Answers_to_Questions_7FEB.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Fort Rucker Aviation Maintenance Services
- Solicitation number
- W9124G-17-R-0002
About this file
Answers to Questions
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 81 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
Sheet1
| # | RFP Section | Paragraph | Comment/Question | Government Response |
| 168 | Section B, Solicitation, Section H | NA | We respectfully request you reconsider including DFARS 252.217-7028 “Over and Above Work.” The currently contract includes the Over & Above clause and it has been used each year during the current contact. Based on PGI 217.7701 cited below, we strongly encourage you to include the DFARS clause in this RFP as much of the contract’s performances requirements are listed in this PGI. |
PGI 217.7701 Procedures.
(1) Contracts for the performance of maintenance, overhaul, modification, and repair of various items (e.g., aircraft, engines, ground support equipment, ships) generally contain over and above work requirements. When they do, the contracting officer shall establish a separate contract line item for the over and above work.
(2) Over and above requirements task the contractor to identify needed repairs and recommend corrective action during contract performance. The contractor submits a work request to identify the over and above work and, as appropriate, the Government authorizes the contractor to proceed.
(3) The clause at DFARS 252.217-7028, Over and Above Work, requires the contractor and the contracting officer responsible for administering the contract to negotiate specific procedures for Government administration and contractor performance of over and above work requests.
(4) The contracting officer may issue a blanket work request authorization describing the manner in which individual over and above work requests will be administered and setting forth a dollar limitation for all over and above work under the contract. The blanket work request authorization may be in the form of a letter or contract modification (Standard Form 30).
(5) Over and above work requests are within the scope of the contract. Therefore, procedures in DFARS Subpart 217.74, Undefinitized Contractual Actions, do not apply.
(6) To the maximum extent practical, over and above work shall be negotiated prior to performance of the work.
We appreciate your suggestion and the Contracting Officer previously has thoroughly considered incorporating this DFARS clause. As you cite, the DFARS PGI 217.7701(1) states that "[C]ontracts for the performance of maintenance, overhaul, modification and repair of various items (e.g., aircraft, engines, ground support equipment, ships) GENERALLY (emphasis added) contain over and above work requirements. When they do, the contracting officer shall establish a separate contract line item for the over and above work." The key term is "generally:" this does not mean that all such contracts necessarily must include "over and above work."
This contract certainly could fall within the penumbra of the DFARS PGI type contract for which "over and above work" could be recognized. However, after carefully reviewing the history of this procurement, we have determined that much of the "over and above" work in prior contracts was driven by the contract formation itself. As opposed to prior procurements, this solicitation has focused on a "bottom-up" development of staffing, processes, and procedures required to meet the flying mission. This will be accomplished by conducting an in-depth analysis of the available resources and the maintenance history for these aircraft.
We recognize further that there may be specific instances during contract administration and performance where the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) would consider an equitable adjustment to address one-time or systemic changes. And, at that time, such "over and above" type work would be deemed to be "within-scope" and an in-scope change. Accordingly, as of this time, the Government's position is that the Fixed-Price Incentive Firm (FPIF) type contract structure does not require a funded CLIN for "over and above work."
| 169 | Attachment 0001 - US Army PWS | 4.2.30 | The RFP states that "The Contractor shall provide OEM CFSRs for each of the following: ... Aircraft Notebook (ACN)." We have confirmed that there are no existing OEM FSRs for ACN that can be priced in our proposal. The software is currently administered by SAIC, but they do not provide an FSR service for this software. Question: Given that there is no ACN FSR service available, can the Government please remove this requirement? | ACLC | |
| 170 | Section L | L.I.E.b.1 | The RFP states: Provide a series of organization charts and staffing tables that delineate an integrated management and workforce required for providing safe aircraft for AF training in accordance with the PWS over the first four years. Question: Why does the Government limit the organization charts and staffing table to the first four years and then ask about deviations to organization and staffing in the out years 5-10? What is anticipated to happen within the USAF between years 4 and 5? Note that this question was previously submitted on November 29, 2016. | With any new contract comes the possibility of a learning curve. The Government recognizes efficiencies may be gained and remain steady after the third option year. That is not always the case yet any changes in staffing that drive pricing changes for the outyears must be identified. Therefore, we only requested the base year and first three option years of organization charts and staffing tables and an explanation if there would be any deviations from the organization and staffing after the third option year (year 4). | |
| 171 | N/A | N/A | Does the Government expect to issue amendments with major changes? What are the chances the due date will move to the right due to additional amendments? | We do not anticipate any major changes to the government's requirement and no amendments that will greatly change the solicitation. We are extending the proposal due date by one day to March 3, 2017. We do not expect another change. This change is reflected in amendment 0004 | |
| 172 | TDR | 13-Contractor Acquired Property and 58-Software_GOTS_COTS | Cisco VOIP phones appear in the property lists. Questions: 1. Are the Cisco VOIP phones managed and supported on the .mil network by the Fort Rucker Network Center (NEC)? Or is the Contractor required to manage and support the VOIP phones from the commercial network? 2. Would the Government please advise the current version and all associated software supporting the VOIP phone network? For example, is Cisco Call Manager or Cisco Call Manager Express used? 3. Do the routers have Cisco Unified Survivable Remote Site Telephony (SRST)? 4. What type of device is currently used for PSTN inbound/outbound dialing? Are there Direct Inward Dial (DID)? Are there any plain old telephone service (POTS) lines? If, how many? 5. Are the CISCO VOIP phones licenses and all associated software included in the X003AB SubCLIN plug number? 6. Are the CISCO VOIP phones licenses and all associated software provided by the Government at no cost to the Contractor? | 1. The contractor manages the VOIP system on the commercial network until such a time it transfers to .mil. 2. Cisco Prime Infrastructure and Cisco Call Manager. 3. No, the routers do not have SRST installed. 4. No current device for PSTN inbound/outbound dialing. There is no Direct Inward Dial (DID). The limited existing POTS lines are Government Issue, POTS is available upon request. |
5. Yes, they are covered under the sub CLIN X003AB. Be advised, these CISCO VOIP phones are authorized for Direct personnel only.
6. Yes, they are covered under the sub CLIN X003AB. Be advised, these CISCO VOIP phones are authorized for Direct personnel only.
173 TDR 13-Contractor Acquired Property and 58-Software_GOTS_COTS Touchscreen kiosk machines appear in the property lists. Questions: 1. Are the touchscreen kiosk machines managed and supported on the .mil network by the Fort Rucker Network Enterprise Center (NEC)? Or is the Contractor required to manage and support the touchscreen kiosk machines from the commercial network? 2. Would the Government please list the uses of the touchscreen kiosk machines and provide a description of the software/application supported? 3. Are the touchscreen kiosk machines licenses and all associated software licenses included in the X003AB SubCLIN plug number? 1.These kiosks are not managed by NEC. They are provided for Direct personnel only using CLIN X003AB reimbursement. 2. The kiosks are used for tracking employee time and attendance for accounting purposes. They are also currently used for tracking employee labor against specific work orders, aircraft, or projects. The Kiosks are COTS equipment and currently utilize Autotime/Kronos software
3. Yes, they are covered under the sub CLIN X003AB. Be advised, these machines are authorized for Direct personnel only.
Comments and Questions for W9124G-17-R-0002 Fort Rucker Rotary Maintenance
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .