or verbal may be provided.

45 Section H H-12 (b) Over and above With regard to the above referenced CLINs, the CLINs have not been identified, please identify Over and Above CLINs are TO/DO dependent. This information is provided in order for you to become familiar with the O/A process.

46 Section H H-12 (c) Over and above With regard to the above referenced CLINs, the CLINs have not been identified, and if the work is on a Firm Fixed Price CLIN will the not to exceed cost still be applicable? See Response above in number 45..

47 Section H H-13, 2, (c) Exceptions to the fair opportunity process.

Since this is a new Contracting action that is a competitive effort does the Government assume there will be items defined as logical follow-on orders? If so please provide a description, date of award and value of those efforts. LSFMA has no current knowledge of follow-on requirements. The customers as well the requirements vary/ from FY to FY.

48 Section A A-1, g), 1) DDD214

In Section 13 of the DD254 it references an item 13 on the continuation sheet. The continuation sheet does not have an item 13. Are there any additional security requirements that were inadvertently left out?

#13 is guidance for classified effort. No additional requirement information was left out.

49 Section H Clauses The draft RFP doesn’t have an OCI clause. This information may be necessary when considering teammates. Will it be released before the final RFP? The OCI Clause will be included in the release of the Final RFP.

50 Section H Clauses It appears Clauses H-22 and H-13 appear to be duplicates of H-2 and H-20 Noted. Corrections will be made.

51 Section H FOUO FOUO H-8 lists requirement for protection of FOUO information and a requirement for possible disciplinary action against employees for violating the protection requirement. Please confirm that the contractor is only responsible for protecting FOUO information that it receives from the Government that is so marked

H-8 pertains to information or materials identified as FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO). The Offeror is responsible for protecting FOUO information that ir receives, and is also responsible for taking disciplinary actions against its employees if the imformation is mishandled and disclosed.

52 Section A A-1. g) The synopsis contained on the FedBizOPs release indicated that the NAICS code for W58RGZ-16-R-0070 is 336411

Aircraft Manufacturing and that the action is a 100% Small Business Set Aside. In Section A-1, Solicitation paragraph g, A secondary NAICS code 488190 is listed.

Can you please clarify that offerors will not be required to be Small Business under the secondary NAICS 488190 code to qualify as a small business under this acquisition? Will successful small business offerors under the primary NAICS code be allowed to perform the work under the secondary NAICS code under this contract? See Response provided in Number 11 above.

53 Section A A-1 G)

If offerors must qualify as small businesses under both NAICS codes, it is highly unlikely that any business that would qualify under the smaller secondary NAICS code with a size of $32.5million would be able to meet the corporate capability requirements. Please note that the Government’s ceiling is $2.44 billion. The Government’s annual estimate based on the ceiling price would be approximately $485 million. If the requirement is for firms to be a small business under both NAICS codes, that would seem to indicate that the Government would have to make this a full and open competition due to the inclusion of 488190 NAICS code which covers only 5% of the work. Does the Government Market survey support that there would be qualifying small businesses under both NAICS codes? Would the Government consider eliminating the secondary NAICS code if it required the other 95% of the work to be competed as a Full and Open competition?

See Response provided in Number 11 above.

54 Section H H-5

Reference is made to Clause H-5 Travel. It is requested that the Government address the following concerns about the requirement that no fee or profit be allowed on travel. The LSF contractors have performed New Equipment Training tasks in which the contractor brought the instructor pilots and maintenance training to individual units to conduct the training. These method of training the units had substantial benefits in that it allowed soldiers to remain at their home station with their families between deployments and it had a cost benefit to the Government. The cost of sending the soldiers TDY to Ft. Rucker to conduct the training was substantially greater than the cost of bringing the training to the Government so the contractor’s travel produce a financial benefit to the Government. There is a lag between when a contractor incurs and pays for that cost. The Government in its RFP recognizes that in that it requires a minimum of

$15M Line of Credit so the Government can be assured that the contractor can finance his operations.

Does the Government recognize recognize that when a contractor uses his Line of Credit to pay for travel that the bank charges the contractor interest on the money since it is essentially a revolving loan? Interest is an expressly unallowable cost under the FAR. The way the contractor pays for this interest cost is thru profit or fee. This can be a substantial cost on some of these orders. Not allowing fee or profit on these costs, even though they are a cost of executing the Government’s requirement and the Government receives the financial benefit described in the discussion, has the net effect of requiring a small business to cash flow the US Government at a loss to itself for that element of cost.

As noted in the question posed, interest is an unallowable cost.

See FAR 31.205-20. Travel will be treated as a cost-reimburseable expense.

