Attachment_0019_-_Formal_RFP_QA's_Government_Response.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 50 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W58RGZ-16-R-0070
About this file
This is a pre-solicitation synopsis notice for a draft request for proposal to provide modifications to aviation systems owned or supported by the Program Executive Office Aviation of the Army Materiel Command. The Logistics Support Facility Activity on behalf of the Army Contracting Command-Redstone Arsenal is seeking to award multiple indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts to provide modifications in an expeditious manner to meet Army schedules. The North American Industry Classification System code for this acquisition is 336411. Questions on the draft RFP and attachments are due by August 11, 2017 to allow time for the government to prepare responses prior to release of the formal RFP. The acquisition will utilize a 100% small business set-aside competition and best value tradeoff source selection.
Attachment 0019 - Formal RFP Q&A's Government Response
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 72 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
LSF V Questionnaire
| FORMAL RFP COMMENT / QUESTION FORM | ||||||||||||
| Logistics Support Facility | ||||||||||||
| Section A | Section B | Section C | Section D | Section E | Section F | Section G | Section H | Section I | Section J | Section K | Section L | Section M |
| 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. |
| Question # | RFP Area | SOW Page Reference | SOW Paragraph Reference | Additional Cross Reference | Discussion | Question | Government Response | Additional Offeror Questions to the Government Response |
| 1 | RFP pg 27 I-161 | There is referenced fill-in information that is blank in this section. | Would the Government please provide the completed fill-in information? | 52.216-19 Ordring Limitations will be deleted. | ||||
| 2 | RFP pg 27 I-164 | There is referenced fill-in information that is blank in this section. | Would the Government please provide the completed fill-in information or indicate if not applicable? | Alternate I Clause will be deleted. | ||||
| 3 | 4 | 4.1 | Facility Requirements | Facility Requirements is listed as paragraph 4.1. | Would the Government please confirm that this paragraph should be listed as 4.0 versus 4.1? | SOW Rev 2 will be provided. | ||
| 4 | 6 | 4.7 | Hazardous Materials storage requires 2000 square feet. The anticipated hazmat containers will have multiple shelves. | Can 2000 square feet be met with rack/shelf square footage as opposed to floor space square footage? | The square footage requirement relates to floor space not shelf space. | |||
| 5 | Attachment 2 Labor Categories and Attachment 5 Labor Categories | Attachment 2 lists 77 labor categories while attachment 5 lists 76 labor categories. The extra labor category in Attachment 2 is Instructor/Evaluation Standards Pilot which appears to be a duplication of Flight Instructor/Flight Examiner. | Would the Government please clarify if Instructor/Evaluation Standards Pilot is to be priced, and if so please provide definition of requirements in Attachment 5? If it is not to be priced, would the Government please remove the LC from Attachment 2? | That was a duplication. Instructor/Evaluation Standards Pilot has been deleted. | ||||
| 6 | Attachment 2 | The attachment requires calendar year pricing from CY 2018 to CY 2025. However, award is not anticipated until 2019, and with potential 7 year ordering period plus one year after the ordering period to complete orders, work could continue into CY2027. | Could the pricing template be revised to request pricing for CY2019 through CY2027? | The Government non-concurs with the request. CY18 is import for the performance of the evaluation. The USG has updated Tab '3b) Profit-Fee-Storage' in order to incorporate potential future years of CY26-CY28 | ||||
| 7 | Attachment 2 Pricing Template | It is our understanding that the Prime Contractor’s completed pricing template shall include on the Team Member FFP and Team Member CPFF tabs in the Labor Rate columns the Team member’s fully burdened labor cost through Team member fee, with Prime Contractor mark-ups applied through the Indirect Rates tab. If this understanding is correct, and assuming the Team Member has a different FFP Profit rate and CPFF fee rate (which is likely) then their fully burdened rates on the FFP and CPFF tabs will be different. However, the Template currently sets the Team Member’s CPFF rate to be equal to the FFP rate. | Would the Government please clarify if the Team member rate columns should reflect rates fully burdened through Team Member Profit/Fee? If understanding is correct, would you please modify the Pricing Template for direct input of Team Member CPFF rates, which could be different from their FFP rates when inclusive of profit / fee? | Tab 'Proposal Sheet' is fully loaded rates as described and are allowed to be different between FFP and CPFF. Tabs '1a) … 2c)' are only the Base Rate/Hr (i.e., unburdened); however as this is a Price competition CPFF rates equal FFP rates. | ||||
| 8 | Attachment 2 Pricing Template | Prime FFP Rate, Prime CPFF Rate Team Member FFP Rate and Team Member CPFF Rate tabs. The labor hours input columns on these tabs (columns E, I, M, Q, U,Y,AC and AG) are formatted as dollar values and the formatting is locked. | Would the Government please revise formatting of these columns to reflect General Number Formatting, as appropriate for input of hours for ease of reading? | Revised | ||||
| 9 | Attachment 2, Pricing Template, Indirect Rates Tab | The Pricing Template does not request Indirect Markups applicable to Travel. It is understood that profit or fee is not allowable on travel, but indirect markups consistent with Contractor’s accounting system should be allowable. | Would the Government please confirm that indirect markups are allowable on Travel and indicate if these mark-ups should be identified in the Pricing Template on the Indirect Rates tab, and if so, would you please modify the template to reflect this? | The offerors should use Tab 3a) 'Wrap Rates' to define Material/ODC costs | ||||
| 10 | Section A | 6, 7 | SHIP TO: | CLIN 0003AA, 0003AB, and 0003AC all have shipping requirements that are to be determined. | Will the Government please define how contractors are to price these requirements? Recommend plug numbers. | Since the Sample Orders are for evaluation purposes only, there are no shipping requirements. | ||
| 11 | Section A | A-1 c) | This paragraph indicates that the ordering period is a five year base with a 2 year option for a total potential ordering period of 7 years. However, the solicitation does not indicate for how long performance can continue beyond the ordering period. | Would the Government please specify how long the performance on Task Orders can extend beyond the ordering period? | A-1(d) has been updated. | |||
| 12 | Section H | Attachment 14, page 2, Clause H-5 Property Accountability | The Clause requires the Contractor to comply with provisions of AR 710-2 in accounting for Government property in its possession. However, AR 710-2 covers operation of Army supply depots which is well beyond the scope of this contract unless funded as a specific task order. | Would the Government please identify the specific requirements in AR 710-2 that contractors must meet with their normal property system that is over and above the requirements established in FAR 52.245-1 to which contractor systems are generally validated to? | H-5 (e) will be removed. | |||
| 13 | Section L | 5 | 4.5 | Section L, Page 8, paragraph (d) | Second sentence of paragraph states, "Included in this requirement are the preservation and temporary storage of aircraft." The corresponding paragraph 4.5 in the SOW does not contain the same statement. | Is it the USG's intention to have this as a requirement in the SOW? | Information provided in SOW, REV 2. | |
| 14 | Section L | L-3 Introduction | “The use of hyperlinks in proposals is prohibited.” and L-5 Proposal Volumes, a) Format: “A Table of Contents should be created using the Table of Contents feature in MS Word.” | The auto-generated Table of Contents feature in Word contains hyperlinks. Does this mean the table of contents must have all hyperlinking removed? | The TOCs can be hyperlinked. | |||
| 15 | Section L | L-5 a) i) File Packages | Complete electronic volumes shall be submitted in Microsoft Office format, readable by Microsoft (MS) Word, MS Excel, MS Power Point, and/or Adobe Acrobat (.pdf). | Will the Government please clarify: Are all documents (except the spreadsheets) allowed to be submitted in PDF format only? | Yes | |||
| 16 | Section L | L-4 b) | Paragraph states, “Arial or Times New Roman fonts are required.” | Will the Government please confirm if Arial Narrow font (which is included under the typeface Arial) is acceptable to use in this proposal? | Arial Narrow is not authorized | |||
| 17 | Section L | Q&A 39 | Section L (p. 10) reads, "The offeror shall include an organizational structure and resumes for the following types of management positions:" as though the resumes are a part of the page count. Q&A 39 states they are not a part of the page count. | Would the USG please affirm that the resumes are not a part of the 500 page count of the Technical Volume? | Resumes are not a part of the 500 page count. | |||
| 18 | Section L | Pg 13 | Third paragraph references completion of Attachment 3, “Cage Code and Cognizant DCMA / DCAA Information”. However, attachment 3 to the RFP is the DD245 and there is no attachment for the referenced form. | Would the Government please provide referenced attachment? | Referenced Attachment will be provided. | |||
| 19 | Section L | Pg 14 | Second paragraph references completion of Attachment 9, “Preaward Survey of Prospective Contractor Accounting System Checklist”. However, attachment 9 to the RFP is the Past Performance Questionaire and there is no attachment for the referenced checklist. | Would the Government please provide referenced attachment? | Referenced Attachment will be provided. | |||
| 20 | Section L | Pg 15 | States that Sample Task Orders shall be CPFF or FFP except for Cost Reimbursible no Fee CLINs for Materials, Travel and ODC. However, everywhere else in the RFP, Material and ODC is identified as fee bearing, including the pricing template tabs for the sample tasks. | Please clarify if it is Gov’t intent the Material and ODC be bid as Cost Reimbursible – No Fee on the Sample tasks. If this is the intent please clarify if this is only required for sample task pricing or if the Government intends that all task order pricing for materials during contract execution will be Cost Reimbursible – No Fee. | The "except for Cost-Reimbursable CLINs for Matrials, Travel and ODC" has been deleted. | |||
| 21 | Section L | 5, 6 | L-5 C(2), L-5C(3) | Section L describes both "special initiative processes" and "continuous improvement processes" and contractors will need to distinguish between these two classifications of what is required for continuous improvement. | Will the Government please define "special initiative processes" and how they differ from "continuous improvement processes"? | Special initiative processes can be viewed as "Continual Improvement" or actions that recur frequently or have stages or breaks. Continuous means ongoing or as a part of everyday actions. | ||
| 22 | Section L | 5 | L-5 (c ) | This section refers to an "overarching PWS". | Please confirm this is referring to Attachment 0004 Statement of Work. | Corrected - Overarching SOW | ||
| 23 | Section M | Pg 4 | Second paragraph states “Past Performance that … are not contracts or information references from other than US sources / points of contact will not be evaluated.” The wording is awkward, but the intent of this statement appears to be that past performance references for direct foreign sales contracts are not acceptable. However, this restriction is not stated in section L or anywhere else in the RFP. Also, no rationale was provided for the restriction, but it is assumed to be concern with translation of foreign feedback. | Would the Government please clarify if the intent of this statement is to not allow for past performance references for direct foreign sales contracts? If it is, please consider relaxing the restriction to allow for direct foreign sales contracts to be sited as past performance but to request that all POC responses be in English, and state that responses in other languages will not be evaluated. | The intent is that POCs shall be US sources and non-foreign. | |||
| 24 | Section M | 5, 6 | A, 2 Technical Factor, a), i), (4), (c and d) | Section M describes both "special initiative processes" and continuous improvement processes" and contractors will need to distinguish between these two types of examples to demonstrate operation and continuous improvement of QMS. | Will the Government please define "special initiative processes" and how they differ from "process improvement"? | see question 21 | ||
| 25 | Section M | 7 | Technical Factor, Subfactor b), iv) | This section instructs for emphasis on "…IMS, risk matrix, opportunity matrix, and issue schedule" | Will government please further define what is required with the term "issue schedule"? | Issue Schedule - Schedule management tool associated with risks becoming issues. | ||
| 26 | Sample Order 1 | There is no CLIN structure for this Sample Order. | Could the USG provide a CLIN Structure for this Sample Order? | A CLIN structure will not be provided for the Sample Orders. | ||||
| 27 | Sample Order 1 | Paragraph 1.0 states IFF is a requirement for this effort, while paragraph 3.2.9 does not list IFF as a required capability. | Would the USG please confirm whether IFF is a requirement for this effort? | The military/civil transponder requirement is another way of annotating IFF. The intent of the Sample Orders is to determine the Offerors knowledge and capability of supporting the immense and varied delivery orders. | ||||
| 28 | Sample Order 1 | Paragraph 3.2.2 states that the contractor is responsible for providing a Patient Handling/Litter system, while paragraph 3.3 states that two (2) each Spectrum-Aeromed 2800 Series Patient Handling/Litter Systems will be provided as GFE. | Would the USG clarify if these systems are to be procured by the contractor or will they be provided as GFE? | Threshold design is one PHS/A/C. Objective design is two PHS/a/c. 3.2.2 will be changed to reflect one threshold two objective. Para 3.3 will be changed to : Government will provide PHS as GFE. Two additional systems will be provide if required. | ||||
| 29 | Sample Order 1 | Paragraph 3.2.9 states that GATM is a requirement for this effort. | As GATM has many requirements, would the USG please specify which GATM requirements are needed for this effort? | For the Sample tasks just the basics: mode S transponder, WAAS GPS, ADS-B (Out/In) | ||||
| 30 | Sample Order 1 | The Spectrum-Aeromed 2800 Series Patient Handling/Litter Systems listed in paragraph 3.3, provided as GFE, appear to come with only one litter, but multiple systems can be installed in a single aircraft. | Would the USG please clarify how many litters per aircraft are being provided as GFE? | See Question 28 above. | ||||
| 31 | 3 | 3.2.3 | Sample Order 1 | There are various characteristics associated with Crashworthy seats that will bound the contractors selection. | Would the Government please identify any specific criteria associated with the seats that will aide the contractor in selection of a specific crashworthy seat? | TS) 127B or better | ||
| 32 | 4 | 3.3 | Sample Order 1 | SOW states "Two (4) each Wulfsberg FlexComm II C5000 radio systems" are provided as GFP. | Please clarify exact quantities and model # for the FlexComm II C5000 radio system components. We assume each system will include 2ea RT-5000 transceivers. Which control head will come with the system and will the antennas also be provided as GFP? | Sow will be changed to reflect RT 5000 receiver/transmitter systems. Two (2)/aircraft, total of four (4) RT-5000s. PN# 400-015525-0501. Offeror will propose additional GFE components to meet system requirements. | ||
| 33 | 7 | 3.8.1.2 | Sample Order 1 | This paragraph states, "The contractor shall develop a complete MWO package to include one set of hardware suitable for government verification of the MWO IAW AR 750-10." | Would the Government please clarify whether the same GFE will be provided for the government verification as is being provided for the first two installations? | If additional GFE is required, yes Government will provide. | ||
| 34 | Section J | 9 | 3.8.1.7 | Sample Order 1 | This is an unusual requirement (no cost changes) on a cost reimburseable CLIN. | Will the Government please specifically define what costs are allowable under 3.8.1.7? | Offerors are reminded that this is a cost type D.O. However, as a cost control measure the Gov't will not pay for errors that are found when the USG verifies the MWO separately. | |
| 35 | Sample Order 2 | There is no CLIN structure for this Sample Order. | Could the USG provide a CLIN Structure for this Sample Order? | A CLIN structure will not be provided for the Sample Orders. | ||||
| 36 | Sample Order 2 | Paragraph 3.2.7 states that GATM is a requirement for this effort. | As GATM has many requirements, would the USG please specify which GATM requirements are needed for this effort? | See question 29 Above | ||||
| 37 | 4 | 3.2.7 | Sample Order 2 | Requirement for 2.75"/Hydra 70 Rocket Firing is vague. USG also requires D/N Target Acquisition with Laser Rangefinder and Illumination and glass displays. | Does the USG require firing of laser-guided rockets or only "dumb" 2.75" Hydra 70? | No requirement for laser guided | ||
| 38 | 4 | 3.2.7 | Sample Order 2 | Requirement for 2.75"/Hydra 70 Rocket Firing is vague. USG also requires D/N Target Acquisition with Laser Rangefinder and Illumination and glass displays. | Does the USG require an integrated rocket firing solution displayed on the EFI-890H Displays. | It is the Offeror's responsibility to propose recommended solution. | ||
| 39 | 4 | 3.2.7 | Sample Order 2 | SOW states "Two (2) each Moog Stores Management Systems" are provided as GFP. | Please clarify exact quantities and model # of Moog components that comprise the Stores Management System. | Two each: Stores Management Computer, Stores Interface Unit, Stores Control Pane, Rocket Interface unit. Propose your recommended solution. | ||
| 40 | 4 | 3.3 | Sample Order 2 | SOW states "Two (4) each Wulfsberg FlexComm II C5000 radio systems" are provided as GFP. | Please clarify exact quantities and model # for the FlexComm II C5000 radio system components. We assume each system will include 2ea RT-5000 transceivers. Which control head will come with the system and will the antennas also be provided as GFP? | See question 32 above | ||
| 41 | 8 | 3.8.1.2 | Sample Order 2 | This paragraph states, "The contractor shall develop a complete MWO package to include one set of hardware suitable for government verification of the MWO IAW AR 750-10." | Would the Government please clarify whether the same GFE will be provided for the government verification as is being provided for the first two installations? | The USG will provide same hardware for verification as for validation | ||
| 42 | 9 | 3.8.1.7 | Sample Order 2 | This is an unusual requirement (no cost changes) on a cost reimburseable CLIN. | Will the Government please specifically define what costs are allowable under 3.8.1.7? | See question 34 above | ||
| 43 | Attachment 0017 | 5 | Sample Order 3 | This paragraphs describes process that is required to perform the SOW but is titled as "Assumptions". | Specifically what is the contractor to assume to comply with this requirement? | The title has been changed to Non-Availibility. Please follow provided instructions. |
| 44 | Sample Order 3 Drawings | Drawings LSF0017-71104, LSF0017-71204, LSF0017-71202, LSF0017-71201, LSF0017-71102 each reference a CAD file. | Will these CAD files be provided after contract award to facilitate the performance of the contract? | These CAD files shall be provided by the Government after contract award to facilitate the performance of the contract. | |||
| 45 | Section C | 7 | 5.6 | SOW Housekeeping: Paragraph 5.6 is used twice. | Will the Government please renumber 5.6 thru 5.7? | See Question #3 above. | |
| 46 | Section A | 2 of 49 | A-1 (a) | Attach 0006, Section L-5, page 12 | Section A identifies Award of contract in March 2019, yet Section L anticipates contract performance to start in April 2019. | Will the Government please clarify a specific contract start date offerors should use when generating an Integrated Master Schedules? | A IMS Is Delivery Order Specific. |
| 47 | Section L | Page 2 of 22 | L-4 c) | Attach 0010, Question 8, 10, 39 | A footnote indicates that the TOC is excluded from page count in the Technical, however Q&A Indicates in Question 8, 10, and 39 that PPQ and Resumes are also excluded from page count. | Are the answers to Q&A authoritative to page count exclusions listed in section L? | Page Count exclusions have been placed in Section L. |
| 48 | ALL | ALL | Attachment 10. | Since Attachment 0010 Draft RFP Questions and Answers are included in the Final RFP, should offeror's consider the answers provided as authoritative and supplemental directives to Section L, Section M, and the SOW? What is the heirarchy of precedence between documents should conflicts occur? | The Formal RFP and attachments take precedence over Draft RFP Questions. | ||
| 49 | Section L | Page 1 of 22 | L-2 | The paragraph states: "The Offeror shall submit questions in response to the Formal RFP NLT 16:00 (CST), 30 March 2018. The Government will receive and respond to questions received by 6 Apr 2018. Questions or comments will not be entertained if received after this date." | How should offerors clarify responses posted by the Government on 6 Apr if additional conflicts are noted? | Three (3) business days will be allowed for additional conflict questions on Government responses only. Upon receipt of Government responses to additional conflict questions, no further questions will be accepted. | |
| 50 | Section H | Page | H-23 | Attachment 0010, Question 33 | Special Contract Requirements provide for a Surge Requirement that indicates proposal responses within 30 days of Government Request; yet the Response to Question 33 appears to be in conflict with a 21-day response. | Will the Government please clarify the desired response time for proposal responses, 30-days or 21-days? | The Delivery Order proposal response Time is 21 - 30 days depending on the complexity of the DO. The period will be so stated in the DO. |
| 51 | Section B | Page 9 of 75 | B-3 | Attachment 0010, Question 13 | The response to question 13 of Attachment 0010, seems to conflict with the narrative at the bottom of page 9 of the RFP regarding the award of Sample Orders. | Will the Government please clarify whether Sample Task Orders are intended to be used for evaluation purposes only or awarded at contract award? | Sample Orders are used for evaluation purposes only. |
| 52 | Section L | 10 | L-5 b) a) (3) | Section L-5 and Attach 0005 - Labor Category Requirements | Not all Section L-5 management position titles are listed in Attachment 0005 - Labor Category Requirements. For example LSF Facility Director, Hangar Ops Manager, and Safety Manager are not in Attachment 0005. Other titles do not exactly match like Production Ops Mgr (Sect L), vs Production Supervisor (Attachment 0005). | Can the Government please advise how bidders should select and price the proper Attachment 0005 labor category for the management positions listed in Section L-5 b) a) (3) when they are not listed in Attachment 0005? | That is correct. Position without a description are assumed to be indirect (overhead) based positions as defined by the offeror's business rules. Please be mindful of the definitional differences between indirect and direct labor charges. |
| 53 | Section L | 20 | L-5 Section 2, (2) 3 | Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire, and Attachment 0010 - Draft RFP Questions and Government Responses Question #7 | Government answer is: "If received before proposal due date, the PPQ is required with the Past Perf Volume submission." If Gov't receives completed PPQs from bidder POCs NLT proposal due date, and bidders submit POC List Table NLT proposal due date, it would seem that bidders would not need to include PPQs in Past Performance volume since both requirements will have been met timely. | Should the answer read, "If NOT received before proposal due date, the PPQ is required with the Past Perf volume submittal"? | Yes - However follow Instructions in Section L. |
| 54 | Section M | Page 11 of 14 | M-3,A.4.a | Section M states: "Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D." | Will the Government please clarify where offerors are to find "Appendix D"? | Presently Appendix D is Attachment 0009. Appendix will be removed from the page. | |
| 55 | Section C | 6 | 4.8 | Minimum tool/equipment requirements | The Government requires possession or ready access to tooling and equipment | Please provide a listing or source document that identifies the contents of the: |
1) Aviation Tool Set
2) Tool Kit for Arament
3) Aircraft General Mechanic Tool Kit
4) Tool Kit for Electrical
5) Non Destructive Test Set
| 6) Quality Inspector Kits | There are multiple satisfactory kits, both military and civilian equivalents, available to satisfy this requirement. The requirement is that the offeror has sufficient capability to support aviation modifications and associated repairs. | ||||||
| 56 | Section C | 6 | 4.8 | Minimum tool/equipment requirements | The Government requires possession or ready access to tooling and equipment | May an electric crane be substituted for the "hydraulic crane" listed in this section? |
| Is there a mimum size requirement for the crane? | Hydraulic Crane is the requirement, sufficient to support the four rotor crafts detailed in the RFP. | ||||||||
| 57 | Section M | 11 | M-2 4.0 b) | Team Member Definition | Team members are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the overall proposed effort. | If an offeror proposes Team Member(s)/Subcontractor(s) Past / Current Performance example(s) as part of the Past Performance Evaluation, will the Government require that offeror to also include that specific Team Member(s)/Subcontractor(s) cost/price information in the Cost Volume and labor rate build up? Specifically, can offeror use Team Member / Subcontractor past performance without proposing that same Team Member / Subcontractor as part of the Not-To-Exceed IDIQ Contract Rate Pricing Table? | Yes. to both questions. Both the Price/Cost Volume and the Past Performance Volume require information to be submitted for team members. Any affiliate who does not meet the 10% threshold will not be evaluated. Any team member who meets the 10% threshold requires information in both the Price/Cost and Past Performance Volumes. The Contracting Officer will ensure that any team member proposed in one volume is also represented in any other area of the proposal where it is required. | ||
| 58 | ST 1 & 2 | Will the government provide the tech manuals and ICD's for the Aircraft and GFE | No. Manuals and ICDs are commercially available. | ||||||
| 59 | Page 3 | 3.2.3 | ST 1 SOW | Requirement to provide two crashworty seats | What level of crashworthiness (in g's) is required for the seats? | See question 31 above | |||
| 60 | Pages 3 & 4 | 3.2.3 | ST 1 & 2 | Starsafire HD model number is not defined in the GFE list. | Which model Star Safire will be provided as GFE? | Star SAFIRE HD.reference FLIR Systems Inc online brochures | |||
| 61 | Pages 3 & 4 | 3.2.9 | ST 1 SOW | APX-100 is provided as GFE | What specific model APX-100 is provided as GFE? | The UH-1H being provide by the USG comes equipped with the AN/APX-100(V) | |||
| 62 | Pages 3 & 4 | 3.2.7 | ST 2 SOW | Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Mode 5 is a requirement but the APX-100, provided with the aircraft does not perform this function | Should this read mode S? If yes,What specific model APX-100 is provided as GFE? If mode 5 is required, will a transponder capable of meeting the mode 5 requirement be provied as GFE? | Mode 5 is required. | |||
| 63 | Page 4 | 3.3 | ST 1 & 2 | Sample task SOW calls for the Wulfsberg FlexComm II C5000 radio system (Qty 4 total) to be provided as GFE | What specific components/component part numbers will be provided as GFE with the system? | Just the receiver/transmitter RT-5000. Ovveror should propose its recommended solution. | |||
| 64 | Page 12 | 3.8.2.4 | ST 1 & 2 | In Process Review Conference (IPRC) | How many occurances should be priced? | Two (2) | |||
| 65 | Page 9 | 3.8.1.7 | ST 1 & 2 | Government Verification | Will the verification be on a third aircraft and will it be conducted by a third-party, independent installer, or is this a table-top review? | 3rd A/C USG third party is not a part of this task. | |||
| 66 | Page 6 | 3.6 | ST 1 & 2 | Corrosion Prevention Control | Section 3.6 requires the preparation of a CPC plan, but it is not listed as a CDRL. Is the CPC plan a deliverable? | No. Offeror must make it available for review at USG request. | |||
| 67 | Page 6 | 3.5.11 | ST 1 & 2 | Request for Deviation (RFD) | Section 3.5.11 references Appendix 2 of the SOW, but it is not included. Is Appendix 2 available for review? | No. Assume offeror can complete RFD if necessary. | |||
| 68 | Page 7 | 3.8.1.1.2 | ST 1 & 2 | Need clarification on standards identified in 3.8.1.1.2. In particular, is TM 1-1520-237-23 correct for the UH-1H aircraft (specifies H-60 A/L)? Which document contains Appendix B? | No. It should be TM 55-1520-210-10. Analysis shall be IAW 14 CFR Part 27 | ||||
| 69 | Page 13 | 3.10.2.3 | ST 1 & 2 | Crash Loads Structural Analysis & Strength Loads Analysis | Need clarificaition on standards identified in Sections 3.10.2.3 & 3.10.2.4. The system specification for the UH-60 L Blackhawk, SES-700700, is referenced. | References to the UH-60 have been removed. Replaced by 14 CFR Part 27 | |||
| 70 | Page 14 | 3.13.1 | ST 1 & 2 | Packaging Data | Section 3.13.1 references Appendix 2 of the SOW, but it is not included. Is Appendix 2 available for review? | No Appendix 2 will not be provided. | |||
| 71 | Page 14 | 3.13.1 | ST 1 & 2 | CDRL C003 | DI-SESS-81314A is listed on DD Form 1423-1 which is superceeded by DI-CMAN-81314. Will Form 1423-1 be changed? | DI-CMAN-81314 was superceeded by DI-SESS-81314A therefore CDRL will not be changed. | |||
| 72 | Page 13 | 3.11 | ST 1 & 2 | test equipment for GFE | Will the test equipment specific to the GFE provided hardware be provided as GFE for use during testing? | Potentially. Offeror may request what they think is required as a part of their response. | |||
| 73 | Page 4 | 3.3 | ST 2 SOW | Aircraft configuration include M-21 weapons mount | Will the Government provide the tech manuals for the M-21 weapons mount? | No, available online. | |||
| 74 | Page 3 | 3.2.7 | ST 2 SOW | The SOW states that the completed aircraft will have the capability of 2.75" Hydra 70 Rocket firing. The aircraft configuration includes the M-21 weapons mount and 2 M260 rocket pods per aircraft. | What is the mission requirement for rocket capacity? | It is defined in the SOW requirement. | |||
| 75 | Pages 1 - 25 | PADDS Errata Sheets | After Section M | Will the Government please clarify what bidders are required to do with (or as a result of) the PADDS Errata Sheets that appear after RFP Section M? | There is no requirement for the PADDS Errata Sheets. | ||||
| 76 | Section L | L-5,b),a),(2) | |||||||
| Attachment 0002 | Section L identifies the minimum and objective square foot requirements by facility type. On the "Proposal Sheet" tab of Attachment 0002, Section II requires offerors to input a cost per sq. ft. for Logistics Support Space however, facility allocations are typically handled through an Overhead allocation. | Is this square footage the same as, or in addition to the 20,000 square foot requirement for Logistics Support Operations called out in Section L? | Yes this requirement relates to the treshold requirement of 20,000 sqft. | ||||||
| 77 | Section L | L-5,b),a),(2) | |||||||
| Attachment 0002 | Section L identifies the minimum and objective square foot requirements by facility type. On the "Proposal Sheet" tab of Attachment 0002, Section II requires offerors to input a cost per sq. ft. for Logistics Support Space however, facility allocations are typically handled through an Overhead allocation. | Why is this specifically called out in the pricing template and not the other facility requirements? | The USG awards direct charge based delivery orders for the storage of Government owned equipment in order to better facilitate delivery orders and fielding actions. | ||||||
| 78 | Section L | L-5,b),a),(2) | |||||||
| Attachment 0002 | Section L identifies the minimum and objective square foot requirements by facility type. On the "Proposal Sheet" tab of Attachment 0002, Section II requires offerors to input a cost per sq. ft. for Logistics Support Space however, facility allocations are typically handled through an Overhead allocation. | Should this amount be removed from Overhead since costs would be duplicative? |
| No this is not an overhead charge. Space is an Overhead charge when it is used as a secondary function of a Delivery Order. Example - the has modications performed to an item, both CFE and GFE are required to perform the modification. The cost for space used in this part of the action is Overhead. Upon completion of the modification DCMA issues a DD250 and the USG takes possession. The USG then moves the accepted item and ships from a storage DO to units as required. This methos allows the modification DO to close in an orderly process. | |||||||||
| 79 | Section L | L-5,b),a),(2) | |||||||
| Attachment 0002 | Section L identifies the minimum and objective square foot requirements by facility type. On the "Proposal Sheet" tab of Attachment 0002, Section II requires offerors to input a cost per sq. ft. for Logistics Support Space however, facility allocations are typically handled through an Overhead allocation. | How does this factor into the Price/Cost evaluation? | As a roll upcost described in Attachment 0002 and further detailed in Sections L & M WRT the Proposal Cost aspects. | ||||||
| 80 | Section L | L-5,b),a),(2) | |||||||
| Attachment 0002 | Section L identifies the minimum and objective square foot requirements by facility type. On the "Proposal Sheet" tab of Attachment 0002, Section II requires offerors to input a cost per sq. ft. for Logistics Support Space however, facility allocations are typically handled through an Overhead allocation. | Recommend the government add facililty costs per square foot for all requirements or remove facility cost per square foot for Logistics Support Space as the description for this space includes space that is used for multiple different task with differing configuration requirements... ie Facilities used for temporary storage of aircraft carries differing requirements than facilities used to support off-wing modifications/kitting/AGSE activities | Nonconcur will remain as is. This is serving two distinct delivery order requirements. | ||||||
| 81 | Attachment 0002 | The "Proposal Sheet" of Attachment 0002, the government has provided a value of 5,979,391.26 (Section I, 2018) and 3,937,210.32 (Section III, 2018) for "Subcontract - Other." | What does this number consist of? | This is a value assigned to each offeror in order to maintain a level playing field for evaluation purposes. | |||||
| 82 | Attachment 0002 | The "Proposal Sheet" of Attachment 0002, the government has provided a value of 5,979,391.26 (Section I, 2018) and 3,937,210.32 (Section III, 2018) for "Subcontract - Other." | What if the contractor is not proposing Subcontractors or the Subcontractors proposed do not exceed the 10% threshold? | See answer to question 81. Subcontractors in this element are defined as not exceeding the 10% threshold of the entire contract. | |||||
| 83 | Sample Task 2, Attachment 0002 | The SOW for Sample Tasks 1 and 2 states the Contractor shall propose the POP. Attachment 0002, Sample Task 1 pricing begins with Contract Rate Year 2018, Sample Task 2 pricing begins with the Contract Rate Year 2022 and Sample Task 3 pricing begins with the Contract Rate Year 2019 (though the SOW for Sample Task 3 is silent on POP and specifies deliveries. | For Sample Tasks 1 and 2, should the contractor adjust the pricing tabs to match the POP? Sample Task 1 begins in 2018 and initiation of contract performance is specified as April 2019. | Corrections have been made | |||||
| 84 | Sample Task 2, Attachment 0002 | The SOW for Sample Tasks 1 and 2 states the Contractor shall propose the POP. Attachment 0002, Sample Task 1 pricing begins with Contract Rate Year 2018, Sample Task 2 pricing begins with the Contract Rate Year 2022 and Sample Task 3 pricing begins with the Contract Rate Year 2019 (though the SOW for Sample Task 3 is silent on POP and specifies deliveries. | For Sample Task 3, should the award date of LSF be the "takeoff point" for the Delivery schedule since the schedule is specified in Days after Contract Award? | Corrections have been made | |||||
| 85 | Attachment 0002 | Sample Task 3 in Attachment 0002 has a "Total Price Table" in cells B127:N142. | Appears to be inadvertently included. Please confirm. | Corrected | |||||
| 86 | Section L | Section L-5, c) | The paragraph under Volume II - Price/Cost statees, "The offerors are required to provide cost and pricing data for each of the orders." | Is this referring to the Sample Task Orders? | Yes | ||||
| 87 | Section L | Section L-5, c) | The paragraph under Volume II - Price/Cost statees, "The offerors are required to provide cost and pricing data for each of the orders." | Will the submission of Attachment 0002 satisfy this requirement? | Yes | ||||
| 88 | Section M | M-2 Factor II | Note 1 references Attachment D | Attachment D was not provided with the solicitation. | Attachment D is now Attachment 0002 | ||||
| 89 | Section M | M-2 Factor II | Note 2 references Exhibit D | Exhibit D was not provided with the solicitation. | See #88 response above. | ||||
| 90 | Attch 15 Pg 3 | STO1 3.2.9 | STO1-3.3 | Instructions state When the installations are completed the aircraft will retain the same functional capabilities except SINCGARS and Doppler Navigation are not required. | Does the aircraft require P/Y Code GPS and HAVQUICK functional capability after the upgrade? | No | |||
| 91 | Attch 16-Pg 3 | STO2 3.2.7 | Instructions state When the installations are completed the aircraft will retain the same functional capabilities except SINCGARS and Doppler Navigation are not required. | Does the aircraft require P/Y Code GPS and HAVQUICK functional capability after the upgrade? | No | ||||
| 92 | Section L | Attch 0003 | Section L reference Attachment 0003 for CAGE Code and Cognizant DCMA/ DCAA Information; however, Attachment 0003 is the DD254. There is no DCMA/DCAA Information Attachment included with the Final RFP | Please provide correct Attachment/Reference | RFP section has been updated. Form provided as Attachment 0018. | ||||
| 93 | Section A | n/a | n/a | Attch 6, L-5(d.)(2)3. Attch 9, pg 1 | Conflicting information regarding response deadline for the “Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form.” Section L (A-1.k) says assessments to be “submitted to Contracting Officer prior to date and time set for receipt of proposals.” Section L instructions in Attachment 0006 also reference the proposal due date (“e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date”). However, cover letter included with “Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form” gives two possible dates: “no later than 15 days after receipt of request or MONTH DAY, YEAR, whichever occurs first.” | We assume “MONTH DAY, YEAR” represents the proposal due date of 4 May 2018. Is that correct? Are Questionnaires due to the Government simply by the 4 May proposal due date in all cases – or does the potentially earlier “15 days after receipt of request” response deadline apply? | Section A-1.(k) has been removed. Refer to Section L for instruction. Attachment 0006 Section L instructs POC to e-mail the entire questionnaire response to the Contracting Office no later than the 15 days after receipt of request or proposal due date. In the event the POC sends Part II of the questionnaire to the offeror, it should be placed in the PP Volume III, by proposal due date. The offeror is responsible for emailing a list of all the POC's who were sent a questionnaire no later than proposal due date, as stated in Attachment 0006 . The cover letter has been revised for clarity. | ||
| 94 | Section A | n/a | n/a | Attch 6, L-5(d.)(2)3 | Conflicting information regarding to whom the offeror should send the “Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form” at each past/current contract. Section L in the Formal RFP Solicitation (A-1.k) says the Questionnaire goes to three points of contact – “mail the Past Performance Questionnaire at Attachment 0009 to all contractual, technical, and administrative points of contact for each contract.” However, Section L instructions in Attachment 0006 gives two points of contact – “e-mail the questionnaire to both the Government contracting activity and technical representative responsible for the past/current contract.” | Can you please clarify to whom the Questionnaires should be sent at each past/current contract? | A-1(k) of the solicitation has been removed. Please refer to Section L instructions. | ||
| 95 | Section A | n/a | n/a | Attch 6, L-5(d.)(2)3; L-1. Attch 9, pgs 1 & 5 | Conflicting information about identity of Contracting Officer to receive “Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form,” Section L instructions in Attachment 0006 say to e-mail the Form “to the Contracting Officer at ok.k.hyska.civ@mail.mil; usarmy.redstone.acc.mbx.acc-rsa-lsf5@mail.mil.” Section L in the Formal RFP Solicitation states (A-2.a), “the Government contractual representative for this Formal RFP is Ms. Kay Hyska, Contracting Officer.” | Who is the Contracting Officer to receive the “Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form” – Ms. Hyska or Ms. Rich? | The cover letter and all references to the Contracting Officer have been updated. The Contracting Officer is Ms. Sarah Shaffer at sarah.a.shaffer4.civ@mail.mil. | ||
| 96 | (continued). Ms. Hyska is also identified in Section L, Attachment 0006 as the Government contractual representative. However, cover letter with “Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form” is signed by “Barbara J. Rich, Contracting Officer” and the Questionnaire ends with the instructions, “Please return this completed Questionnaire via e-mail to the Contracting Officer identified in the cover letter.” | ||||||||
| 97 | n/a | n/a | Attch 6, L-5(d.)(2)3. Attch 9, pg 1 | Confusing information concerning whether “Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form” can be delivered to a Contract Specialist, as alternative to the Contracting Officer. Section L Attachment 0006 says to send Questionnaires to Contracting Officer (no mention of Contract Specialist) and there’s a second, unidentified email address (usarmy.redstone.acc.mbx.acc-rsa-lsf5@mail.mil). However, cover letter included with the “Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form” gives a Contract Specialist as an alternative recipient: “Your questionnaire may be submitted electronically to (insert Contract Specialist email address) or (insert Contracting Officer email address).” | If a Contract Specialist is an alternative recipient, please identify the Contract Specialist and his/her email address. | The Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter has been revised. | |||
| 98 | Section A | n/a | n/a | Attch 6, L-5(d.)(2)3. Attch 9, pg 1 | Confusion concerning document identifier for “Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form.” Section L instructions (A-1.k) refer to Questionnaire as “Attachment 0009”: “mail the Past Performance Questionnaire at Attachment 0009 to all contractual, technical, and administrative points of contact for each contract...” However, Section L instructions in Attachment 0006 refer to the Questionnaire as “Appendix D”: “For all contracts identified in Section 1, Contract Descriptions, a Performance Risk Assessment Questionnaire at Appendix D must be completed and submitted.” Also, the cover letter included with the Attachment 0009 Questionnaire has “APPENDIX D” at the top of the page. | Is the reference to “Appendix D” simply an administrative error and the correct document identifier is “Attachment 0009?’ | "Appendix D" has been replaced with "Attachment 0009" | ||
| 99 | n/a | n/a | Attch 9, pg 1 | The cover letter included with “Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form” Attachment 0009 has numerous pieces of placeholder text. Placeholder/missing text includes: Date … Contracting Office … Solicitation Number … Contracting Office and address … MONTH DAY, YEAR [date Questionnaire is due to USG] … Contract Specialist email address … Contracting Officer email address … Contracting Officer’s telephone number. Since this letter is coming from the Government and not from the offeror, it seems more appropriate if the Government supplied the relevant missing information in this letter, instead of relying upon offerors to accurately do so. | Would the Government please release a revised version of the cover letter, supplying the missing information, in the interest of clarity and conformity? | The cover letter has been revised. | |||
| 100 | n/a | n/a | Attch 6, L-5(d.)(2)3 | There is an unidentified email address given as a recipient of the “Past Performance Evaluation Questionnaire Form.” In Section L in Attachment 0006, in addition to the email address for the Contracting Officer, there’s a second email address: “e-mail the entire questionnaire to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date, to the Contracting Officer at ok.k.hyska.civ@mail.mil; usarmy.redstone.acc.mbx.acc-rsa-lsf5@mail.mil.” | Are the Questionnaires also to be sent to the second email address given – usarmy.redstone.acc.mbx.acc-rsa-lsf5@mail.mil? Is that a second email address for the Contracting Officer? This email address appears elsewhere as the address for submitting questions to the Government (Formal RFP Solicitation, A-1.o) and for other matters. Please clarify. | Yes, the questionnaire will be sent to the second email address. Email address: usarmy.redstone.acc.mbx.acc-rsa-lsf5@mail.mil is a group email inbox for the Contracting office. | |||
| 101 | Section L | n/a | n/a | Pg. 13 of Section L; and Past Performance Volume | States "This section shall also identify all proposed team members (i.e., partners, subcontractors, etc…- expected to perform more than 10% of the effort defined in Contract Rate Pricing Attachment 0002)." | Please confirm that any teammate included in the past performance volume must perform more than 10% of the work and the impact of their rates must be included in the contract pricing rates in order for their past performance to be considered. | Correct | ||
| 102 | 12 | 3.9 | Attch 0015 Sample Order 1; and Attch 0016 Sample Order 2 | SOW 3.9 references a quality system IAW "Q9001/Q9010" | Should this instead be IAW "9100/9110"? | Yes, Correction has been made. | |||
| 103 | n/a | n/a | Attch 0002 Pricing Labor Categories | The government requests pricing for “Instructor/Evaluation Standards Pilot”, but in the Labor Requirements matrix there is no labor category listed as such. | Will the government provide the labor category requirements for “Instructor/Evaluation Standards Pilot” ? | Deleted labor category | |||
| 104 | n/a | n/a | Exhibit A CDRLs | CDRL A004 - there is a statement in section 16, Remarks, that is concerning and prompts a question. “With each Delivery Order proposal the contractor shall list the name of each subcontractor/supplier and their associated business classification (i.e……)” In Section 3 the Subtitle is “List of Utilization of Proposed Small Business Subcontractors.” This implies that the CDRL requirements are associated only with subcontractors. When it is stated subcontractor/supplier, the word “supplier” could mean each and every vendor listed on a Bill of Materials (BOM) that is providing parts for a build to print or aircraft modification, just as an example. | Is it the USG’s intention that this CDRL A004 requirement only be applicable to true subcontractors and not individual vendors providing parts listed on a BOM? | Only Subcontractors will be required. Supplier will be removed from the CDRL. | |||
| 105 | (continued) Listing the associated business classification for each of the vendors on a BOM would be extremely burdensome and drive up the proposal cost unnecessarily. | ||||||||
| 106 | 3 | 3.2.3 | Attch 0015 Sample Order 1 | Will the USG provide the Specifications and Testing requirements for the Crashworthy Seat? | See question 31 above. | ||||
| 107 | 4 | 3.3 | Attch 0015 Sample Order 1 | Will the Government provide additional GFP in order for the contractor to meet the litter system objective of supporting 4 patients? | See question 28 above | ||||
| 108 | 4 | 3.3 | Attch 0016 Sample Order 2 | GFP lists "Two (4) each Wulfsberg FlexComm II C5000 radio systems" | Is the Government providing two (2) or four (4) Wulfsberg FlexComm II C5000 radio systems? | See question 32 above | |||
| 109 | Section L | Section L, page 15; Attch 0017 Sample Order 3; Attch 0002 Pricing Template | Attachments 0001 and 0002 of the SOW for Sample Order 3 require the offeror to propose to two distinct CLINS; however, there is no place in Attachment 0002 Proposal Pricing Template to provide pricing for multiple CLINS. Additionally, Section L intructions for the sample orders, on page 15, require the offeror to provide sufficient details for the Government to evaluate the proposed skill mix, for each CLIN, as well as "cost-reimburseable CLINs for Materials, Travel, and ODCs." How is the offeror to proceed? | Corrected | |||||
| 110 | Section H | n/a | n/a | H-19 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) | It is our understanding that in addition to AMCOM Express, some of the RDEC and PM offices covered by this clause may also receive Contract Advisory Assistance Services via GSA or other CAAS contracts. | Do the same restrictions contained in the clause with regards to AMCOM Express apply to other types of CAAS contracts such as GSA? | The basic concept of OCI WRT the LSF can be viewed in the following simple analogy. There are three basic steps that occur in government acquisition activity - Step 1 the generation of the requirement. Step 2 the fulfilment of the requirement. Step 3 the adjudication of the fulfilment. LSF Delivery Orders represent Step 2. As such an LSF contractor cannot be involoved in either Step 1 or Step 3 of a Delivery Order acquisition cycle. OCI would occur if there was even the appearance of invovlement in either Steps 1 or 3 and the offeror would have to show a mitigation plan. There are other OCIs for which there is no mitigation the example that comes to mind an LSF contractor also performing the role of Step 3 and adjucating the performance of another LSF contractor. | ||
| 111 | Section H | n/a | n/a | H-19 OCI | The clause clearly requires the LSF Prime contractor to divest themselves of their CAAS contracts with regards to the Program Offices. | Is the LSF Prime contractor required to divest itself of any RDEC work if its CAAS contract requires it to evaluate the LSF work product of its team or any of its LSF prime’s competitors? | See Question 110 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .