Attachment_0019_-_Formal_RFP_Q&A's_Govt._Responses_.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 56 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W58RGZ-16-R-0070
About this file
This pre-solicitation synopsis notice announces an upcoming request for proposal for logistics support facility management activity requirements, including modifications to aviation systems owned by the Program Executive Office Aviation of the Army Materiel Command. The North American Industry Classification System code for this acquisition is 336411. The Army Contracting Command-Redstone Arsenal will award multiple indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts on a 100% small business set-aside basis to provide modifications and support. Interested parties must submit any questions on the draft RFP or attachments by August 11, 2017 to the specified email address to allow responses prior to formal RFP release. The government does not intend to use FAR Part 12 for this acquisition.
Formal RFP Questions & Answers 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 | Additional Offeror Questions to the Government Response (Multiple Questions) | Government Response to Additional Questions |
| 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. | Discussion: It appears that the number of man-years to be used for the Flight Instructor/Flight Examiner on the Proposal Sheet tab changed from the original RFP to Amendment 1. The man-years for the Flight Instructor/Flight Examiner did not change on the two Prime Base Labor Tabs (1a and 2a). This causes a large discrepancy when trying to reconcile the Proposal Sheet with Contract Price Summary. Question: Was this change intentional or merely an error? If it was an error, will the Government issue a revised Attachment 0002 or should the offeror simply correct the Proposal Sheet tab to reflect the correct man-years for the Flight Instructor/Flight Examiner? | Instructor/Evaluation Standards Pilot was deleted from the FFP portion of the Proposal Sheet; however, the position was not deleted in the CPFF portion (see row 186). Will the Government also amend Attachment 002 to remove the Instructor/Evaluation Standards Pilot from the CPFF portion? | Corrections made | |||
| 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. | The revised Section L-3 states, "The use of hyperlinks in proposals is permitted." Per question 14, this statement appears to be intended to allow for active Tables of Contents within a proposal. Are hyperlinks to external sites (e.g., websites, online audio or videos, software demos, etc.) also permitted in proposals? | External hyperlinks are not permitted | |||
| 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 | Discussion: We understand that the font style Arial Narrow, while under the Arial family, is not to be used as a written text style throughout the document. However, this leads to a follow up question regarding graphics text. While the font size in a graphic can be controlled through shrinking or enlarging to meet the 8pt graphic font requirement, often we do not have control over the font style used in a graphic. This is especially true when the graphics consist of screenshots as examples or are exported out of programs where font is not changeable. |
| Question: Is the font style for graphics restricted to the base Times New Roman and Arial font faces or are other font styles allowed for graphics, including Arial Narrow, provided they follow the font size restriction? | The USG accepts fonts on non-manipulatable imported graphics as they are what they are; however all other manipulatable tables and graphics will use either Arial or TNR | ||||||||||
| 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. | Housekeeping issue. SO 1 Para 3.2 Technical Requirements subparagraph 3.2.5 is mis-numbered as 2.3.5. | Corrected | |||||
| 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. | Would the USG please confirm whether IFF is a requirement for this effort?” The Government answer was “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.” Our question is, Is Mode 5 a requirement of the IFF on SO 1? | IFF Mode 5 is required. | |||||
| 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. | Question 28 indicated the SOW would be changed to reflect threshold design is one PHS/A/C. Objective design is two PHS/a/c. 3.2.2 . Please provide an update to the question or update to the SOW. | On ST 1 SOW pg 3 and 4, which requirement for the patient handling litter system is correct - 3.2.2 (thresholds 2, objective 4) or 3.2.9 (thresholds 1, objective 2)? | Corrected | ||||
| 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 | 2) In reference to question 31, the question was “Would the Government please identify any specific criteria associated with the seats that will aide the contractor in selection of a specific crashworthy seat?” The Government answer was “TS) 127B or better” if the seat proposed meets a Mil-Std that meets or exceeds TSO C127b would that be acceptable? | The requirement is meets or exceeds TSO-C127b. | |||
| 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. | The Government states that offerors shall propose additional items of GFE, however the SOWs for Sample Order 1 and 2 do not state that offerors may propose additional GFE items. To ensure the Government's answer is accounted for in evaluation, we request the Government include a bullet to Section 3.3 of the Sample Order 1 and 2 SOWs that authorizes additional items of GFE proposed by the offeror. | SOW updated to state " Offeror may propose alternative 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. | The SOW for Sample Order 1 has a Start Date of Dec 2018 yet Section A to the RFP has a contract Award Date of March 2019. Since the Sample Order start date is prior to the MAIDIQ contract award, should the Sample Order start date be changed to synchronize with the Contract Start date of Mar 2019? | The USG reserves the right to award the contract early if possible; as such, the start dates are correct as provided. |
| 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. | Please reference Q#149 which seems to conflict with this Gov't response. Are questionnaires to be submitted with the proposal? In addition, how should bidders & POCs electronically complete Parts I & II assuming the digitally signed PDF cannot be manipulated? Will the Government allow bidders to convert the PDF to MSWord and send to our POCs for completion? | Questionnaires are to be submitted with the proposal in the event the POC sends the questionnaire back to the offeror. However, instructions for the POC are to submit the questionnaire to the Government. A hand signed version of the attachment will be provided. |
| 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. | A CDRL Listing for Sample Order 3 is missing from Solicitation Documents, similar to those provided for Sample Order 1 &2. Furthermore, there are several items which are generally considered CDRLs (e.g. PAC meeting minutes, PAC briefing, Change requests and obsolesce of TDP parts, and the Corrosion Control Plan). 1) In order to properly respond to these items, will the Government please provide the missing CDRLs for Sample Order #3? 2) Will the Government please update Sample Order 1&2 CDRL File to included the missing DD Form 1423-1 for a Corrosion Prevention Control Plan? | No update will be made. CDRLs are not required for this evaluation. | |||
| 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 | 1) In reference to question 90, the question was “Does the aircraft require P/Y Code GPS and HAVQUICK functional capability after the upgrade?” The Government answer was “No”, however the SOW was not updated to include HAVQUICK as a function that does not have to be retained. Please confirm HAVQUICK functionality is not required to be retained. | HAVEQUICK not required. SOW updated. | ||||
| 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. | Discussion: The Government response states that "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." Question: In the unlikely event that one or more of the 4-page questionnaires are returned to the offeror and must be included in Volume III, would the questionnaire(s) count against our 25-page limit for Volume III? If so, this could involve very major and disruptive last-minute revisions to Volume III. | The questionnaires do not count against the page count limit. | |||
| 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. |
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 .