Attachment 0029 GOVT RESPONSE TO INDUSTRY QUESTIONS-AFM III EAST AND WEST.pdf

Question # Question Government's Response

1 When can offerors expect the final RFP?

Please regularly check SAM.gov for any applicable opportunities that may be of interest.

2 Will the Government release another draft before the final RFP? No.

3 How many days will Offerors have to prepare responses before they are due? Please refer to Formal RFP for proposal turnaround times.

Can the Government provide instructions on how to price non-productive time such as cyclic inventories, FOD walks, etc.?

No (examples are considered billable hours under the contract requirements).

Can the USG conduct two separate phases to save time, money and resources.

For example: Phase 1 Entry Gate July; Phase 2 Tech/PP Sep No.

6 How many NMP component line items are in the program? None at this time. Is a historical/future capability.

7 Is there any special certification required for the NMP program for technicians? No. See Attachment 0007 Qualifications and Job Descriptions.

8 If yes to Question #7, are the certifications in the job descriptions provided with the RFP? N/A.

9 Are there any special certifications required to run FEDS or APU test stands? See Attachment 0007 Qualifications and Job Descriptions.

10 Will oral presentations be used for this solicitation requirement? Please refer to Formal RFP.

11 What tool control software is used for each site and is it used world-wide?

See Attachment 0001 Performance Work Statement and

Attachment 0005 Government ERP-MRP Hyperlinks and Email

Addresses.

Since it seems the primary reason for OCONUS Entry Gate Criteria requirement is to ensure the contractor has experience managing and deploying contractors

OCONUS, would the USG consider modifying the Entry Gate Criteria for OCONUS work to allow contractors with any type of OCONUS contract management experience?

No.

13 Are all the tools Government provided? Is the Contractor responsible to provide any tools? No. Yes. See Attachment 0001 Performance Work Statement.

14 Does the Government oversee the scheduled maintenance of all the specialty equipment? Are any of the repair costs on the Contractor? No. No. See Attachment 0001 Performance Work Statement.

15 To increase the competitive landscape, would the Government revise the gate criteria to permit rotary-wing contracts outside of the DOW? See revised entry gate criteria.

16 Will the Pre-Conference slide deck be provided to those who were in attendance and/or posted to SAM? No.

17 Based on the updates SAMs notice this effort reflects NAICS code 488190 with a size standard of $40 Million, is this correct? Yes.

18 Is there an estimated time when the PWS will be provided?

Draft PWS was provided with the Draft RFP; please refer to Formal

RFP for updated version.

W58RGZ-26-R-0008

Attachment 0029 Government's Reponse to Industry Questions (Site Visit)

(AFM-East & West)

Question # RFP Area PWS Page

Reference PWS Paragraph Reference Additional Cross Reference Discussion Question Government's Response

1 Section J Attachment 0012 The QASP includes several Attachments (i.e., Attachment 15.1 - 15.5), but these appear to be links that are not accessible.

Can the Government please provide Attachments 15.1 - 15.5?

Sample forms are included in the updated QASP template, Attachment

0012.

2 Section L 19-21 L.3.3.4.5(j)-(k) Section B x013/x023; Section

H H-1(c),(f) Housing CLIN pricing basis / burden

Please confirm if the government intends to provide plugged values for evaluation purposes for the CNF Housing Allowance CLINS (T&M x013 series and Contingency x023 series).

If so, please update Attachments 17 and 18 accordingly.

Confirmed. The values for all Cost No Fee CLINs will be included in the final

RFP.

3 Section L 19-21 L.3.3.4.5(j)-(k) Section B x010/x020 labor;

x013/x023 housing Avoid COLA/LQA overlap

Please confirm that the Government intends offerors to include COLA and other non-LQA OCONUS differentials/allowances in the T&M and CPFF labor CLINs, while proposing only Living Quarter Allowance (LQA) in the

CNF Housing Allowance CLINs.

If so, please confirm whether the Government will evaluate those elements as proposed, or apply any normalization/limitation intended to avoid overlap between COLA and LQA.

Confirmed. All differentials/allowances with the exception of the CNF

Housing Allowance shall be included in the T&M and CPFF labor CLINs.

4 Section L 27-28 L.3.3.4.5(l) Section H H-1(b),(e) CNF plugs / burden treatment

Please confirm whether the Government will provide evaluation/plug values for the CNF Material/Non-Material and Travel CLIN families

(x011/x021 and x012/x022, respectively).

If so, please confirm whether those values will be included in Attachments

0017/0018 or provided separately, and whether those values are inclusive of any applicable indirect/burden.

Confirmed. The values for all Cost No Fee CLINs will be included in the final

RFP.

5 Section B 130-136

2011AA/2012AA/2013AA;

2021AA/2022AA/2023AA

Section L 27-28 Residual non-labor cost placement

Please identify the Government's intended CLIN family for the cost elements outside the CNF Material/Non-Material, Travel, and Housing CLIN families, including but not limited to consumable materials, training certifications, country-specific sponsorship fees, customs/clearance fees, import/export fees, local registration fees, or other employer/employee-related OCONUS costs not expressly listed in Section B.

Mission related Consumables - purchased through the US supply system if available, otherwise MAT/Non-MAT; Training Certifications - NET is handled through the MAT/Non-MAT IAW PWS and Section B, otherwise is a requirement/qualification for employment and cost of the employing

Contractor. Passports/Visas/Other documents required to enter/exit a specific OCONUS location is reimbursable through Mat/Non-MAT as specificed in Section B; and any other employer/employee related

OCONUS costs not expressly listed in Section B are not individually reimbursed.

6 Section B 131-136

2012AA/2013AA;

2022AA/2023AA

Section H H-5; L.3.1.1

Scenarios TDY lodging vs. LQA assumption

Please provide the proposal assumption offerors should use to distinguish costs that belong in the CNF Travel CLINs (airfare, rental car, lodging, and subsistence) from costs that belong in the CNF Housing Allowance CLINs

(LQA), including how to treat short-term TDY deployments, rotational assignments, billeting/messing provided by the Government or host nation, vs. longer-term stationed personnel. Please clarify CLINs and/or sites for which TDY applies or does not apply in the bid.

For the Technical Scenario section cost is not evaluated, see L.3.1.1.i.

Only the application/considerations of the CMP, and specifics such as team, man-hour estimation, to support scenario - no actual cost data should be included. In additon,offerors should state proposal assumptions utilized.

7 Section L attachmen t 25 wage determinat ion attachment 25 wage determination

Please confirm when the Government intends to release unredacted CBAs to all Offerors.

Please refer to updated Attachments.

W58RGZ-26-R-0008

Attachment 0029 Government's Response to Industry Questions

(AFM-East & West)

Reference PWS Paragraph Reference Additional Cross Reference Discussion Question Government's Response

8 11 PWS 2.8 2.8.5

The Performance Work Statement (PWS) requires the contractor to implement an On-the-Job Training (OJT) program to support cross-training efforts, with the provision that this training will be provided "at no additional cost to the government." since it's not listed in 2.8 as an allowable training expense. This raises a concern because the program can have employees to participate in OJT for several months and multiple employees may be in the program simultaneously. During this time, these employees may be performing what would normally be a billable labor tasks as part of their over the shoulder training. Clarification is needed to determine if the government intended for such labor hours to be non-billable under the contract.

In PWS Section 2.8, On-the-Job Training (OJT) (2.8.5) is stated as being provided at no additional cost to the customer.

Does this imply that the labor hours of employees performing "over-the-shoulder" maintenance during OJT will not be billable to the government?

No. Any hours spent performing logistics or maintenance tasks and normally considered billable labor are billable to the government.

9 11 PWS 2.8 2.8.5

The Performance Work Statement (PWS) requires the contractor to implement an On-the-Job Training (OJT) program to support cross-training efforts, with the provision that this training will be provided "at no additional cost to the government." since it's not listed in 2.8 as an allowable training expense. This raises a concern because the program can have employees to participate in OJT for several months and multiple employees may be in the program simultaneously. During this time, these employees may be performing what would normally be a billable labor tasks as part of their over the shoulder training. Clarification is needed to determine if the government intended for such labor hours to be non-billable under the contract.

In PWS Section 2.8, On-the-Job Training (OJT) (2.8.5) is stated as being provided at no additional cost to the customer.

Is it the Government's intent that the labor hours of employees performing

"over-the-shoulder" maintenance during OJT will not be billable to the government?

See response to question 8.

10 Section L

Attachmen t 0017

Tabs 5, 6a

L.3.3.4.5(k)

Tab 5 CPFF Labor Hours

(Iraq/Kuwait); Tab 6a CPFF

Direct Labor Mapping

Single direct labor rate across Iraq/Kuwait

Please confirm that Attachment 0017 Tabs 5 and 6a are intended to require a single weighted direct labor base rate for each CPFF labor category across both Iraq and Kuwait.

If so, please explain the rationale for how this rate should be proposed or consolidated (e.g. hours by location).

If not, please revise the Attachments (17 and 18) to allow location-specific price build-ups.

Tab 5 provides the RFP directed labor hours for each location to be allocated across the offerors proposed team. A single weighted direct labor base rate for both Iraq and Kuwait is not required. Offerors may adjust

Tabs 6a.-6e. to accomodate the proposed cost structure to include adding additional rows and/or tabs as required. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all calculations in each TAB are accurate and reflective of the offeror's proposed price.

11 Section L Att. 0018

Tabs 5, 6a L.3.3.4.5(k)

Tab 5 CPFF Labor Hours

(Korea); Tab 6a CPFF Direct

Labor Mapping

Korea-only CPFF direct labor basis

Please confirm whether Attachment 0018 Tabs 5 and 6a are intended to require a single weighted direct labor base rate for each CPFF labor category because Korea is the only location shown on the West CPFF Labor

Hours tab.

If additional West CPFF locations are expected, please revise the template to permit location-specific direct labor rates.

For proposal estimating purposes, the Offeror shall assume that the entire

CPFF term Contingency Ops effort for the AFM West Region will occur in

Korea.

Reference PWS Paragraph Reference Additional Cross Reference Discussion Question Government's Response

12 Section J

PWS 2.6.5-

2.6.6 Basic Schedule Information

Att. 0017 Tabs 1, 5; East

OCONUS locations OCONUS workweek assumptions

Please provide the Government's intended standard workweek and productive-hours assumption for each OCONUS location bidders are expected to price under the T&M and CPFF CLINs, including Iraq, Kuwait, and all other East OCONUS locations.

Refer to Attachment 0001, paragraphs 2.6.5. & 2.6.6.

Assume: Full time Equivalent (FTE) man-year to be 1912 hrs for all locations except for contingency locations and Kuwait FMS. All Local Labor Laws apply.

* Iraq contingency estimated with 44 hr over-time (OT) for a total of 84 hr weekly or 4368 hr man-year (no holidays figured in).

* Kuwait Contingency has local laws that effect labor….assume work 6 days a week with a day of paid rest. Work hours are figured at 12 hr days 6 days a week, no holidays, for a 3744 man-year.

* Kuwait FMS has a 24 hr requirement so assume shift work, two 12 hour shifts. Same 3744 man-year in calculations although the FMS team takes holidays and vacation time.

13 Section J

PWS 2.6.5-

2.6.6 Basic Schedule Information

Att. 0018 Tabs 1, 5; West

OCONUS locations OCONUS workweek assumptions

Please provide the Government's intended standard workweek and productive-hours assumption for each OCONUS location bidders are expected to price under the T&M and CPFF CLINs, including Korea and all other West OCONUS locations.

Refer to Attachment 0001, paragraphs 2.6.5. & 2.6.6.

Assume: Full time Equivalent (FTE) man-year to be 1912 hrs for all locations but for contingency locations. All Local Labor Laws apply.

14 Section J

Att. 0004 /

East

Scenarios

Housing/billeting assumptions

Section B x013/x023 housing

CLINs; East OCONUS locations

Government/host housing by location

Please identify which East OCONUS locations, if any, will have Government-or host-nation-provided housing, billeting, and/or meals, and which locations should be priced assuming contractor-provided housing/LQA.

Information is in Scenario.

SPOT orders for particular locations will specify billeting and meals.

Currently, Kuwait Contingency, FMS and Iraq authorize Housing & Meals.

15 Section J

Att. 0004 /

West

Scenarios

Housing/billeting assumptions

Section B x013/x023 housing

CLINs; West OCONUS locations

Government/host housing by location

Please identify which West OCONUS locations, if any, will have

Government- or host-nation-provided housing, billeting, and/or meals, and which locations should be priced assuming contractor-provided housing/LQA.

Information is in Scenario.

SPOT orders for particular locations will specify billeting and meals.

Currently, no West locations are authorize Housing & Meals.

16 Section L Att. 0017

Tabs 5, 6c L.3.3.4.5(k)

Tab 5 CPFF Labor Hours

(Iraq/Kuwait); Tab 6c Indirect

Rates & Fixed Fee

Single indirect structure across Iraq/Kuwait

Please confirm whether Attachment 0017 Tabs 5 and 6c are intended to require a single indirect/fringe structure across both Iraq and Kuwait for the East CPFF CLIN. If not, please revise the template or confirm that offerors may apply location-specific indirects/fringe within the model without breaking the required format.

Tab 5 provides the RFP directed labor hours for each location to be allocated across the offerors proposed team. A single indirect rate structure for both Iraq and Kuwait is not required. Offerors may adjust

Tabs 6a.-6e. to accomodate the proposed cost structure to include adding additional rows and/or tabs as required. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all calculations in each TAB are accurate and reflective of the offeror's proposed price.

17 Section L Att. 0018

Tabs 5, 6c L.3.3.4.5(k)

Tab 5 CPFF Labor Hours

(Korea); Tab 6c Indirect Rates

& Fixed Fee

Korea-specific CPFF indirect structure

Please confirm whether Attachment 0018 Tab 6c is intended to represent the Korea-specific indirect/fringe structure for the West CPFF CLIN. If additional West CPFF locations may be ordered, please explain how offerors should accommodate any location-specific indirect/fringe differences within the required template.

Tab 5 provides the RFP directed labor hours for each location to be allocated across the offerors proposed team. Offerors may adjust Tabs 6a.-

6e. to accomodate the proposed cost structure to include adding additional rows and/or tabs as required. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all calculations in each TAB are accurate and reflective of the offeror's proposed price.

For proposal estimating purposes, the Offeror shall assume that the entire

CPFF term Contingency Ops effort for the AFM West Region will occur in

Korea.

Reference PWS Paragraph Reference Additional Cross Reference Discussion Question Government's Response

18 Section L

Att. 0018

Tabs 5, 6d, 6e

L.3.3.4.5(k)

Tab 5 Korea; Tab 6d CPFF

Estimate Detail; Tab 6e CPFF

FBLRs

Single Korea-based CPFF loaded rates

Please confirm whether the West CPFF CLIN is intended to be priced using a single Korea-based set of loaded hourly rates for each labor category. If additional West CPFF locations may be ordered, please explain how offerors should account for location-specific differences in labor law, holidays, workweeks, fringe, and other cost drivers. If not, please revise the template to permit location-specific loaded rates.

Tab 5 provides the RFP directed labor hours for each location to be allocated across the offerors proposed team. A single direct labor base rate for Korea is required (Korea is considered one location). Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all calculations in each TAB are accurate and reflective of the offeror's proposed price.

For proposal purposes, the Offeror shall assume that the entire CPFF term

Contingency Ops effort for the AFM West Region will occur in Korea. Tab

6e requires individual fully burdened "loaded" labor rates for each contract labor category proposed by the prime and any subcontractor's supporting the CPFF CLINs. Tabs 6a-6d require specific cost element detail (base labor, indirect cost, subcontractor costs, fixed fee) used to estimate the total proposed price for each CPFF CLIN.

19 Section M Att. 20 Section M, Pg 1 Section M and SF 33 A3 Single offeror awarded both region contracts

Section M and SF 33 A3 have contradicting statements. The SF 33 A-3 states, " A contractor may not be awarded contracts for both regions", and

Section M states, "If one offeror is determined to be the best value in both regions, that offeror may be awarded contracts for both regions". Please clarify which is correct.

SAM.gov announcement was updated 6 April revising SF 33 Narrative A-

3)b) to read as follows: "Two separate contracts will be awarded, one contract for each region, AFM III West and AFM III East."

20 Section M Att. 20 Section M pg 5, 7, 8, 11 Section M tables 2, 3, 4, 5 Evaluation Rating Criteria

All tables within section M have the rating criteria redacted. Please advise when the Govt will release that information so contractors can plan accordingly

The Government will not provide unredacted rating tables in Section M.

21 Section M Att. 20 Section M pg 1 Section M table 1 Evaluation Factors

The Evaluation Factors/Order of Importance table on page 1 indicates that

"Cost Price factor is more important than Past Performance factor", but goes on to say "The non-cost/price factors are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor". This comes across as a contradiction, recommending that table 1 show past performance as the second most important factor in order to align with the fourth statement in table 1 and removes the contradiction.

