Questions_Answers (9.17.20).docx

Q&A

1. Government - Combined Synopsis/Solicitation (Solicitation) para “2. Requirement” and PWS para “1.1 Description of Services/Introduction” and PWS para “1.4 Scope” indicate “perform installation of 1 x C-130 trainer..” yet PWS PART 5, para “5.4... trainers is plural and last sentence in 5.4 states “Both aircraft will be weather proofed”. Please confirm quantity of trainers is one (1).

Answer: Quantity does equal one (1) trainer

2. Government - Solicitation para “1.6.5 Place of Performance:” and PWS para “3. Period/Place of Performance” indicate JBER “primarily” for the place of performance – is the variability due to the unknown location of the donor aircraft/trainer?

Answer: Aircraft currently at JBER. It will need to be moved.

3. PWS Part 5, para “5.2.2 The vendor” (assuming Contractor) “must arrange trucking from aircraft location to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska.” Will the Government accept an alternative solution for the Contractor to bring the aircraft/trainer to their facility, perform the PWS stated modifications and then ship to JBER for final installation? Or is the requirement for all work to be done onsite at JBER?

Answer: Aircraft already located at JBER. All remaining work shall be able to be performed at JBER.

4. Government - Given the Solicitation requirement per para “1.6.6 Type of Contract” is FFP with an unknown location for the donor aircraft/trainer; given the variability of costs/pricing for relocation to either JBER or Contractor’s facility (subject to Government response to question in 3 above), will Government consider CPFF for this portion of the effort or should the Contractor assume worst case (OCONUS/CONUS) accordingly in their response build-up?

Answer: A CPFF will not be considered for this requirement. The aircraft is at JBER and we anticipate the distance between its current location to its final destination to be approximately 15 miles.

5. Government - PWS para “1.6.9” PAC and Periodic Meetings – We assume one PAC, how many periodic meetings should be provided for and at what location? Can these meetings be Video Conference (VC) based as opposed to travel events?

Answer: We plan to have an initial PAC upon award via teleconference. Any additional meetings that are needed we can coordinate as teleconferences as well.

6. Government - PWS Part 3 GFP/E/S para “3.4 Equipment. C-130 Trainer (Aircraft).” Please confirm if the donor aircraft/trainer is already a trainer or only a raw aircraft frame? Please clarify the donor aircraft/trainer model (e.g. C130H, J or?) if known or should the Contractor assume a worst case scenario regarding configuration changes?

Award: C130H and is a raw aircraft frame.

7. For the donor C-130, where is the current location of the asset?

Award: Asset currently at JBER.

8. Government - PWS Part 5 para “5.4.4” states “The Airframe and all work done will be warranted....” Is it the Government’s intention for the Contractor to include items of GFE in the warranty or only those GFE items that are modified? (E.g. untouched fuselage aluminum structure). Is the annual inspection to be considered an extended warranty period of three (3) years or strictly a technical support site visit with a report of findings?

Answer: Contractor is to include items of the GFE in the warranty.

9. In Paragraph 1.1 it is stated “installation of 1x C130 trainer”. What configuration is the trainer to be? Is the trainer to be a short body J aircraft or retain the donor aircraft configuration.

Answer: Short Body.

10. If the trainer is to be a short body J aircraft, which block version is required? 6.5.3 or 8.1?

Answer: I believe it is a short model C130H.

11. What is the plan for acquisition for major GFE/BFE item? i.e the winch, static line retrievers, cargo door configuration parts.

Answer: Either through the contractor, or the Army supply system to include the GPC program.

12. Who will be responsible for parts reused from donor aircraft that are un-usable on the trainer? i.e. an inoperative bell, leaking rap actuator…etc.

Answer: The contractor is responsible for the overall functionality of the trainer at end-state. They will use the donor as-is and we will work through deficiencies as they arise.

13. For the desired configuration of the aircraft. Will this re-use the removable rollers, or the electric locks? If the electric locks, who will be the source?

Answer: No

14. Will trainer be housed inside an existing facility? Or is the pad construction for a new facility?

Answer: New facility. Not covered.

15. Is power currently available at the facility installation site? If so, what is the voltage, phase and frequency?

Answer: No

16. There is no mention of Instructor requirements, nor malfunctions. Is this trainer to be utilized as a Part Task Trainer with no faults to be inserted into the system?

Answer: This is not a trainer to test for faults. It will be used to train Jumpmasters and Jumpers on proper exiting procedures.

17. I am assuming for the loadmaster and jump training, there is no need for the cockpit, so the cockpit would be removed from the fuselage in front of the bulkhead and discarded before transport. Or is it important to have the cockpit intact for possible future training?

Answer: Cockpit is not important for the intended use.