RFP Questions and Answers_Advanced Helicopter_Final_250324.pdf

Mission and Installation Contracting Command – Fort Eustis Request for Proposal Questions and Government Answers

Advanced Helicopter Flight Training Services at Fort Novosel, Alabama

1. Question: The referenced tables (1.2, 1.3) are not included in the Attachment+2+- +Pricing+Workbook_Advanced+Helicopter_220124 (1) file. Where does the offeror incorporate this information in the submission files (RFP 1.4.5.5.)?

Answer: RFP Tables 1.2 and 1.3 have been added to the Attachment 2, Pricing Workbook, for submission.

2. Question: Will the Government accept CPARs marked as Interim, not Final Evaluation Types

(RFP 1.4.3.5.3.2.)

Answer: The CPARS needs to be completed and signed by all parties but can be an interim report. For clarification, an interim report means the CPARS report is complete but is not the “Final” CPARS report for the last option period available for the referenced contract.

3. Question: If the offeror compensates personnel aligned to the Service Contract Labor Standards above the current SCLS wage, will the offeror be allowed to utilize the aforementioned clause to recoup any SCLS wage adjustments throughout the contract period (52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards--Price Adjustment [Multiple Year and Option Contracts] [AUG 2018] [29 U.S.C. 206 and 41 U.S.C.

chapter 67].

Answer: Clause 52.222-43 adequately addressed this question.

4. Question: The instruction worksheet identifies a ‘support column’ will be populated by the offeror but the Attachment+2+-+Pricing+Workbook_Advanced+Helicopter_220124 (1), Fixed Price Labor worksheet doesn’t identify any such column, is this something that offeror should add or was it omitted in error by the Government (Pricing Workbook)?

Answer: The ‘support column’ language has been deleted.

5. Question: Will the Government please consider allowing the Letters of Commitment as required by 1.4.2.4.4 to not count towards page count (RFP 1.3.9.2; 1.4.2.4.4)?

Answer: Yes. RFP Section 1.3.9.2. has been updated to reflect that the Letters of Commitment will not count against the page count for Volume II.

6. Question: Will the Government please consider allowing the Employee Training Agreements as required by 1.4.2.4.4 to not count towards page count (RFP 1.3.9.2.; 1.4.2.4.5; and 1.5.17)?

Answer: Yes. RFP Section 1.3.9.2. has been updated to reflect that The Employee Training Agreement itself, as required by RFP Section 1.4.2.4.4., will not count against the page count for Volume II. However, the Proposed plan to execute the agreement will still count against the page count for Volume II.

7. Question: The Crew Chief (CE) position exists only in this paragraph, what are the requirements for the Crew Chief (CE) position (PWS 5.4.2)?

Answer: There are no designated CE positions/requirements. The NRCM is covered in paragraph 1.5.10.3. Paragraph 5.4.2 **NOTE allows the government to use Flight Instructors as a Crew Chief (CE) when there are no students.

8. Question: What is considered "appropriate notice" as discussed in paragraph 5.4.6 in relation to the contractual obligation to meet surge (PWS 5.4.6)?

Answer: The Contracting Officer may exercise the option by written notice to the Contractor within 30 days.

9. Question: Will the Government please confirm, per PWS 3.1, all contractor work is to be performed on-site at Government facilities (PWS 3.1)?

Answer: Yes, this is correct.

10. Question: What are the current hourly cost-rates applicable for each aircraft and simulator, by type (UH-60M, AH-64E, CH-47F; PWS 1.5.17)?

Answer: The hourly cost/rate for the affected aircraft or simulator that is in effect when is training was provided is determined by estimating actual costs incurred by the Army to provide the training. Currently, the hourly cost/rate for training in a simulator is approximately $300-$500 per hour; and the hourly cost/rate for training in a helicopter is approximately $4,000-$10,000 per hour. However, these costs/rates are estimates only and subject to change.

11. Question: With exceptions for transition and base periods, most service contracts’ periods of performance are one year in duration before the government is required to start a CPAR. The entire CPARS cycle can take up to an additional 121 days following the period of performance to finalize. IAW the RFP, Performance on a contract can meet the recency requirement (greater than 6 months prior to initial solicitation), but a CPARS will not have been submitted, much less closed out within the allowable recency period, if a CPAR is even issued by the government. The net effect is that an offeror’s past performance qualifies, but inability to provide a CPARS may result in rendering that reference unusable. This scenario puts an offeror who completed and moved off a task two years earlier at a significant advantage to an offeror who has been performing relevant scope for the most recent 6-12+ months. In effect, the government requires between 12 and 16 month’s recency. The government has set an unachievable CPAR requirement for any recent and relevant performance under 12-16 months performance. Will the government accept PPQs, in lieu of a CPAR to demonstrate relevant past performance (RFP, Paras 1.4.3.5.2.1 and 1.4.3.5.3.2;)?

Answer: Yes. RFP Sections 1.4.3.5.3., 1.4.3.5.3.1, and 1.4.3.5.3.2. have been updated accordingly. The offeror shall demonstrate the quality of work performed by the offeror, or its Teaming Partner(s), for each past performance reference by providing a completed CPARS, if available, or a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) if a completed CPARS is not available.

12. There are extremely few contracts that closely meet both the scope and size relevancy factors, which inherently restricts prime past performance to very limited bidders. However, performance on recently-awarded contracts (either as prime or subcontractor) can match or eclipse the solicited support. The RFP instructions require up to three (3) past performance references specifically when, “performed” as a Prime “or as a subcontractor.” The RFP instructions allow past performance when performed as a subcontractor. However, the prior government Q&As restrictively render performance on many closely aligned contracts as unusable, due to a bidder’s inability to submit a CPARS on relevant work “performed as a subcontractor.” Allowing past performance as a subcontractor would mitigate concerns about the restrictive nature of this competition. Therefore, will the government allow relevant past performance, when performance as a subcontractor is supported by a PPQ that demonstrates a record of performance and promotes a high degree of confidence (RFP, Paras 1.4.3.5, 1.4.3.5.2.1, 1.4.3.5.2.2 and 1.4.3.5.3.2; Q&As, #14, 15, 16)?

Answer: See answer to Question 11.

13. Question: There are extremely few contracts that closely meet both the scope and size relevancy factors for the AHFTS RFQ. However, potential performance on recently-awarded contracts (either as prime or subcontractor) may match or eclipse the solicited support. The government has rendered performance on most closely aligned contracts as unusable due to one or more of the following: recency (6-month criteria), or inability to submit a CPARS.

Would the government consider reducing the 6-month recency requirement to 90 days in order to promote adequate competition (RFP, Paras 1.4.3.5.2.1, 1.4.3.5.2.2, and 1.4.3.5.3.2;

Q&As, #14, 15, 16)?

Answer: No.

14. Question: Section 1.3.1 refers to six separate volumes and also shows a requirement for Volume VI: Solicitation Compliance Documents. However, Section 1.3.2, Table 1.1 does not and the remaining solicitation does not have any requirements for Volume VI. Please confirm if there is or is not a requirement for Volume VI (RFP section and para 1.3.1 and 1.3.2).

Answer: There is no requirement for Volume VI, all mention of it has been removed.

15. Question: Table 1.1 Volume Organization does not include a Table of Contents /Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms tab for Volume IV Small Business Participation (Factor 3). Was the Table of Contents/Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms tab mistakenly omitted?

Should the offeror include a Tab for this information (RFP section and para 1.3.2)?

Answer: Tab A – Table of Contents/Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms has been added.

16. Question: Excerpt from 1.4.3.4 reads as: To facilitate this relevancy determination, the offeror shall include in offeror’s Proposal Volume III, Tab C a chart or schedule describing all such changes in the organization of the offeror and Teaming Partners over the past three (3) years. Should the reference Tab C be changed to Tab D (RFP section and para 1.4.3.4 and Volume III, Tab D - Organization Structure Change History)?

Answer: Changed to Tab D.

17. Question: 1.4.3.2. TAB B – Consent Letters. In Volume III, Tab B of its proposal the offeror shall provide Consent Letters authorizing the releases of past performance information executed by a subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner for the references provided in TAB D (paragraph 1.4.3.4.). The Government requests consent before disclosing subcontractor present and past performance information to the prime contractor and/or requesting such information about the prime contractor from references. The completed consent forms shall be submitted as part of the Past Performance Volume. Should the reference to TAB D (paragraph 1.4.3.4.) in paragraph 1.4.3.2 be corrected to read as: Tab E (paragraph 1.4.3.5; PWS section and para 1.4.3.2 and Volume III, Tab B - Consent Letters)?

Answer: Changed to Tab E.

18. Question: 1.4.5.4.3 It may be necessary for offerors to revise the number of rows or columns to reflect differences or nuances in the offeror's accounting and estimating systems or to meet the requirements located in Tab D. However, it is requested that the general format be maintained as much as possible for price analysis and contract administration purposes.

Volume V does not have a Tab D. Should this paragraph refer to Volume V Tab C (RFP section and para 1.4.5.4.3)?

Answer: Changed to Tab C

19. Question: We acknowledge that the proposal is due 4 April 2024 at 10:00 am. Please confirm time is Central Time (SF 1449).

Answer: The proposal is due 04 April 2024 at 10:00 am, Eastern Time.

20. Question: The “Instruction” tab of the pricing workbook says, “Offerors shall not include pricing for SURGE for Phase-in.” The “Section B” tab of the pricing workbook, Rows 9-12 (CLINS 0002-0005, which are the Surge CLINs) indicate a quantity of 12 months. Should those CLINs be priced for 11 months instead of 12 so as not to price surge for the phase-in period (Pricing Workbook)?

Answer: The Pricing Workbook has been changed to reflect 11 Months for the Base Surge CLINS. Base Surge shall be priced for 11-months.

21. Question: There is a discrepancy between the PWS dated 10/18 regarding the CH-47 NRCM

Daily support capability for 10 aircraft (20 - 1:2 aircraft FE sets) and the final PWS that states CH-47 NRCM Daily support capability for 10 aircraft (10 - 1:2 aircraft FE sets).

Please clarify (PWS Part 5 - 5.4.2).

Answer: This was an intentional correction to the requirement.

22. Question: Please confirm that the flight time costs are taken from the current Army Fixed Wing and Helicopter Reimbursable Rate table in the DoD O&M Column. Also please provide the LCT reimbursable rate or document to reference that would be used in the calculation under para 1.5.16.5 for simulation hours (PWS 1.5.16.2 1.5.16.5 and 1.5.16.17).

Answer: No. Pricing comes from USAACE G8 and the Directorate of Simulation.

23. May Offerors add cost reimbursable CLINs to Attachment 2 to account for items such as uniforms (for example uniform polo shirts), that aren't specifically identified in the solicitation as Government-furnished item under Part 3 Government Property, Equipment and Services (PWS para. 1.5.15 Personal Appearance)?

Answer: This requirement has been determined commercial and will be awarded as Firm- Fixed-Price, therefore, a cost CLIN will not be authorized.

24. Would the Government please provide details regarding the basis and cost for the hourly cost/rate for the affected aircraft or simulator that are in effect when the training was provided (PWS para. 1.5.17 Employee Training Agreement Program)?

Answer: Costs vary by FY. See answer to Question 10.

25. Would the Government please provide available historical data regarding the frequency of the two situations noted that triggered overtime payments for each of the years under the current contract (PWS para. 5.3.1.3)?

Answer: There have been no overtime payments made due to the situations noted in PWS paragraph 5.3.1.3.

26. The specification for the CH-47F FE NRCM positions notes a 1:2 aircraft: FE sets ratio but notes the requirement for 10 aircraft as being 10 staff. Is this correct (PWS para. 5.4.6)?

Answer: “10 staff” is not mentioned in the referenced PWS paragraph. There are no staffing levels provided in the PWS, only set ratios. The CH-47F FE requirement is the daily support capability for 10 aircraft. The CH-47F FE ratio is 1:2 aircraft:FE sets. So, 10 aircraft need to be supported at a 1 aircraft to 2 FE ratio. Unlike the student load in which one IP can train two students, the CH-47F aircraft requires two FEs per aircraft supported.

27. The specification for the CH-47F FE NRCM surge positions notes a 1:2 aircraft: FE sets ratio but notes the requirement for 5 aircraft as being 5 staff. Is this correct (PWS para. 5.4.6)?

Answer: See answer to Question 26.

28. May offerors add CLINs to Attachment 2 to account for other cost items not associated with direct labor and fringe, and thus not covered elsewhere in the pricing workbook? For example, travel-related expenses that don't qualify as fringe? For context, because we are disclosing direct and indirect compensation, we are not able to build such costs into the hourly labor rates without creating a discrepancy between the buildup data and the fully burdened rates.

Answer: Attachment 2 “Instruction” tab includes the statement, “Add columns as necessary for any applicable fringe costs not already included to agree with each offeror accounting and estimating practices.”

29. Would the Government please identify which, if any, of the labor categories (LCATs) listed in the Attachment 2 have historically been categorized as SCLS personnel and the applicable SCLS LCAT for each?

Answer: No. It is the contractor’s responsibility to identify any labor categories that it considers SCLS personnel.

30. This section appears to be missing a reference to Tab A. Is there supposed to be a Tab A (RFP para. 1.4.5 Volume V: Factor IV – Price)?

Answer: Tab A has been added.

31. Are Offerors required to submit (or have subcontractors/teaming partners submit directly) detailed subcontractor/teaming partner pricing information (Attachment 2 and an accompanying narrative) and is it required for all subcontractors/teaming partners despite this being a firm fixed price solicitation (RFP para. 1.4.5.1)?

Answer: This is correct.

32. This section references "to meet the requirements of Tab D" but there is no Tab D or details regarding any such requirements. Please clarify (RFP para. 1.4.5.4.3).

Answer: Changed to Tab C.

33. Please clarify this instruction. As written, it instructs Offerors to complete all columns for all labor categories. It then goes further to state that for any labor categories deemed SCLS, the direct rate, fringe benefit detail, and other information will be used to validate SCLS rate requirements. Does this mean we do or do not need to populate the fringe data for non-SCLS LCATs (RFP para. 1.4.5.4.5)?

Answer: RFP Section 1.4.5.4.5. States, “Complete all columns for all labor categories.”

Please provide this information for all proposed labor categories.

34. Our response will contain Government, subcontractor, and CAE confidential and proprietary information. Therefore, we require confirmation that we can submit our response via encrypted email or secure file transfer email. If not, please provide which acceptable secure method of transferring confidential and proprietary information in accordance with current agreements and government cybersecurity requirements will be permitted (RFP para. 1.1.2).

Answer: Please follow the instructions in RFP Section 1.1.2.