The non-Cost/Price factors combined are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. Question left out the word combined. Table is correct.

Reference PWS Paragraph Reference Additional Cross Reference Discussion Question Government's Response

22 Section M Att. 20 Section M Section M Entry Gate Criteria

DFRP Documentation refers to “Army Aviation Field/Sustainment Level

Maintenance,” and elsewhere references “rotary wing” aviation.

Recommending the Government consider adjusting the verbiage to reflect

Army Aviation Rotary Wing Field/Sustainment Level Maintenance throughout the documents and within the Entry Criteria for standardization across all documents.

No.

23 Exhibit A DD From 1423 CDRL DD Form 1423 CDRL Electronic Format for CDRLs

Exhibit A - DD From 1423 CDRL states that all data will be delivered in

Microsoft Office 365 format, “version 2024 or later”, and via email, but there may be government systems (e.g., PIEE WAWF, SPM, etc.) required for actual submission.

Please clarify whether all CDRL/data deliverables must be delivered exclusively via e-mail in MS365 format, or if submission through

Government systems (e.g. PIEE, WAWF, SPM) is also required.

Yes. Some may have a requirement to input the data into a particular government system (Attachment 0006 & Attachment 0005), But ALL CDRLs, must be delivered in Mircosoft Office 365 format via email as an overarching requirement.

24 PWS 4.3 PWS 4.3 Conflict Resolution Process When Regulations Differ

In the event of conflicting requirements among Federal, State, Local, Army, and Contract environmental instructions, what is the Government’s prescribed dispute resolution/decision authority? Is the resolution documented in writing, and does it relieve the contractor of liability if followed in good faith?

The Contracting Officer (KO) is the Government's prescribed dispute resolution authority for contracts.

25 QASP QASP

The Contractor Performance Metrics documentation states an acceptable pass will be 90% or higher unless otherwise defined, but the QASP does not explicitly confirm this standard for all PWS elements.

Is a 90% pass/fail standard the default acceptable quality level for all contract performance measurement and reporting unless otherwise specified for a particular metric? If not, please provide a controlling reference for setting quality acceptance thresholds across all monitored activities.

No. Re-read Attachment 0008 Metrics & Attachment 0012 QASP. Only one metric states "a pass will be 90% or higher"…..not ALL monitored activities/PWS elements.

26 Section I 265 I-156

DRAFT RFP Clause Section I

252.228-7001GROUND AND

FLIGHT RISK (Mar 2023) on Page 265, AR 95-20

Section 9.4.3, and DFARS

228.370-2(c) Foreign military sales.

Applicability of 252.228-7001GROUND AND FLIGHT RISK (Mar 2023) at FMS

Locations

It is our understanding that, if the FMS customer has accepted the standard Letter of Offer and Acceptance Standard Terms and Conditions, as described in DoD 5105.38-M, Security Assistance Management Manual, they have assumed risk of loss.

Can the Government identify the FMS Locations where Foreign Customers have agreed to assume the risk for loss or destruction of, or damages to aircraft relative to the anticipated Non-U.S. Performance Locations?

The GFRC applies to this U.S. Army Contract as we operate under U.S Army rules and regulations to include the FMS that operate under an Army

Airworthiness Release.

Contractor is still potentially liable for any GFRC claims if found at fault.

27 CBA CBA Collectively-Bargained Agreements (CBA)

It appears CBA data must be resubmitted annually per CDRL and remarks, but the process and its impact on pricing updates is not described. If changes in CBA terms (wages, benefits) require annual re-submission, may contractors submit updated pricing reflective of new CBA costs/benefits, or is this limited to administrative documentation only? Please clarify the CBA update process regarding cost proposals and contract price adjustments.

Please provide CDRL Data Item No that contains this data.

28 Section A 2 A-1 h.

...A wage determination(s) is provided at Section J, Attachment 0025 along with Collective Bargaining Agreements (Joint Base Lewis McChord, Fort

Irwin, Fort Carson and Holloman AFB).

There are several sites missing that are included in Attachment 0025 (i.e.

Wheeler AAF Hawaii and Yakima Training Center).

Is this intended to be a full list of the applicable CBAs?

Narrative A-1 h. revised. Please refer to updated RFP incorporating

Attachment 0028

29 Section L Page 6 L.3.1.i.a RFP Attachment 0007 Section L.3.1.i.a requires identification of “critical positions,” but this term is undefined in Attachment 0007.

Will the Government provide a definitive list of "critical positions," or are

Offerors expected to define such roles in the Comprehensive Management

Plan (CMP)?

Organizational Diagrams should be all inclusive. If there are other positions that the contractor feels are "critical positions" to the execution of the mission, Offerors may define those roles.

30 Section L Page 17 L.3.3.1 RFP Attachment 0017 Section L allows cost narratives in PDFs, but Excel is mandated for pricing data. This creates format inconsistencies for Offerors.

Can the cost/pricing narrative include cost tables in PDF format, or must all financial data, including tables, be exclusively submitted in Excel?

Please refer to Section Attachment 0019, L.3.3.1 for Cost/Price Submission instructions.

Reference PWS Paragraph Reference Additional Cross Reference Discussion Question Government's Response

31 Section K 354 K-12

252.204-7007 ALTERNATE A, ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND

CERTIFICATIONS (OCT 2025) OCT/2025

Substitute the following paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) for paragraphs (b) and

(d) of the provision at FAR 52.204-8:

Did the Government intentionally omit the FAR Clause 52.204-8, Annual

Representations and Certifications (Mar 2026) by either reference or full text?

All Clauses have been reviewed and concurred with by our internal legal review; as a result any addtions and deletions is IAW with legal guidance.

32 Section L

T&M

Schedule

Instruction s

Para J

Paragraph states: "The RFP specified labor categories have been mapped to the appropriate CBA categories in each AFM regional (East and

West) cost/price workbook", however there is only an SCA code reference listed, no CBA references.

Does the government intend to provide the applicable CBA labor category crosswalk.

The RFP does not include the CBA labor catgory crosswalk. The offeror is required to map the appropriate CBA categories to the RFP/contract labor categories in each AFM regional (East and West) cost/price workbook.

Section L.3.3.4.5 (2) has been revised " The offeror shall map the appropriate CBA categories to the RFP specified labor categories in each

AFM regional (East and West) cost/price workbook.

33 Section L Pg 366 of

L-24, DFARS 252.234-7998

Offeror is required to submit a comprehensive plan (EVMS) for complaince with the guidelines in EIE-748 if they propose to use a system that has not been determined by the the Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) to be in complaince with EIE-748.

Which volume is the comprehensive plan (EVMS) required to be submitted under and will it be included with the list of items excluded from the page count limitation in section L.1.2.1?

Submission of a comprehensive plan (EVMS) is a Contractual Requirement in Section I-193.

Removed from Section L. Comprehensive plan submission is not part of the evaluation process for source selection.

Please refer to the submission instructions for all Volumes outlined in

Section L, Attachment 0019.

34 Section L Pg 1 of 32 L.1.2.1 - Content

Requirements

Offeror is required to submit a comprehensive plan (EVMS) for complaince with the guidelines in EIE-748 if they propose to use a system that has not been determined by the the Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) to be in complaince with EIE-748.

Will the compprehensive plan (EVMS) be evaluated under one of the

Section M evaluation factors for award?

See question 33.

35 Section L Pg 366 of

L-24, DFARS 252.234-7998

Offeror is required to provide documentation that the CFA has determined the proposed EVMS compliant with EIA-748 or submit a compehensive plan for achieving compliance.

Is proposed EVMS solution required to be determined compliant by the

CFA for the the prime offeror, or can the requirement be met with a subcontractor/teaming partner with their CFA determined complaint system?

See question 33, also see Attachment 0019 paragraph L.2.

36 Section L Pg 1 of 32 Paragraph L.1.1.

Offeror is required to submit a separate proposal for each of the two regions and each will be evaluated separately.

If discussions are held, will they be joint discussions with AFM-East and

AFM-West? If the current plan is not to have joint discussions, recommend considering this appraoch to enable common findings between the two proposals to be addressed singularily versus two separate submissions and discussions on the same topic.

The Government is unable to provide any future discussions approach at this time.

37 Section L Pg 1 of 32 Paragraph L.1.1.

Offeror is required to submit a separate proposal for each of the two regions and each will be evaluated separately.

Since volumes I and III will be the same between the two proposals, can the proposal instructions be updated to allow for one version of these volumes to be submitted. As currently set up, these two proposal volumes will have to have a different cover page and page headings to capture which regional proposal it is associated with, even though the content of the volumes will be the same information.

No.

38 Section L Pg 1 of 32 Paragraph L.1.1.

Offeror is required to submit a separate proposal for each of the two regions and each will be evaluated separately.

Will the award decision for AFM-East and AFM-West be made entirely independent of the other, without regard to any proposed efficiencies or cost reductions there may be in a single company managing both regions?

Please refer to Attachment 0020, Section M for detailed information on the Evaluation Approach.

39 Section L Pg 4 of 32 Paragraph L.2.1

Offeror is required to provide documentation for proof in meeting entry gate criteria to include a copy of the contract, Performance Work

Statement.

Since government contracts often encompass numerous attachments, please confirm that the contract documentation required is limited to just the base contract document (e.g. Sections A-J) and the PWS.

Please refer to Attachment 0019, Section L.2.1 for submission instructions on the data requried for Entry Criteria criteria

Reference PWS Paragraph Reference Additional Cross Reference Discussion Question Government's Response

40 Section L Pg. 14 of

Paragraph L.3.2.5

For all contracts identified in L.3.2.1.1, Contract Descriptions, a Past

Performance Questionnaire (RFP Attachment 0024) must be completed and submitted.

Will the Government accept the most recent CPAR of the past performance reference in lieu of completing Past Performance Questionnaires?

Please refer to Attachment 0019, Section L.3.2.5 for detailed submission instructions as it relates to the Past Performance Questionnaire

41 Section L Pg. 16 of

Paragraph L.3.3.2

Provide a separate Table of Contents showing each file submitted as part of the Cost/Price Volume(s) with a short description of the contents of the file.

Per instructions, the separate Table of Contents to be included within the price narrative or as a separate file. If a separate file is required, can the

Government please update Table in Section L.1.2.1 to include a list of additional attachments to be submitted?

Government is unclear of concern since instructions are clearly stated as it refers to Table of Contents requirements; no updates will be made.

42 Section A Page 2 DD Form 254 Clearance timing affects staffing.

Clearance timing affects staffing.

Will interim clearances be acceptable for transition-in personnel pending final adjudication?

No.

43 Section B Pages 9-10 CLIN 1013AA DoS Regs Housing drives cost risk.

For OCONUS locations, does the Government anticipate providing

Government-owned or leased housing, or should offerors assume LQA in all cases?

LQA is a plug number for proposal purposes excluding the wrap/indirect rates. See reponse to question 14.

44 Section B Page 10 CLIN 1020AA Att 0004 Clarifies CPFF activation rules.

What are the typical triggers and authorization timelines for activating

Contingency Operations CPFF CLINs?

Please refer to RFP Section B, CLIN 1020AA narrative as to when CPFF CLINs will be utilized.

45 Section B Page 14 CLIN 1030AA Service Contract Reporting Avoids duplicative reporting.

Can the Government confirm whether the annual service contract report supersedes or complements other CDRL labor reporting?

Please adhere to all reporting requirements outlined in all applicable documents provided.

46 Section B Page 17 CLIN 1110AA Att 0017/0018 Labor rate escalation affects T&M competitiveness.

Will escalation be permitted in future option-year T&M labor rate tables, and if so, how will it be applied?

For labor categories subject to the requirements of SCLS, labor rate adjustments will be in accordance with RFO FAR 52.222-43 Fair Labor

Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards-Price Adjustment

(Multiple Year and Option Contracts).

47 Section B Page 252 Section C eCRAFT Access delays create compliance risk.

What is the expected timeline for provisioning eCRAFT access post-award, and how will outages be handled for compliance purposes?

See Attachment 0005 Government ERP/MRP Systems, Hyperlinks and Email

Addresses; Any additional eCraft guidance will be provided before contract award.

48 Section H Sec H H-1 Att 0027 Option strategy clarity.

What factors historically drive option exercise decisions for AFM contracts

(e.g., performance metrics, funding stability)?

Please refer to RFO FAR 17.207 outlining guidance for all determining factors of when options may be exercised.

49 Section C Page 20 3.2.1. 2.1.

The last sentence of this paragraph appears incomplete - it says: "The

Contractor shall be IAW paragraph 2.1. Paragraph 2.1 references Flight and

Ground Operations Requirements.

Is there additional text missing from this sentence? No.

50 Section C Page15 3.1.4.3 3.2.4.4.

The Contractor EVM system shall be determined to be IAW Electronic

Industries Alliance (EIA) 748 by a Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA).

What is the Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) that will make the determination that the Contractor EVM is IAW EIA 748E for this contract?

The Cognizant Federan Agency (CFA) will be determined upon contract award.

51 Section C Page 15 3.1.4.3 3.1.4.4.

The Contractor EVM system shall be determined to be IAW Electronic

Industries Alliance (EIA) 748 by a Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA).

What is the timeline of the determination; that is, can an Offeror submit their EVM system for determination by the CFA prior to proposal evaluations?

See response to question 50.

52 Section C Page 6 1.3. 3.2.1. National Maintenance Program (NMP) What is the scope of the current AMCOM NMP requirements? See Attachment 0001 paragraph 3.2.3.1.

53 Section C Page 14 3.1.1

Attachment 4 (Areas of

Responsibility and Missions by Location for AMCOM

Field Maintenance (AFM) -

East Region

The Government indicates the Hub Location for AFM East is Fort Campbell an will have both Government Regional and Site Staff.

Is it the Government's expectation that the Offeror will co-locate the AFM

East Program Management Team proximal to Fort Campbell?

No. Only site specific program management personnel would co-locate proximal to a particular site.

54 Section C Page 6 1.3 Att 0004 – AOR & Missions Understanding historical workload is necessary for realistic staffing, pricing, and risk management across MDS and sites.

Can the Government provide historical workload data (e.g., number of resets, MWOs, ACEs, depot repairs) by MDS and site for the past 2–3 years?

No. Man-hours are T&M/CPFF and PWS describes mission requirements.

Due to workload uncertainty the capabilities and the ability to manage diverse and mulitple locations IAW Attachment 0004 is what has been provided.

55 Section C Page 9 2.6.2.1 SBPCD Understanding evaluation focus improves proposal alignment.

Will the Government directly evaluate the qualifications and past performance of proposed small business subcontractors?

Refer to Section M.4.2 Para 2.

56 Section C Page 10 2.6.6 and 2.6.9 Contingency Ops Surge assumptions affect pricing and staffing realism.

Will surge labor rates be negotiated at contract award, or authorized via later contractual action when contingencies are triggered?

No.

Reference PWS Paragraph Reference Additional Cross Reference Discussion Question Government's Response

57 Section C Page 10 2.6.7 CDRL A024 Overtime approval timeliness affects mission responsiveness.

Are WHBO approvals typically granted proactively based on forecasted mission needs, or reactively after mission execution?

Refer to Attachment 0001 para. 2.6.7 and Exhibit A for timeline expectations.

58 Section C Page 14 2.1.0.2 Att 0004 – AOR & Missions Regional crossover affects travel, surge staffing, and cost controls.

How frequently was regional crossover exercised under the incumbent contract, and were cross-regional missions short-term or extended duration?

See question 85.

59 Section C Page 15 3.1.4.3–3.1.4.4 CDRL A001 Clarifying acceptable tools reduces audit and compliance risk.

Has the Government previously accepted alternative EVM tools that interface with IPMDAR, or is a specific solution preferred?

Refer to Exhibit A.

60 Section C Page 16 3.1.5.4 ACRN / CLIN Structure Funding behavior materially affects cost management risk.

Historically, how often has additional funding been added after the 70%

ACRN/CLIN notification threshold?

Mission and fund need/availability dependent.

61 Section C Page 17 3.1.6 Att 0005 – Government

ERP/MRP

System access timelines affect readiness and reporting compliance.

Will Government ERP/MRP system user licenses, accounts, and access be provisioned at award, or are they the contractor’s responsibility?

Yes, it is the Contractor's responsibility to ensure personnel has all applicable system user license, acounts and access upon contract award/transition in, as outlined in Attachment 0005.

62 Section C Page 24-25 3.2.1.30–3.2.1.31 Att 0008 – Contractor

Performance Metrics

Offerors need insight into expected sustainment volumes to size labor and backshop capabilities accurately.

Are Reset, AIMS, OCSM, and ASER workloads projected to increase, decrease, or remain steady during the base and option periods?

Workload is based upon reimbursable missions at time of award. Future is unpredictable. Assume, remain steady, but surge and de-surge methodology is critical.

63 Section C Page 37 4.5, 4.5.1 FAR 52.237-3 Early access to baseline data reduces transition risk and service disruption.

Will the Government provide access to incumbent GFP inventories, open work orders, and maintenance status during transition planning?

Representative GFP Inventories are in Attachments 0011/0013/0014/0015.

Work orders and Maintenance Status will be available during tranisition-in.

64 Section C Page 37 4.5.1 Att 0004 – Site Capabilities Facility conditions materially affect readiness and startup risk.

Are there known facility renovations, relocations, or site closures planned that could impact transition or early contract performance?

No, future occurrences/events is unknown at this time.

65 Section L Page 3 L.1.2.3 None Upload ambiguity.

Does the Government prefer a single ZIP file or multiple native-format uploads, and will either be treated identically?

Please refer to Attachment 0019, Section L.1.2.3 for detailed submission instructions that will adequately address question.

66 Section L Pages 3 and 4 L.1.2.4–5 None AI review risk.

Can the Government confirm diagrams and graphics inserted as images will not be treated as concealed text?

All diagrams/graphics and any text within, inserted in the proposal allowable page limits, will be evaluated and considered as part of the proposal.

67 Section L Page 4 L.1.2.5 None Tool usage clarity.

Will AI-assisted tools be used only for compliance checks or also to identify strengths, weaknesses, and risks?

Per Attachment 0019, Section L.1.2.5, the Government reserves the right to use AI-assisted tools at its discretion during any phase of proposal evaluation.

68 Section L Page 4 L.2.1 DCMA 8210.1 Evidence strictness.

Will redacted contracts and approval letters be acceptable if Entry Gate requirements are clearly substantiated?

Yes, but ensure it is clearly substantiated meaning "it must be convincing/verifiable/proof."

69 Section L Page 5 L.3.1 100 pages Scope clarity.

Is the CMP expected to address both regions in one integrated narrative or in clearly delineated subsections?

Please refer to Attachment 0019, Section L.1.1 for region specific submission instructions

70 Section L Page 6 L.3.1.ii.b EIA-748 Evidence scope.

Is objective evidence required for each EIA-748 paragraph, or is narrative explanation sufficient?

Offeror's discretion as long as it satisfies M.4.1 Technical evaluation approach for the CMP element.

71 Section L Page 6 L.3.1.ii.d PWS Reporting Evaluation scope.

Will Offerors be evaluated on the ERP tool used or only the ability to produce required outputs?

Refer to Attachment 0020, Section M for detailed evaluation approach.

72 Section L Page 6 L.3.1.i.a Att 0007 Misclassification risk.

Should positions identified as overhead in Attachment 0007 be excluded from direct labor narratives and manning tables?

By definition Overhead is not Direct labor. Narrative-wise, positions, both direct and indirect, should be explained and in manning tables appropriately identified to demonstrate understanding of the

Government's intent.

73 Section L Page 8 L.3.1.1 Scenarios Timing assumptions.

May Offerors assume Government approvals are timely for scenario execution, or should approval timelines be addressed?

Offeror should state all assumptions in response to Scenarios.

74 Section L Page 8 L.3.1.1.i None Evaluation ambiguity.

Will scenario responses be evaluated independently from the CMP or as demonstrations of CMP implementation?

Refer to Attachment 0020, Section M for detailed evaluation approach.

75 Section L Page 12 L.3.2 15% Threshold Threshold impact.

Is the 15% major subcontractor threshold based on total evaluated price per region or total AFM III effort?

Attachment 0019, Section L.3.2.3 specifically provides response to this question.

76 Section L Page 15 L.3.3 Award Statement Strategic clarity.

If an Offeror proposes both regions, will evaluations be conducted independently or with enterprise-wide consideration?

Please refer to Attachment 0019, Section L.1.1 for region specific submission instructions.

Reference PWS Paragraph Reference Additional Cross Reference Discussion Question Government's Response

77 Section M Page 1 M.1 FAR 15.101-1 Dual award risk.

If the same Offeror is best value for both AFMEast and AFMWest, will the

SSA consider execution risk in the final decision?

Attachment 0020, Section M.1 specifically states what happens if the same

Offeror is best value for both regions.

78 Section M Page 1 M.1.2 FAR 15.308 Documentation.

Does stating 'no tradeoff is necessary' preclude documenting qualitative distinctions?

Preceding sentence in Section M.1.2 provided rationale as to when "no tradeoff is necessary."

79 Section M Page 4 M.4.1 L.3.1.1 Differentiation.

Are scenario responses evaluated independently or as validation of the

CMP?

See question 74.

80 Section M Page 4 M.4.1 Risk Subjectivity.

Section M.4.1 does not identify the levels of risk to be used for evaluating

Factor 1: Technical. Would the Government please identify the levels of risk it will use (e.g., high, moderate, or low) and provide definitions of those levels?

The Government will not provide levels or risk and/or definitions of those levels.

81 Section M Page 9 M.4.3.3 L.3.3 Interplay.

If CPFF costs are adjusted, will corresponding technical risk adjustments be reflected in narratives?

All proposal volumes will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined in Attachment 0020 Section M Evaluation Faactors for

Award.

82 Section M Page 10 M.4.3.4 FAR 15.404-1(g) Rejection risk.

Will unbalanced pricing be considered in light of mission variability and

CLIN utilization?

Yes. Per RFO FAR 15, all offers with separately priced line items or subline items must be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

83 Section M Page 10 M.4.3.5 TEP Tradeoff basis.

Will tradeoffs rely solely on Total Evaluated Price or also proposed price realism?

Price realism will not be conducted on FFP or T&M CLINs. See RFP Section

M.4.3.5.

Industry

Day SAM.gov

The Government previously stated there would be an updated industry day.

Will the Government conduct a Pre-Final RFP industry day? If yes, when and where will this industry day take place?

The Government does not have any planned industry days at this time;

however, please refer to SAM.gov for any future announcement.

85 Section C PWS 2.10.2 p. 14

PWS 2.10.2 discusses regional cross over. This implies a single contractor for both East and West Regions or the ability for an East Region contractor to do work in the West Region or vice versa. We believe this may result in

CBA conflicts across regions.

Will the Government clarify regional crossover for CONUS work in the East and West Regions?

Different Contracts: Regional crossover may be required if the primary contractor is unable to perform the speciffied mission due to personnel shortages, skill deficits, mission overload, or emergency conditions. The supporting contractor will coordinate directly with the respective

Contractign Officers (KOs). Crossover support will be executed via TDY travel for defined, short-term duractions.

Same Contract: Under a single contract, regional crossover will be managed as a surge capability triggered by the conditions described above.

Historically, this capability has been utilized and remains a potential requirement for future operations.

86 Section C

PWS

3.1.4.5

p. 15

PWS 3.1.4.5 discusses the utilization of eCraft for invoice submission. We understand this to be a Navy system.

Will the US Army eCraft portion be available by contract award and/or final

RFP?

See question 47.

87 Section C

PWS

3.1.7.7.4

p. 19

This paragraph states that, "the Contractor's invoice will be reduced by the amount of damage/loss resulting from negligent action or inaction."

The RFP does not provide guidance on this process. Please provide the process for determining the value of damage and how the invoice amount will be reduced.

Recovery for damage/loss is governed by RFO FAR 52.245-1 and administered through the ACO/Property Administrator, with financial recovery determination through issuance of a determination letter after investigation. Recovery of actual funds often handled by DFAS and Pay.gov process.

88 Section H H-4 p. 5

Attachments 0026 and 0027, Clause H-4, Holiday Reimbursement, states that the TM Labor Rate Tables include an allowance for work on a holiday.

However, in Attachments 0017 and 0018, the AFM Rate table does not include a Holiday Rate.

Please clarify spcifically where the Holiday Time rate is located in

Attachments 0017 and 0018.

No Holiday Rate. Holidays may be worked based upon mission requirements at rates set forth in the rate tables. H-4 allows for designation of another day as observance of the holiday.

Reference PWS Paragraph Reference Additional Cross Reference Discussion Question Government's Response

89 Section L L.1.1 p. 1

There will be one Request for Proposal (RFP) from which two contracts will be awarded. One contract will be for the East Region (AFM-East), and one contract will be for the West Region (AFM-West). Offerors must submit a proposal for each desired regional contract effort. Regional proposals will be evaluated independently.

Will the Government confirm/advise whether two separate proposals must be submitted by an Offeror for the East and West Regions, per

L.1.2.1? (i.e., Offeror submits one proposal for AFM East with five

Volumes and submits one proposal for AFM West with five volumes–mutually exclusive of each other.)

Please refer to Attachment 0019, Section L.1.1 for region specific submission instructions.

90 Section L L.1.2.1 Table 1 p. 1 The table requires two digital copies of the proposal.

Please clarify the requirement for two digital copies of the proposal. Does the Government require two separate emails with the same information?

Will the Government remove the requirement for two digital copies of the proposal?

Yes.

No.

91 Section L L.2 2nd para p. 4

Second paragraph states, "If proposing as a Joint Venture or Team, the

Teaming or Joint Venture Agreement and Formal Commitment letters should be provided."

Please clarify what specifically is meant by Formal Commitment letters.

IAW RFO FAR 9.104, If offeror relies on a subcontractor or JV partner for key personnel, past performance, or essential capabilities, the agency must obtain “meaningful evidence of commitment.”

92 Section L L.2.1 p. 4

The Offeror shall provide the following documentation (copy of the contract, Performance Work Statement (PWS), appropriate certificates

(example AS9110 Rev.C), and Government Flight Representative (GFR) approval letters (Flight Operation Procedures/Ground Operation

Procedures (FOP/GOP)) in electronic format ONLY as standard of proof the entry gate criteria has been met.

Please confirm that Offerors may provide more than one contract to satisfy the Entry Gate Criteria (i.e., provide three separate contracts that collectively meet all of the Entry Gate criteria vs. providing one contract that meets all of the Entry gate criteria).

Yes. Whatever is necessary to verify/prove the conditions/requirements in the particular entry gate is met.

93 Section L L.2.1 p. 5

In Entry Gate Criterion 2-4, the Government requires experience managing field level rotary wing maintenance. However, the PWS relates to aviation maintenance. The PWS does not differentiate between wing type (rotary or fixed wing). The requirement to have rotary wing maintenance is inconsistent with the PWS, and it provides a restrictive barrier to entry.

Request that the Government change "rotary wing maintenance" to

"aviation maintenance." The processes for aviation maintenance are the same regardless of whether it is rotary or fixed wing. To ensure a level playing field and maximize the competitive landscape, will the Government revise the language from, "performing and managing field level rotary wing maintenance" to "performing field level aviation maintenance"?

The Army’s fleet is overwhelmingly rotary‑wing and focused on attack, lift, reconnaissance, and utility missions.

To change verbiage in PWS, limits the scope.

Recommendation considered.

94 Section L L.2.1 p. 5

ENTRY GATE CRITERION 2. The Offeror must have experience within the last five years (as a prime or subcontractor) performing and managing field level rotary wing maintenance while certified AS 9110 Revision C. The offeror shall provide current copies of its certificate as evidence.

With reference to the word "current," if an Offeror is using a contract that is physically complete, is it acceptable to provide the certificate used under the contract—even if the certificate is no longer current?

Yes, as long as certificate was current at some point in the last five years.

95 Section L L.2.1 p. 5

ENTRY GATE CRITERION 3. The Offeror must have experience within the last five years performing and managing DoW rotary wing…