ATTACHMENT_0004_-_RESPONSES_TO_OFFERORS_QUESTIONS.pdf

Question 1a:

Please advise how early in advance shall we request for an appointment for personal deliveries of the proposal.

Reference 1a: RFP page 80 of clauses (k) and (l)

Response to question 1a:

Request for delivery of proposals can be made Monday through Friday between the hour of 0800 and 1600 by calling either Ms. Robinson or Mr. Jackson 24 hours in advance of the requested delivery, but not later than 1500 on 28 Mar 2019.

Reference paragraph L-10, paragraph 1.1(l) for telephone numbers.

Question 1b: Shall our representative obtain any prior clearance for personal deliveries if he/she is not a US national?

Reference 1b: RFP page 80 of clauses (k) and (l) Response to question 1b: No prior clearance is required.

Question 2a: Please define Milestone 5 “Inspection”?

Reference 2a: RFP page 53 (H-8 Performance milestone)

Response to question 2a:

USG to confirm Repair of harnesses, Overhauled/installed aggregates, and assembly of systems of the aircraft (could be an in person inspection or verification through weekly meetings and COR visits.

Question 2b: Is it an in-process inspection?

Reference 2b: RFP page 53 (H-8 Performance milestone) Response to question 2b: This could be an in person inspection "in-process" or verification through weekly meetings and COR visits.

Question 2c: What will be the scope and timeframes of this inspection?

Reference 2c: RFP page 53 (H-8 Performance milestone)

Response to question 2c:

Scope: Repair of harnesses, Overhauled/installed aggregates, and assembly of systems of the aircraft. Time frames will be dependent on IMS and prior to GATP for acceptance/delivery.

Question 2d: Does USG anticipate any impact on the work performance schedule?

Reference 2d: RFP page 53 (H-8 Performance milestone)

Response to question 2d:

The USG does not anticipate any impact on the work performance schedule at this time. The environment of Afghanistan is ever changing and proper Risk Mitigation is key to maintain schedule and performance.

Question 3:

Is it correct to assume that heavy repair assessment price shall be provided as a Firm Fixed Price? Pricing Table does not specify this CLIN as FFP however solicitation W58RGZ-19-R-0178 states that it is an FFP CLIN.

Reference 3: Attachment 3 Pricing Table Response to question 3: Pricing Table will be updated to indicate that the CLIN is a FFP.

Question 4a:

With reference to CLIN 0001AF(Storage (Flyable) (FFP) and CLIN 0001AG Storage (Non-Flyable) (FFP), is it correct to assume that USG may utilize these CLINs during the overhaul period in case it will be required and only for helicopters on which the works will be performed?

Reference 4a: Attachment 3 Pricing Table Response to question 4a: Yes

Question 4b: Or shall it be treated as a stand-alone effort?

Reference 4b: Attachment 3 Pricing Table Response to question 4b: No

Question 5:

CLIN 0001AA TT&E/Induction (FFP) overlaps with the 1st milestone of the overhaul process “Induction report”. Is our assumption correct that the cost of induction shall be excluded from the cost of overhaul 0001AB and be charged only under separate CLIN 0001AA to avoid double billing?

Reference 5: Attachment 3 Pricing Table

Response to question 5:

The provision H-8 will be updated to indicate that pricing for this milestone in covered under CLIN X001AA for each aircraft.

Question 6:

Does the overhaul price have to include the overhaul of three components (APU AI-9V, Main Gear Box VR-14, Engines TV3- 117VM) or does it have to be removed from the overhaul cost since USG will provide these components as GFE for the overhaul?

Reference 6: PWS page 14 Clause C.3.1.1 GFE

Response to question 6:

The overhaul price should NOT include the cost to overhaul the three components (APU AI-9V, Main Gear Box VR-14, Engines TV3-117VM). The overhaul price SHOULD include cost of removal and installation only.

Question 7:

Is it correct to assume that all GFE will have 0 hours time since new or last overhaul? If not, please specify the condition of components provided as GFE.

Reference 7: PWS page 14 Clause C.3.1.1 GFE Response to question 7: Yes, GFE will be zero hours with a minimum of two overhaul cycles remaining on all 3 components.

Question 8

Western (non-Russian) avionics installed on the Afghanistan Mi-8/Mi-17 helicopter fleet do not have a concept of the overhaul. Is it correct to assume that if these components require repair or replacement, these works (its costs and schedule) will be treated as over and above?

Reference 8: PWS page 17 Clause C.5.1.5 Aggregates

Response to question 8:

If the aircraft is manufactured with Western Avionics then the concept of overhaul is applicable unless the component requires replacement or cost exceeding typical overhaul pricing in which O&A should be charged. If an aircraft was modified with Western Avionics post production than it should be treated as an O&A because it does not meet the concept of overhaul.

Question 9: Is this a funded requirement?

Reference 9: N/A Response to question 9: Funding is available for the first aircraft and the others will be funded as they present themselves.

Question 10:

What are the national MAAs, if any, that are recognized by the U.S. Army Airworthiness Authority that are relevant to this Request for Proposals?

Reference 10: PWS C.1.2.3 Comments to Q10: Offeror is not aware of any Russian MAAs recognized by U.S. Army AED.

Response to Question 10: At this time a MAA List is not releasable. Provide the MAA in which the company is proposing to adhere to PWS C.1.2.3.

Question 11: What is the maximum time between contract award, delivery of aircraft to overhaul facility, and start of induction?

Reference 11: N/A

Comments to Q11: Offeror needs this information to be prepared for induction on the required date. RFP and PWS do not provide this date.

Response to Question 11:

Aircraft will arrive within 30 days of Contract Award, once DD Form 1149 is signed the Induction (30 days) starts, as stated in Section M(F)(1)b.

Question 12:

Are there any non-Russian components, such as the ballistic protection system, not mentioned in PWS Attachment 3 or PWS Attachment 4 that the contractor shall be responsible for repair?

Reference 12: PWS C.5.1.5 Comments to Q12: Offeror needs to be prepared to repair all equipment required by the USG.

Response to Question 12: No

Question 13: What are the procedures for obtaining an End User Certificate”?

Reference 13: PWS C.5.9.5 Comments to Q13: Offeror needs to fully understand the procedures the USG expects the Offeror to perform regarding EUCs.

Response to Question 13: The Contractor must identify all items that need EUCs and the format required by the reciving country and/or company.

Question 14: Is the mention of Attachment 6 a typo in the text here? Should the text be mentioning Attachment 7?

Reference 14: PWS C.5.9.7 Response to Question 14: Yes, it is a typo and the PWS has been updated to reflect Attachment 7.

Question 15:

Milestone 5 Inspection is not defined nor is it mentioned in any attachments. Request the concept and scope of this inspection to be defined so the contractor can incorporate it correctly into overhaul schedule.

Reference 15: RFP-W58RGZ-19-R-178, H-8 Comments to Q15: Offeror needs to understand the USG's expectaion for this inspection.

Response to Question 15: Refer to Question 2 (a/b)

Question 16:

These 2 paragraphs appear to contradict each other. Will each aircraft to be overhauled be delivered by the USG to the Contractor's overhaul facility, or will the Contractor be responsible for retrieving the aircraft to be overhauled from a location specified by the USG?

Reference 16: PWS C.5.9.1 and PWS C.5.9.6 Comments to Q16: Offeror needs clarification of the party responsible for transporting the aircraft to the induction location.

Response to Question 16:

The government will provide the aircraft at HKIA. The last sentence in PWS paragraph C.5.9.1, to wit: "Transportation and associated costs shall be the Contractor's responsibility" has been removed.

Question 17:

These 2 items appear not to be consistent. If required (for instance in support of a heavily damaged aircraft requiring a Heavy Repair assessment) by the COR for Contractor personnel to travel to a location other than Kabul/HKIA, will MILAIR be authorized and provided?

Reference 17: RFP-W58RGZ-19-R-178, H-1 Comments to Q17: Offeror needs clarification whether MILAIR is available or not.

Response to Question 17: No, the government will provide the aircraft at HKIA.

Question 18:

Which AAF models/variants Mi 8 and which AAF models/variants Mi 17 this RFP specifically pertains to (as the quantity 1+9 aircraft is specified the model/variant should be also planned clearly)?

Reference 18: N/A

Comments to Q18:

AAF regular and SMW fleets' inventories currently should include Mi 8 MTV-1, Mi 17 1V and Mi 17 V5 models/variants only.

Response to Question 18: Please refer to Section L-10, 2 (i), Section 3 (a). Mi-8MTV-1, Mi-17-1V, Mi-17-V5 and Mi-171

Question 19: Is this RFP targeting actually the establishment of a Mi 8/17 MRO service station in Afghanistan?

Reference 19: N/A

Comments to Q19:

Heavy Repair and especially Overhaul as well as Service Life Extension as per generally accepted international aviation safety standards typically require not only TCH support but also TCH approval.

Although there are outside the Russian Federation around the globe several MIL (MMHP)MRO approved service stations for Mi 8 MTV-1 and Mi 17 1V models/variants there is none whatsoever for the Mi 17 V5 model/variant and MIL (MMHP in the past has been very clear towards USG/NATO concerning what would have to be done in order to acquire AAF Mi 17 V5 WLSS- D MIL (MMHP) approval licensing.

The Russian Federation Government so far has been also clear that it so far does not approve any WLSS-D technology transfer to Afghanistan.

Response to Question 19: The intent of this contract is at a minimum to overhaul the airframe at a facility on HKIA as referenced in PWS C.1.6.

Question 20a: Is there a typo in the instructions on the Attachment 3 Pricing Table?

Reference 20a: Attachment 3 - Pricing Table Comments to Q20a: The instructions currently call for “three overhauls in Ordering Period 1.”

Response to Question 20a: Pricing table has been updated. See the revised Pricing Table.

Question 20b: Should that be three overhauls in Ordering Period 2?

Reference 20b: Attachment 3 - Pricing Table Response to Question 20b: Pricing table has been updated. See the revised Pricing Table.

Question 21a: Is the plug number of $750,000 for the “Over and Above” CLIN for the entire contract or for each ordering period?

Reference 21a: N/A

Response to Question 21a:

See revised Pricing table. For purpose of establishing the total contract value the $1,150,000 will be include for each aircraft for "Over and Above" work.

Question 21b: If it is for the entire period, how do we allocate it on the pricing table?

Reference 21b: N/A

Response to Question 21b:

See revised Pricing table. For purpose of establishing the total contract value the $1,150,000 will be include for each aircraft for "Over and Above" work.

Question 22:

Should we add the CLIN pricing to Section B of the Solicitation and include that section in our Price Proposal or is the Attachment 3 Pricing Table sufficient?

Reference 22: N/A Response to Question 22: No. Pricing in the Pricing table is sufficient.

Question 23a:

If endorsement is not granted prior to award due to no fault of contractor submissions, would the submission be disqualified?

Reference 23a: PWS C.1.2

Comments to Q23a:

C.1.2 Project Airworthiness Assurance, C.1.2.1. and C.1.2.2. states a current FSMTC endorsement stating that the contractor is authorized to enter into an international agreement with the United States (US) to OVHL and conduct heavy repairs of Mi- 8/Mi-17 (all civilian/military variants) helicopters owned by the US Department of Defense (DoD) and/or Ministry of Defense (MOD) for the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) is required prior to contract award.

Response to Question 23a: The endorsement is required prior to contract award as stated in PWS C.1.2.1

Question 23b: If awardee is not granted an endorsement, would the USG cancel award and recompete?

Reference 23b: Same as 23a Response to Question 23b: The endorsement is required prior to contract award as stated in PWS C.1.2.1

Question 24: Will the USG aid awardee to obtain, hold and maintain MMHP certificate for all civil/military variants of Mi-8/Mi-17?

Reference 24: N/A Response to Question 24: No

Question 25: Does the KO anticipate any change in scope to the initial RFQ and SOW prior to the due date for proposal submission?

Reference 25: N/A Response to Question 25: No additional changes are anticipated.

Question 26:

Will the USG assume physical security for contractor’s facility in Kabul when USG personnel are physically present at the contractor’s facility?

Reference 26: N/A

Response to Question 26: Based on PWS/ Section L&M the facility will be at HKIA, and therefore will fall within the perimeter of Base Security.

Question 27:

Will the USG assume physical security for contractor’s facility in Kabul when contractors are physically present at the contractor’s facility?

Reference 27: N/A Response to Question 27: Repeat question, see Question 26

Question 28: Should the pricing for each CLIN/Sub-Clin in the proposal be based on total aircraft?

Reference 28: N/A

Response to Question 28:

Pricing for a CLIN should be based on performing the function of that CLIN as outline in the PWS and the pricing table for one aircraft.

Question 29: Should the pricing for each CLIN/Sub-Clin in the proposal be based on systems/components?

Reference 29: N/A

Response to Question 29:

Pricing for a CLIN should be based on performing the function of that CLIN as outline in the PWS and the pricing table for one aircraft.

Question 30: Are specific MASPO representatives designated as COR or COTRs with a warrant to amend the CLIN’s or SOW?

Reference 30: N/A Response to Question 30: Only the Contracting Officer will be able to modify the CLIN or PWS.

Question 31: Will flight tests performed by/with contractor personnel require GFR approval?

Reference 31: N/A Response to Question 31: GFR Clause is incorporated, flights will require GFR approval.

Sheet1