QA Airplane Solicitation.docx
DOCX document 16 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W9128F20Q0009
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation for the operation and maintenance of a government-owned aircraft. The solicitation seeks to award a contract to provide all necessary personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools, materials, and accessories to maintain, inspect, repair, and operate one Metro 23, SA 227 DC aircraft for the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers Engineering District Omaha. Questions addressed key details such as historical contract escalation rates, equivalent experience requirements for pilots and mechanics, use of government-owned checklists and manuals, training provisions, and the intent for incumbent employee retention. The quotation due date was extended to March 6, 2020 to allow time for personnel identification and transition given the current contract expiration of March 31, 2020.
View the file
Other files
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
Questions and Answers Solicitation W9128F20Q0009
| 1. | Q: What has been the historical option year escalator? |
| A: The average escalation of the last four option years of the contract is 2.1%. |
| 2. | Q: How many times in the past 24 months has less than 12 hours notice been given for a trip? |
| A: Four times. Eleven other instances of major changes after the schedule was published. |
| 3. | Q: Define mechanics equivalence for experience/resume requirements (i.e. examples of what would be accepted). |
| A: |
| 4. | Q: Define pilot equivalence for experience/resume requirements (i.e. examples of what would be accepted). |
| A: |
5. Q: With this being a new requirement, would a pilot/maintenance pool of resumes be adequate for to meet the resume submission requirement?
A: No, the Government needs to evaluate individual résumés of the personnel who will be performing the services.
| 6. | Q: Does the aircraft have ADS-B? |
| A: Yes. |
7. Q: Will the cockpit avionics mod that was mentioned during the sight visit be complete prior to contract issuance and if not what will be the contractor’s responsibility associated with it?
A: No, the avionics modification will not be complete prior to the contract award. The avionics modification would be a negotiated change order with the contractor separate from the firm fixed price contract or the reimbursable line items. The contractor will manage the specialty subcontractor selected for this modification.
| 8. | Q: RFQ Part 5 – Specific Tasks, para 5.1 Basic Services. Reference says: “See 1.4.1 through 1.4.11.1h above and below operations manual.” Please confirm reference to paragraph 1.4.11.1h. Should it read: 1.4.10.7? |
| A: It should be 1.4.1 – 1.4.10.6. |
| 9. | Q: Reference RFQ Section 3, para 3.1(b). Reference requires contractor to, “prepare and maintain a minimum equipment list comparable to the sample attached hereto as APPENDIX A.” We could not find Appendix A in the RFP. Please confirm the reference. |
| A: Appendix A should read as TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 4 |
10. Q: Reference RFQ, page 41, Factor I – Technical, (1) a. (5) and (6). RFP requires we provide:
(5) Chief Pilot Time in Metro 23, SA227DC aircraft or equivalent (6) Pilot-in-Command of Metro 23, SA227DC or equivalent. What aircraft will the Government accept as equivalent? For example, CASA 212, Beach 1900.
A:
| 11. | Q: Reference RFQ, page 41, Factor I- Technical, (1) b. (3). RFP requires we provide “(3) Chief of Maintenance years of experience in category and class of aircraft and engines (4) Technical Instruction on Garrett TPE 331-12 engine. The TPE 331-12 engine is used in other aircraft, i.e. CASA 212. Is experience working on this engine in other aircraft considered as "similar in category and class”? |
| A: See answer to #3. |
12. Q: RFQ, page 41, Factor I-Technical. It is customary when contracts change that the follow-on Contractor offers incumbent personnel first right of first refusal to work for the new Contractor. The requirements of this RFQ suggest incumbent employees will not be able to continue on the contract (if they desire) because of the requirements for resumes and letters of commitment. Is this the Government’s intent? We are more than capable of completely replacing the incumbent staff, but would like to retain good employees.
A: No, that is not the Government’s intent. The solicitation contains FAR Clause 52.222-17 “Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers” which requires that incumbent employees be given the right of first refusal. The clause requires that the Government provide a “…service employee list, but not before contract award…” to the successor contractor. The Government has a bona fide interest in ensuring that qualified staff are proposed for the services and will not make the selection decision based only the company qualifications. This very situation was a matter of some debate when the FAR clause was instituted in 2014 due to the challenges it presents to new interested bidders.
| 13. | Q: Will the Government extend the proposal due date by two weeks until 16 March 2020, to allow adequate time to identify qualified personnel? |
| A: The quotation due date will be extended to March 6, 2020. The current contract expires on March 31, 2020 and the Government needs adequate time to evaluate quotations and facilitate service employee list discussed in Question #12 if necessary. [Note: The solicitation inadvertently had 1200 on March 2, 2020 as the due date/time.] |
| 14. | Q: Reference RFQ, page 41, Factor I – Technical, (5) Captain’s Checklist. Our company develops and uses checklists based on the approved Aircraft Flight Manual and tailors the procedure (if needed) to the individual customer based on customer-centric needs and environment. Does the customer currently use GOP/FOP that include customer approved or desired checklists? If so, will they be made available to all bidders? |
| A: |
| 15. | Q: Reference RFQ, page 41, Factor I – Technical, (2). Does the customer have specific desires or needs regarding aircraft operations that go beyond using the Approved Flight Manual procedures and checklists? |
| A: |
| 16. | Q: Reference RFQ, page 41, Factor I – Technical, (2). While the Customer’s aircraft is considered Public Use does the client recognize and desire the aircraft to conform to Part 135 standards while providing service? This includes 6-month check rides, crew rest limitations, and conducting operations the same as any CARB approved contract? |
| A: |
| 17. | Q: Reference RFQ, page 41, Factor I – Technical, (7). Our company uses FAA approved simulators to enhance pilot initial and recurrent training including 6-month instrument proficiency checks. Would the customer support and encourage such simulator training to add value or prefer all training be conducted in customer provided aircraft? |
| A: |
| 18. | Q: Reference RFQ, page 41, Factor I – Technical, (7). Will the customer allow training in their aircraft? |
| A: |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .