QA Additional Responses to Subsequent Questions.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W911SF22R0024
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation for aviation maintenance services at Fort Benning, Georgia. The solicitation seeks maintenance services for rotary-wing aircraft and will be awarded under DCMA INST 8210.1C and related regulations. The contract type will be firm-fixed price with a period of performance through September 2022 and potential option years. Premium labor is to be priced separately from base services. 1871 hours per year should be used to calculate fully burdened labor rates. Subcontractor experience is acceptable for meeting qualifications. A phase-in plan is required but will not be evaluated. The document provides clarification on various aspects of the solicitation including acceptable documentation, prime versus subcontractor experience, and labor category hours.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 65 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
Q&A
| Question # | RFP Page/Amend 2 Question | RFP Text/Amend 2 Question Text | Question/Recommendation | Government Answer |
| 1 | Amend 2 QA Response to Fort Benning, Question #43 | The total productive labor hours per year will be 1871 per PEO 13706 (7 SEPT 2015) | Is it the Government's intent for the CME of 1871 to be used for both Exempt and SCA positions? If not, please provide the separate CMEs for the Exempt and SCA positions. | Yes both are exempt and SCA at 1871 |
| 2 | Amend 2 QA Response to Fort Benning, Question #43 |
Attachment 1 The total productive labor hours per year will be 1871 per PEO 13706 (7 SEPT 2015)
| Price_Labor Breakdown tab states, "* - CME is defined as 1920 hours." | Will the Government please correct the CME statement in Attachment 1 to reflect the correct CME? | Corrected | |||
| 3 | Amend 2 QA Response to Fort Benning, Question #46 | Yes; Premium Labor should be included within the services CLINs | With Amendment 2 there are now Premium CLINS. Will the Government please confirm Offerors are to include Premium Labor under the Premium Labor CLINs and not the Services CLINS? | Confirmed. | |
| 4 | Attachment 1 | The Proposal Summation tab has a value for CLIN 1002 of $205,000. | Per Section B, the $205,000 value is for CLIN 1003. Will the Government please confirm Premium Labor is not an NTE value? | Fixed | |
| 5 | Attachment 1 | The Proposal Summation tab has a value for CLIN 1003 of $39,500. | Per Section B, the $39,500 value is for CLIN 1004. Will the Government please update Attachment 1 to match the NTE values in Section B? | Fixed | |
| 6 | Amend 2 QA Response to Fort Benning, Questions 98 and 99 | Q98: Approximately 94 hours per each labor category (excluding managers) | |||
| Q99:Is Premium Labor considered “Surge”? / No | Will the Government please clarify whether Premium Labor is considered Overtime? | Yes; premium is OT | |||
| 7 | Amend 2 QA Response to Fort Benning, Question #43 | The total productive labor hours per year will be 1871 per PEO 13706 (7 SEPT 2015) | Will the Government please provide a detailed breakdown of the CME(s)? For example, the typical SCA man-year is calculated by the following: |
Total Available Hours in a year: 2080 Holiday (11 Federal Holidays): -88 PTO (Paid Time Off of 10 days): -80 EO Sick Leave (7 days): -56 Total: 1856
| Please refer to EO 13706. The CME was provided there and will be used accordingly. | |||
| Amend 2 QA Response to Fort Benning, Questions #62 and 150; RFP Amend 2, Pages 46 and 52 | For Question 62, the Government responded "Contractor proposals should have a Phase In plan." For Question 150, the Government responded "Government will require the resumes for site manager." Sections L and M of the RFP Amend 2 do not address the requirement of the Phase In plan in the Technical Volume. | ||
| RFP Amend 2, Section L, page 46: "The Offeror shall provide a resume for the Site Manager in accordance with PWS section 4.2.1 requirements." RFP Amend 2, Section M, page 52: "The Offer shall provide a resume for the Site Manager in accordance with PWS section 4.2.1 requirements. This will be evaluated in accordance with the PWS section requirements." | Due to the Government's response to questions 62 and 150 that require additional input from the Offeror and in order for offerors to provide sufficient detail in response to these new requests, will the Government please increase the Technical Volume page count to 45 pages and update the RFP accordingly? | Resume pages will not count towards the technical volume page count. The Phase In plan page count will not count towards technical volume page count, nor will it be evaluated. However, per the solicitation, the Phase In plan is required to be submitted. | |
| Amend 2 QA Response to Fort Benning, Questions #62 and 150; RFP Amend 2, Pages 46 and 52 | For Question 62, the Government responded "Contractor proposals should have a Phase In plan." For Question 150, the Government responded "Government will require the resumes for site manager." Sections L and M of the RFP Amend 2 do not address the requirement of the Phase In plan in the Technical Volume. | ||
| RFP Amend 2, Section L, page 46: "The Offeror shall provide a resume for the Site Manager in accordance with PWS section 4.2.1 requirements." RFP Amend 2, Section M, page 52: "The Offer shall provide a resume for the Site Manager in accordance with PWS section 4.2.1 requirements. This will be evaluated in accordance with the PWS section requirements." | Due to the Government's responses to questions that require additional input from the Offeror and to allow offerors to provide the required additional detail, will the Government please allow the Site Manager Resume and Phase In Plan to be provided as Appendices to the Technical Volume and update the RFP accordingly? | The Phase In plan page count will not count towards technical volume page count, nor will it be evaluated. However, per the solicitation, the Phase In plan is required to be submitted. | |
| Amend 2 QA Response to Fort Benning, Question #62 |
and PWS Section 4.9 and RFP Amend 2, Section L, pgs. 45-48 Volume II - Technical, para. 5 all tabs For Question 62, the Government responded: "Contractor proposals should have a Phase In plan." Sections L and M of the RFP Amend 2 do not address the requirement of the Phase In plan in the Technical Volume. Regarding the additional requirement for Offerors to provide a Phase-In Plan:
1) Will the Government please clarify the instructions for the Phase-In Plan so Offerors may properly address the Government's request?