55 Section H H-5

The LSF work is manufacturing and re-manufacturing work. Prior to the LSF the Government was dependent on OEMs for the work that is now accomplished by small Business under the LSF contract. The Government experiences substantial lower costs and lower profit and fee than it would pay to OEM’s through the competitive LSF IDIQ. Aviation Manufacturing and modification work is a capital intensive business and is different from advisory assistance contracts. This capital intensive nature of the work can be seen in the Government requirements for facilities, tooling, quality systems and other requirements contained in the RFP. The cost of complying with the RFP requirements for a competitor is in the millions of dollars. The only thing a successful offer is guaranteed for taking this kind of risk is a

$2500 minimum order. The profit and Fee a contractor earns enables the small businesses competing on this contract to generate capital and finance the capital expenditures necessary to provide the LSF requirements at a lower cost than the OEM’s. Please contrast this with the fact that OEMs often have been allowed to direct charge special tooling and test equipment necessary to manufacture items and then do charge higher costs and profits than the LSF contractors. In addition, the OEMs receive facility cost of money reimbursement.

Will the Government change H-5 and allow fee and profit on travel costs? It eliminates the requirement for the small busines to cash flow the Government for travel. It allows small business to earn the necessary profits that finance the capital expenditures that are required to support the LSF, and it enables the Government to receive the benefits of lower costs from small business than it could receive from the OEMs despite the advantages the large business receive from the Government. If the Government chooses not to change this provision, please provide the rational and regulatory authority for including it.

an unallowable cost. See FAR 31.205-20. Travel will be treated as a

56 Section L 4.1 &4.2

In paragraph 4.1 and 4.2 of the SOW and in Section L, the Government indicates that the facilities must be “dedicated”.

The LSF contract is a Multiple award IDIQ contract with a minimum award of $2500. There is no guarantee of any future awards beyond the $2500 and the successful offerors will have to compete for any future orders and might not win. The term dedicated would seem to imply that the facilities can only be used for the LSF. The cost of the facilities and equipment is in the millions and no contractor could possibly sustain keeping these facilities idle when the Government is only committed to a $2500 minimum award.

Does the term dedicated require that the contractor may not use the facilities for other Government and contractor work when there is no LSF work available?

cost-reimbursable expense."

57 Section L 4.1 & 4.2

If the answer is that the facilities must be dedicated and cannot be used for other purposes, the following is a cost accounting question on the treatment of the dedicated facilities: making the facilities dedicated would seem to make them single purpose use, they would not be available to other contracts for use. It is likely that some or all the offerors pay for these capital investments thru indirect cost. If the requirement for dedicated facilities is a direct contract requirement how is appropriate to charge other customers thru overhead for another contract’s direct requirement? Is the contracting officer directing the offerors to change their cost accounting to direct charge or create an indirect facility pool for the LSF contract? Please note per the Cost Accounting Standards that a contractor is allowed to direct charge an item even if it normally charges the requirement indirect if the Government makes it a direct requirement of the contract.

(Example: normal proposals are an indirect proposal cost charged to Bid and Proposal cost in G&A. Proposals for letter contracts and change orders where the proposal is a direct contract requirement are allowed to be charge direct under the Cost Accounting Standards).

Changes as this could drive up LSF costs to the Government for no additional benefit. It is recommended that the word “dedicated” be deleted from the RFP requirement or the Government provide a definition of dedicated that does not unreasonably restrict the contractor’s use of his facilities when there is no LSF work. No it does not mean that. Please see response to #41 above which explains dedicated space.

58 section 9.0

The LSF Scope of Work includes Section 9.0 Small Business Requirements. The Government openly states in the provision that the resulting contracts will be the result of a Small Business Set Aside, therefore all of the contractor who receive awards are by definition Small Business. The inclusion of this entire section raises concerns about conflict with other Government requirements, the ability to comply with the requirements, the increased cost of compliance with no value added to the Government, and the fact that the inclusion of this scope of work requirement is in conflict with the FAR itself. The LSF has chosen the Aviation industry quality standards AS9100 and AS9110. The contract and the standards themselves require the contractor to flow down the requirements of those standards to their subcontractors and vendors. Aviation due to the nature of its requirements has high safety standards and these quality standards were chosen to ensure safety. The Government’s quality management AS9100/9110 and the flow down provisions result in an Approved Vendor list of subcontractors because those contractors meet the quality requirements to ensure safety. A subcontractor or vendor who meets these industry standards is relatively easy to add to the Approved Vendor List but a new subcontractor who does not have these quality certifications requires substantial expenditure of prime contractor funds without any assurance the subcontractor can qualify. The contractor cannot arbitrarily allow a subcontractor to bid who does not meet the quality requirements of the contract that they are required to flow down. This contract is an IDIQ, which means the contractor and the Government do not know the requirements upfront. It is impossible for a contractor at this time to say how he would utilize any individual subcontractor. That situation would seem to require a subcontracting plan at the order level. The problem with that is that this is a competitive IDIQ with a response time of approximately 21 days to be compliant. This requirement will delay response times. The additional cost of complying with a plan for each order adds to the Bid and Proposal costs of each offeror on the LSF contract and not each offeror will be successful on every order. The history of this contract is that there will be dozens of proposals efforts every year with significant B&P costs. The additional cost is an adverse impact to every small business and will drive up their Bid and Proposal costs for all of the efforts. This is especially troublesome since FAR 19.702 (b) (1) specifically says that subcontracting plans are not required from Small Business

Concerns.

Does the Contracting Officer have a FAR deviation that allows the inclusion of the requirements specifically exempted by the FAR and can you share the rationale? Will the Government delete this requirement based on the quality requirements, the adverse impact to B&P costs and the fact that the FAR does not require it?

Per FAR Part 19.702, a small business set-aside is not required to submit a mall Business Subcontracting Plan. This language will be removed from the Statement of Work (SOW). Revised language wilstill require the Small Business prime bidders to submit a list iof subcontractors to be utilized at the Task Order Level. The list provided by the prime for their subcontractor(s) utilization should not be confused with the Subcontracting plan. The prime will not be given a CPARS rating for meeting small business subcontracting goals, but rather the rating will be based on how the prime managed and utilized the proposed subcontractors.

59 Section E E-7

Clause E-7 Higher Level Contract Requirements. In the Section that listed the Quality requirements there is a column that is titled tailoring.

For each requirement, it lists N/A (not applicable), does this mean that if an offeror does not meet all of the requirements of a Quality system (i.e. has a tailored approval) that they will be evaluated as not meeting the certification requirement? Second question, FAA repair stations are authorized for particular airframes. The Government did not list any airframes. In the previous contract and RFP, the

Government indicated that it recognized this situation and knew that the FAA part 145 approval submitted by an offeror would have to be updated to cover any new airframes not currently included in their FAA Part 145 approval when the airframe requirement is known. Can you please confirm that this understanding is still correct?

In regards to AS9100 and AS9110, the Offeror must have full certification without exceptionmeet and meet all the minimum requirements. The understanding is correct concerning FAA Part 145 approvals.

60 Section H H-4

H-4 Manpower reporting requirements is a requirement based on Section 2330a of title 10, United States Code (10 USC 2330a), Procurement of Services tracking of purchases. The LSF contract is a Walsh Healy supply contract that provides manufacturing and re-manufacturing efforts. The application of reporting supply type efforts would not seem to be the purpose contained in the statutory language and if applied to all orders under the contract, it would cause the Army to over report the amount of services and their cost and give an incorrect answer to the congress.

Since there is a significant cost of compliance, can you explain the extent to which it is applicable to all orders or just specific orders requiring services? Can you provide the regulatory implementation reference?

The application would only be for specific orders requiring services. CMR fulfills Title 10 U.S.C. § 2330a as amended by § 807 of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA 08 § 807) which requires an annual inventory of service contracts.

61 Section H H-8 H-8 lists requirement for protection of FOUO information and a requirement for possible disciplinary action against employees for violating the protection requirement.

Please confirm that the contractor is only responsible for protecting FOUO information that it receives from the Government that is so marked. Can the contractor generate information within his own operation that the Government would subsequently consider FOUO? For instance, a contractor could choose to share its proprietary data or trade secrets with another contractor under an agreement between the two firms, that would seem to be one of the FOIA exceptions that require protection. So it would seem that the protection requirements might preclude this type of sharing of data. It is requested that you consider a clarifying statement that covers data owned or generated by the contractor and how the Government will identify such data as FOUO. See #51 above. Additionally, the Government is considering a clarifying statement as requested.

62 Section H H2, H-20,H-13,H22 Please note that Clauses H-2 and H-20 appear to be duplicates and that H-13 and H-22 appear to be duplicates. See #50 Above.

63 Section H H-17 The draft RFP doesn’t have an OCI clause. This information may be necessary when considering teammates. Will it be released before the final RFP? See #60 Above

64 5.7 In Paragraph 5.7 of the Scope of Work requires that the FAA Part 145 Repair Station be within the Huntsville Decatur Albertville OMB Statistical Area. This is different from the previous Contract and RFP and to the Government answer to question 2 in the Industry days.

Is the requirement for it to be within the Huntsville Decatur Albertville statistical Area correct? If it is, this could possibly limit competition for the entire effort for a small part of the overall work when the Government has previously not needed it for the reasons stated in the

Industry day answer and the previous contract and RFP. Paragraph has been corrected

65 4,5 In Paragraph 4.5 of the SOW and in Section L-5 (b) Technical volume, Subfactor Corporate Capability, Section (a)(2)(d) it states that the minimum and objective size space requirements. It also states that “it is desired that this space be protected by at least automatic sprinkler systems and fire detection/alarm systems”.

It is not understood whether the word desired means that this is a minimum or objective requirement. Are the automatic sprinkler systems and fire detection/ alarm systems, a minimum or an objective requirement?

It is a minimum requirememt.

66 DD254

In Section 13 of the DD254 it references an item 13 on the continuation sheet. The continuation sheet does not have an item 13.