and
2) Will the Government please allow the Phase-In Plan to be included as an appendix to the Technical volume to allow for sufficient detail to be included in the response and update the RFP accordingly?
and
| 3) If the Government will not allow the Phase-In Plan to be included as an appendix, will they please clarify in which Tab of the Technical Volume the Offeror is to include the Phase-In Plan and increase the page count of the Technical volume by at least 10 pages? | The Phase In plan page count will not count towards technical volume page count, nor will it be evaluated. However, per the solicitation, the Phase In plan is required to be submitted. | ||
| Amend 2 QA Response to Fort Benning, Question #51 | For Question 51, the Government responded: "1.Government Flight Representative (GFR) procedure approval cover letter with date on the document. |
2. Government will not exclude from page count. This document should count as a page count, as it is a past performance reference."
RFP Amend 2, Section M, Page 53 (Technical Volume, Factor 3, Quality Management System Plan) states: "Provide documentation of experience performing a contract under DCMA INST 8210.1C/AFI 10-220-IP/AR 95-20/NAVAIRINST 3710.1G/COMDTINST M13020.3A for Rotary Wing Aircraft maintenance in the last three (3) years from the date of the solicitation." 1) Per the Government's answer to Question 51 stating that the requested GFR letter is considered a Past Performance reference, will the Government please clarify whether this letter should be provided in the Technical or Past Performance Volume?
and
2) If the GFR approval cover letter is more than one page, may the offerors provide only the first page if it includes the requested date?
and
3) Will the Government please allow the GFR approval cover letter to be provided as an appendix within the appropriate Volume? 1) Technical (appendix to technical)
2) Yes
3) Yes
| Attachment 5, Amendment 2 | Amendment 2, Attachment 5 references Government Furnished Property GFP. | Does the government plan to include either the FAR and/or DFAR clauses for government property in the solicitation? | Government will include. | |
| The government’s answer to question 43 does not account for leap years. The CME would come to 1,879 for the base period and option 4. | ||||
| Question - Is it acceptable to use 1,879 CME for leap years? | Contractors can use 1879 for leap year. | |||
| The government provided an answer to question 51 that requires additional clarification. Not all Government Flight Representatives (GFR) issue a “procedure approval cover letter with date on the document”. Some GFRs just indicate approval of the procedures on the cover page of the actual procedures. | ||||
| Question - May Offerors provide the cover page of the procedure with the GFR’s signature approving the procedures in lieu of a “cover page letter”? | Offerors may provide GFR approvals for procedures in lieu of an approved cover page. | |||
| Related to question/answer 51, the requirement states “experience performing a contract under DCMA INST 8210.1C/AFI 10-220-IP/AR 95- 20/NAVAIRINST 3710.1G/COMDTINST M13020.3A for Rotary Wing Aircraft maintenance in the last three (3) years from the date of the solicitation.” | ||||
| Question - Will the government accept experience performing work under DCMA INST 8210.1C/AFI 10-220-IP/AR 95- 20/NAVAIRINST 3710.1G/COMDTINST M13020.3A for Fixed Wing Aircraft? | No, the Government will not accept fixed wing experience as a substitute as there is a greater difference between fixed wing and rotary wing maintenance. | |||
| Related to question/answer 51, the requirement does not state if it is has to be the prime or if it is acceptable to use a subcontractor’s experience performing under DCMA INST 8210.1C/AFI 10-220-IP/AR 95- 20/NAVAIRINST 3710.1G/COMDTINST M13020.3A. | ||||
| Question - Would it be acceptable to use a subcontractor’s experience in lieu of the prime? | Yes | |||
| Related to question/answer 62. There are no instructions in Section L for a phase-in plan, no evaluation criteria in Section M for a phase-in plan, and no page count or format guidelines for a phase-in plan. | ||||
| Question - Will the government provide additional instructions to clarify the requirement to submit a phase-in plan? | The Phase In plan will not be evaluated. However, it is required per the solicitation. No additional instructions will be provided to clarify. | |||
| Q1 (from originial Q&A) indicates a provided Schedule B however nowhere does the submission instructions that a completed Schedule B must be completed and submitted. Please confirm? | There is no mention of schedule B in the question. Section B, referenced in the question, is the pricing section in the RFP. Only the pricing workbook is what is needed to be completed. | |||
| Price Worksheet. Summary of Total Prices CLIN 1002 indicates a NTE, I believe this is in error, confirm? | Confirmed. | |||
| Q43 (from original Q&A) indicates hrs to use is 1871 per year; please confirm for the Base with only 10 months hours should be adj appropriately? | Confirmed. | |||
| Q98 (from original Q&A) indicates 94 hours per each labor category – please confirm if the detail summary is to be added to Attachment 1 by “category”? | Confirmed, see revised Attachment 1. | |||
| Q46 seems contradictory on one hand the government states “Premium labor should be included in services CLIN (xxx1 etc.) however Schedule B establishes a “Premium Labor” CLIN xxx3. Please clarify | Premium labor will be separate CLIN. | |||
| Q98 answer indicates “approximate 94 hours per each labor category” Please clarify “category”, an example would help? Is this cost for one year at 94 hrs per category? However how does this correlate to Schedule B CLIN x0003? If a category has 6 positions is treated the same as a category with only one person use 94 hours? | Category is referring to person in this instance. The 94 hours per labor category (excluding managers) is relative to the number of individuals on the contract. Please see revised attachment 1 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .