Government Responses to Industry Final SAI SIR Questions 01.17.24.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 48 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Surface Awareness Initiative
- Solicitation number
- 693KA7SAI
About this file
This Screening Information Request (SIR) from the Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration seeks proposals for a Surface Awareness Initiative to provide air traffic controllers with enhanced surface situational awareness capabilities. Offerors must provide a solution meeting requirements for aircraft tracking and display. The SIR provides final documents incorporating industry feedback, with comments and questions due by specified dates in accordance with instructions. Proposals will be evaluated in three tiers, with operational capability demonstrations required of select offerors. The solution will be contracted for five initial airports through task orders covering equipment, connectivity, and monthly recurring services. Pricing is to be provided using the attached cost model with labor rates, escalation factors, and assumed quantities for the initial airports.
View the file
Other files
Show all 47
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
Section B
| Comment Number | Section | Page | Paragraph | Comments | Government Responses |
| 1 | B | 4 & 5 | B.4.1.2 and B.4.1.3 | 1. Should contractor acceptance (PWS 4.2.9.7) and equipment storage (PWS 4.2.9.8), which are non-recurring costs, be referenced in service establishment sub-CLINs 01A1, 01B1 and 01C1 instead of monthly recurring sub-CLINs 01B2 and 01C2? |
2. Should equipment removal and disposition (PWS 4.2.10), which is described in the PWS as "If exercised by the Government", be referenced in the Task Order CLIN (section B, paragraph 4.3) instead of monthly recurring sub-CLINs 01B2 and 01C2?
3. Should PWS 4.2.7 and 4.2.8 (Serive Performance Monitoring and Service Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance) be referenced in monthly recurring Sub-CLINs 01B2 and 01C2?
1. The Government has added these references to the nonrecurring CLINs. Offerors are then able to recover costs for any non recurring and/or recurring elements.
2. This section has been modified to make clear that the equipment removal refers only to Contractor provided SAI equipment. The PWS reference to equipment removal has been added to the nonrecurring efforts subCLINs 01B1 and 01C1. Offerors are now able to recover the future cost of equipment removal at the time of installation if they so choose.
3. The Government has added these references to subCLINs 01B2 and 01C2.
| 2 | B | B.4.1.1 | The current structure of the CLINs and sub-CLINs in Section B does not afford the FAA the ability to benefit from the efficiencies associated with one or more Offerors providing SAI service to multiple airports. For example, there is no way accurate way to aportion the cost of services which may be shared across multiple airports (ex. cloud hosting, NOC/SOC services, etc), which will result in the FAA paying for these services multiple times. Recommend adding a CLIN for O&M price (both a non-recurring and recurring subCLIN) that is independent of the number of airports, and allowing Offerors to spread the price across these new subCLINs, and CLINs 01A1 and 01A2, as they see fit. | Contractors on the QPL will likely be asked to propose prices for additional airports. At this point contractors can address economies of scale achieved based upon awarded airports. | ||
| 3 | SAI SIR Section B | 6 | B.4.2 | |||
| CLIN 02 | CLIN 02 structure assumes that all enhanced functionality can be encapsulated in a single SubCLIN ( inclusive of one for NRE and one for recurring charges). For maximum Government flexibility in choosing and purchasing enhanced features, will the government please allow up to 5 separately priced enhanced functionality items to be included, each with an NRE and recurring element? | The Government's goal is to facilitate a streamlined source selection and management process. Adding this complexity would add time and management effort on the Government side which translates to additonal cost and risk. The Government views a better application of funding for these efforts to be ordering additional airports. The Government is attempting to meet industry part-way by allowing 2 proposed configurations. |
Section C
| Comment Number | Page | Section | Comments | Government Response |
| 1 | 5 | C.2.1 - Government Documents table | Please provide a copy of all of the referenced Government Documents or provide guidance on how to access the files. | All referenced Government documents can be obtained by contracting the FAA Contracting Officer. |
| 2 | 6 | C.4.2.3 - Training | The SOW states “The Contractor must deliver end-user training for local Air Traffic personnel and familiarization training for Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Technical Operations personnel.” Please clarify what role ATO Technical Operations will have and what scope of training is needed for them. The involvement of Tech Ops seems at odds with the idea that SAI is a vendor provided and managed commercial service. | Technical Operations personnel are responsible for coordination with the Contractor on all issues with the SAI solution. The required familiarization training is to ensure that Technical Operations personnel have a full understanding of the SAI solution. |
| 3 | 6 | C.4.2.3 - Training | The SOW states “The Contractor must provide electronic and paper copies of all training materials.” There is only a CDRL for a User Manual (CDRL SAI-PM02 USER MANUAL [UM]). Should other CDRLs be created for training materials (operator courses)? | The PWS requires the Contractor to deliver all training materials associated with user training and familiarization training. While these have not been identified as CDRLS, they must be provided to the Government. |
| 4 | 8 | C.4.2.8.1.3 - Notification of Service Outage or Service Impacting Events | Is there a possibility for agreed-upon maintenance windows for online and physical hardware patching or other maintenance activity? Saab would still announce the activity. | The FAA anticipates that each site will have varied maintenance windows. The Contractor must coordinate each maintenance activity with FAA personnel to identify a viable maintenance window. |
| 5 | 9 | C.4.2.8.3 - Service Maintenance | Please confirm that the Government is expecting a completely COTS/commercial maintenance philosophy and approach to meet the Ao requirement, where no GFE will be managed and a commercial Depot with no associated CDRLs or reports is expected. | Yes, the Government is expecting a completely COTS/commercial maintenance philosophy and approach to meet the Availability requirement, with the exception of an Admin network connection if required by the Contractor for their proposed solution. |
| 6 | Aside from air traffic control towers, are other FAA facilities at an airport available for installation of ADS-B receivers (i.e., existing FAA facilities such as glideslope or equipment buildings, DME equipment buildings, etc.)? | Yes, other FAA facilities at an airport may be available for installation of ADS-B receivers. However, the Contractor must comply with respective FAA orders and the FAA facilities must be identified and approved by the FAA (CDRLs Design Site Survey Report and Site Specification Implementation Plan). | ||
| 7 | 7 | C.4.2.6 | For hardware and software updates, will the supplier team define the system acceptance test for re-qualifying the system? | Yes, the Contractor will identify all test requirements for requalification activities. The FAA will approve the proposed test activities as part of the CDRL review (Service Requalification Test Plan and Procedures). If another service acceptance test (C.4.2.9.6) is required at the site, it must be identified as part of the requalification effort. |
| 8 | 7 | C.4.2.6 | What is the government approval process for each of the deliverables in the system acceptance test process? | The Government will review and approve all CDRLs identified in the PWS to ensure DiD requirements are met. Section J.5 identifies the CDRL submission and review cycle. |
| 9 | 7 | C.4.2.6 | Will system acceptance test be conducted as FAT or a key site or at each site? | Service Requalification Testing (4.2.6) may be conducted at the vendor's site or a key site, as approved by the FAA. A Service Acceptance Test (C.4.2.9.6) is conducted at each site when required. |
| 10 | 2 | C.2.2 | Are there any identified non-government documents for this SIR? | There are no non-government documents identified within the PWS. |
Section D
| Comment Number | Section | Page | Paragraph | Comments | Government Responses |
| 1 | D | 3 | D.6 | Paragraph D.6 states "as required by Section C.3.6…" There is no 3.6 in Section C. Please clarify. | Please see edits made to this section within Amendment 1 |
| 2 | D | All | All | Section D, in general, is largely inconsistent with a Service Provision Contract. This section implies that FAA intends to "accept" equipment prior to installation, and store spares at the FAA logistics center (FAALC), among other inconsistencies. Recommend that Section D be removed from the SIR. | The Government has made some revisions accordingly. The requirements provided in Section D may not have applicability to the baseline requirements contained in the rest of the SIR. |
Section F
| Comment Number | Section | Page | Paragraph | Comments | Government Responses |
| 1 | F | F.7 | The requirement states that “The Contractor must deliver the required service no later than 90 calendar days after order.” The combination of key performance requirements (Service Availability, Latency, Coverage, etc) and economic penalties for failure to meet performance requirements necessitates the deployment of robust aviation infrastrtucture. While the mechanics of the design, implementation, and test may be supported by this timeframe, the FAA, airport, and any local jurisdictional review and approval cycles, which are often serial, are typically the pacing items in the schedule. For example, the timeframe from delivery of signed architectural drawings to the airport or local jurisdiction to the receipt of an authorization to proceed or building permit from the airport or local jurisdiction alone can often exceed 90 days. Therefore, it is our view that 90 days to Service Delivery at the peformance levels requested is completely unrealistic and should be refined by the FAA. | FAA review and approval times for contract deliverables and installation activity approvals do not count in the 90 day period. Please see updates in Amendment 1 of Section L. |
Section G
| Comment Number | Section | Page | Paragraph | Comments | Government Responses |
| 1 | Section G.7 – Correspondence Procedures, Item a. | This section mentions “EVMS related changes.” Could the FAA please clarify if this is applicable for this opportunity or remove the language? | The Government concurs that EVMS is not applicable to this effort. Please see Amendment 1 for revisions. | ||
| 2 | Section G.8 – Invoicing and Method of Payment, Item e. • Section I – 3.3.1-40 Electronic Submission of Payment Requests (April 2022) | Section G.8, Item e. states that invoices should be submitted both via email and through the KSN site, while Section I, 3.3.1-40 states that Contractors must use the Delphi eInvoicing web portal. Could the FAA please clarify the method for submitting invoices? | The Government has updated section G.8 to simplify instructions. This contract will use the methodology l;isted in clause 3.3.1-40. | ||
| 3 | Section G.8 – Invoicing and Method of Payment, Item b. | Can the FAA confirm that items (2), (6), and (9) are applicable for a FFP contract? | The Government concurs that these items are not applicable to FFP invoicing. Please see Amendment 1 for revisions. | ||
| 4 | Section G.8 – Invoicing and Method of Payment, Items c. and d | Can the FAA confirm that items c. and d. are applicable for a FFP contract? | Item d. does not apply. Item c. is only applicable to potential T&M elements under a Task Order. Please see Amendment 1 for revisions. |
Section H
| Comment Number | Section | Page | Paragraph | Comments | Government Responses | |
| 1 | SAI SIR Section H | 5-Apr | H.6 (p4) | |||
| H.10 (p5) | There is the indication of traveling to various FAA locations for meetings in Section H. Is there a CLIN for travel and for T&M for these meetings if they are outside of the specified meetings (e.g. Site Design Readiness)? | Please see the revision to Section H.6 in Amendment 1. | ||||
| 2 | SAI SIR Section H | |||||
| SAI SIR Attachment J.1 | H (p11) | |||||
| J.1 (p8) | H.22 | |||||
| J.1 Appendix B | TPM requirements are based upon Adjusted Service Availability as defined in J.1 as a calculation over a 12 month period. However, H.22 penalizes unapproved service interruptions even if the Adjusted Service Availability is within tolerance. Will the FAA consider removing the Service Credit for non-Performance if the 12 month Adjusted Service Availability remains above 99%? | The Government has adjusted H.22 to indicate that a reduction in payment is only triggered if the availability is less than required. |
Section I
| Comment Number | Section | Page | Paragraph | Comments | Government Responses |
| 1 | Section I, para 3.6.1-8 | 14 | Contract | "Offers are solicited only from eligible 8(a) certified small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns." |
| Would the FAA clarify whether this opportunity is being limited to 8(a) concerns? Or is this clause simply an artifact of a different solicitation? | The Government has removed this clause. Please see revisions to Section I in Amendment 1. | |||||
| 2 | SAI SIR Section I | I-14 | 3.6.1-8 | Section I includes clause 3.6.1-8 Notification of Competition Limited to Eligible 8(a) Certified SDB Concerns (January 2022). SAM.GOV does not indicate there is any set-aside requirement under either "Classification" or "General Information ''. Will the government please confirm that this clause should not be included, that the solicitation is full and open, and remove the clause? | The Government has removed this clause. Please see revisions to Section I in Amendment 1. | |
| 3 | SAI SIR Section I | I-3 | 3.1-1 | |||
| Clause 3.6.1-1 | Section I includes clause 3.6.1-1 Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside . SAM.GOV does not indicate there is any set-aside requirement under either "Classification" or "General Information ''. Will the government please confirm that this clause should not be included, that the solicitation is full and open, and remove the clause? | The Government has removed this clause. Please see revisions to Section I in Amendment 1. | ||||
| 4 | SAI SIR Section I | I-3 | 3.1-1 | |||
| Clause 3.6.1-7 | Section I includes clause 3.6.1-7 Limitations on Subcontracting . SAM.GOV does not indicate there is any set-aside requirement under either "Classification" or "General Information ''. This clause is normally only included in solicitations that are set-asides. Will the government please confirm that this clause should not be included, that the solicitation is full and open, and remove the clause? | The Government has removed this clause. Please see revisions to Section I in Amendment 1. | ||||
| 5 | SAI SIR Section I | I-3 | 3.1-1 | |||
| Clause 3.6.1-9 | Section I includes clause 3.6.1-9 Limitations on Subcontracting Mentor Protégé Program. This clause is usually only included in SIRs and contracts with subcontracting plans and in SIRs and contracts exceeding $750,000 ($1,500,000 for construction) set aside for small business that offer subcontracting opportunities. Will the government please confirm that this clause should not be included, that the solicitation is full and open, and remove the clause? | The Government has removed this clause. Please see revisions to Section I in Amendment 1. | ||||
| 6 | SAI SIR Section I | I-3 | 3.1-1 | |||
| Clause 3.6.1-11 | 0 | The Government has removed this clause. Please see revisions to Section I in Amendment 1. | ||||
| 7 | SAI SIR Section I | I-3 | 3.1-1 | |||
| Clause 3.6.1-12 | Section I includes clause 3.6.1.12 Notice of Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Set-Aside. This clause is normally only included in SDVOSB set-asides.Will the government please confirm that this clause should not be included, that the solicitation is full and open, and remove the clause? | The Government has removed this clause. Please see revisions to Section I in Amendment 1. | ||||
| 8 | Section I – Clause 3.4.1-1 Proposal Guarantee (January 2017 | Is this clause applicable for this opportunity? Could the FAA please clarify or remove this requirement? | The Government has removed this clause. Please see revisions to Section I in Amendment 1. |
Section L
| Comment Number | Section | Page | Paragraph | Comments | Government Responses | |
| 1 | L | 7 and 15 | 3.2.2.3-20 and 4.2 | Section L 4.2 indicates proposal delivery as submission by email; Section 3.3.3.3-20 states "The offeror (you) must submit responses to this SIR by the following electronic means: CD, DVD, or USB disk (USB preferable); Two (2) copies. " Please clarify. | The Government has resolved this issue. Please see revisions to Section L in Amendment 1. | |
| 2 | 12 | L.3.3.3 Conduct of the Operational Capability Demonstrations | How many FAA or FAA contractor attendees are expected at the OCD and would any of the participants be local stakeholders associated with one of the first 5 SAI airports? Understanding this will assist us in selecting a proposed OCD site and ensuring that adequate space is available for the OCD activities. | The Government expects 5-10 attendees from the Program. | ||
| 3 | 13 | L.3.3.3 Conduct of the Operational Capability Demonstrations | ||||
| Paragraph 4 | "The demonstration will end at the after the morning period of 150 minutes". This sentence appears to have a typo. Please review and clarify. It is our current understanding that the demonstration will fully conclude at 5:00 pm on the third day at the latest. |
| Also, please confirm if day three will include a Q&A session after the lunch break. | The Government has shortened the OCD time listed in the Draft SIR to be 2.5 days for the Final SIR. | ||
| 4 | 15 | SubParagraph L.4.1 - Volume Submissions and Projected Acquisition Milestones |
Table: Volume Submissions and Projected Acquisition Milestones
| Row 2 - Deadline for Offers' SIR Questions/Discrepency Notificaitons | While we have done our best to evaluate the entire SIR package and submit questions by the January 5 deadline, please consider establishing an extended deadline for questions or discrepency notifications pertaining to the Cost/Price Volume and the J.8 Cost/Price Model given the short time window and the fact that, since the Cost/Price Volume is due later, it will get more attention after we have completed our Technical Volume. | The Government will review any questions or comments that come in. | |
| 5 | 18 | SubParagraph L.4.4 - Format Instructions |
Table 1: Proposal Volumes Volume V
| The reference to Volume V states the number of electronic copies as '21". There are only two (2) files defined as requirements for this volume in subparagraph L.9 - can you please clarify expectations for the expected deliverables beyond these two (2) items - SF 33 and Section K? | The 21 is a typo. The contents of Volume V should be limited to just the SF33 and Section K items. Please see revisions to Section L in Amendment 1. | |||
| 6 | 28 | SubParagraph L.9.1 | Will an SF 33 / Section A be provided by the FAA? | The Government has provided an SF33 in Amendment 1. |
| 7 | L 3.2.2.3-20 Offers (a) |
and
L.4.2 Proposal Delivery Instructions "(a) The offeror (you) must submit responses to this SIR by the following electronic means: CD, DVD, or USB disk (USB preferable); Two (2) copies."
"Offerors are fully responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted in accordance with the schedule above to the email addresses below:"
| We assume the directions to email the response supercede the directions to submit on CD, DVD, or USB disk. Is that a correct assumption? | The Government has resolved this issue. Please see revisions to Section L in Amendment 1. | |||
| 8 | L.2, para 3.2.1.3-1 | Contract | "This screening information request (SIR) is part of a Government competitive sourcing process to determine whether accomplishing the specified work under contract or by a Government organization provides the best value to the Government." |
| Is there a Government Organization currently performing any of the work contained in the scope of this solicitation, or that has expressed interest in performing this scope of work? | The Government has removed this clause in Amendment 1. | ||||
| 9 | 19 | L, para L5.1.1.1/2 | Technical | There are various references to non-critical requirements, however J.3 Tab MRD shows all requirements as being critical. |
| Can FAA advise what requirements are classified as non-critical? | All Attachment J.1 requirements are identified as critical. | |||||
| 10 | SAI SIR Section L | 17 | L.4.4 | Section L requires "All pages of each part must be appropriately numbered, and identified with the name of the Offeror, the date, and the solicitation number to the extent practicable;", however, the Solicitation Number does not appear to be listed anywhere in the RFP documents. Additionally, we are not able to find the solicitation number listed on SAM.GOV. Will the government please provide the correct solicitation number or delete the requirement to include it in the offeror's proposal? | The Solicitation Number is the same as the SAM Notice ID contained in the SIR announcment. | |
| 11 | SAI SIR Section L | 17 | L.4.4 | Section L states, "A Cover Page, Table of Contents, Table of Tables, Table of Figures, Glossary of Terms, and Index may be included but will not be evaluated and will not be included as part of the page count." Will the government allow us to include an optional compliance matrix, not included in page count, in addition to the other allowed front matter (Table of Contenbts, etc.) to better facilitate government review of the proposal? | If an Offeror views a compliance matrix as beneficial to the evaluation of its proposal, the Offeror is welcome to include it. However, a compliance matrix will count against the Technical Volume page limit. | |
| 12 | SAI SIR Section L | 19 SAI-1- SAI-33 | L.5.1.1.1 b) | |||
| L.5.1.1.2 b) | Section L asks offeror's to address both critical SAI functional requirements and noncritical functional requirements as stated in L.5.1.1.2 b), "Meets SAI functional and performance requirements not identified as critical". There do not appear to be any requirements not identified as critical (either functional or performance) in Attachment J.1. This same request to address requirements not identified as critical is included in 2 locations within Section L as listed in the paragraph number column to the left. Will the government please identify which requirements it considers to be "not identified as critical" or remove the "not identified as critical" sentences from Section L? | All MRD requirements are identified as critical. The Government will remove L.5.1.1.2(b). Note that L.5.1.1.1(b) will remain, since it is not limited to requirements only appearing in the MRD. | ||||
| 13 | SAI SIR Section L | 24 SAI-1 - SAI-33 | L.5.2.4 | Section L, Paragraph L.5.2.4 states, "Subject to the restrictions identified in Section L.3.3.3 above the Offeror may demonstrate any enhanced functionality provided by its solution and how its solutions meets any SIR requirements not covered in Sections L.5.1.1, L.5.1.2, L.5.1.3, L.5.2.1, L.5.2.2, or L.5.2.3 above." The referenced sections appear to include all of the SIR requirements currently identified by the government. Are there additional SAI requirements not currently identified in the RFP Sections B - M and Attachments, and if so, what are they? Or, is the government's intent that contractors should propose Enhanced Functionality that provides additional benefit to the SAI program above and beyond the government's stated requirements? | The Government's intent is that Contractors may proposed enhanced functionality that provides additional benefit to the SAI program above and beyond the Government's stated requirements. | |
| 14 | SAI SIR Section L | 28 | L.9.1 | The RFP package posted to SAM.GOV does not include Section A which normally includes the SF33. Will the government please provide the appropriate SF33 which is required by Section L? | The Government has provided an SF33 in Amendment 1. | |
| 15 | SAI SIR Section L | 7 | L.3.2.2.3-20 | Section L 3.2.2.3-4 referencing another paragraph 3.2.2.3-20 “Offers” - states The offeror (you) must submit responses to this SIR by the following electronic means: CD, DVD, or USB disk (USB preferable); Two (2) copies. Your offer must arrive at the place and by the time specified in the SIR.” Whereas L.4.2 states that all offers should be submitted by email. Will the government please clarify offer submission instructions? | The Government has resolved this issue. Please see revisions to Section L in Amendment 1. | |
| 16 | Section L.9.1 – SF 33; Standard Form (SF) 33 | The SIR states that offerors must complete and sign SF 33, but it was not provided with the 27 December 2023 documentation. Could the FAA please provide this? | The Government has provided an SF33 in Amendment 1. | |||
| 17 | Section L.2 – Clauses and Provisions Incorporated in Full Text • Section L.4.2 – Proposal Delivery Instructions | AMS clause 3.2.2.3-20 (January 2018) included in Section L.2 states that offerors “must submit responses to this SIR by the following means: CD, DVD, or USB disk (USB preferable); Two (2) copies.” However, Section L.4.2 states that proposals be submitted via email to the Contracting Officers. Could the FAA please provide clarity on the proposal delivery method? | The Government has resolved this issue. Please see revisions to Section L in Amendment 1. | |||
| 18 | Section L.4.4 – Format Instructions, Table 1 | Table 1 in Section L.4.4 indicates that offerors must submit 21 electronic copies of Volume V. Is this correct? If so, how should each copy be labeled? | The 21 is a typo. Please see revisions to Section L in Amendment 1. | |||
| 19 | Section L.3.3.3 – Conduct of the Operational Capability Demonstrations | The OCD must occur at a US domestic location.” Will the OCD occur at the WJHTC or at an airport? | Note that Section L.5.1.1.3 directs: "if the Offeror is selected to participate in the Tier 2 Operational Capability Demonstration, the Offeror must provide the facility and location where they would conduct the OCD. Offerors are encouraged to provide multiple domestic locations." |
Section M
| Comment Number | Section | Page | Paragraph | Comments | Government Responses |
| 1 | Operational Capability Demonstration | It is mentioned that " Operational Capability Demonstrations (OCD) will take place no sooner than 4 weeks after the submission of Technical Volume Part A." |
The scope identified from the OCD requirement is as similar to a project implementation which needs site survey, coverage study, Site access (including passes).
Please note that getting a ADS-B feed from a live Airport is not feasible within this time considering the delivery lead time, infrastructure dependencies, deployment etc. It would take 3-4 months approximately for the deployment to run OCD.
Please clarify the following:
- OCD (which is 4 weeks after Technical submittal) can be done by target Simulation within our system than ADS-B feed from a live Airport?
| - Can it be done within Contractor facility within US region? | Please note that L.3.3.3 indicates: "The OCD must occur at a US domestic location." Additionally, L.5.1.1.3 also indicates: "if the Offeror is selected to participate in the Tier 2 Operational Capability Demonstration, the Offeror must provide the facility and location where they would conduct the OCD. Offerors are encouraged to provide multiple domestic locations." The Government has clarified the requirements for the OCD in Amendment 1 of Section L.5.2. Please also note that the QPL is scheduled to be reopened per Article 4 contained within the Draft Basic Ordering Agreement, Attachment J.6. | |||||
| 2 | SAI SIR Section M | 13 | M.5 | Section M.5 mistakenly identifies Volume I.B as the Operational Capability Demonstration, as shown here, "Volume I.B Operational Capability Demonstration Evaluation". Will the government please correct the paragraph to reference the correct volume (Volume I.C)? | The Government has corrected the reference in the title. | |
| 3 | SAI SIR Section M | 14 | M.6.1 | The paragraph states, "In support of the source selection determination, the FAA will evaluate the Technical Volume (I.A) and the OCD (I.B) for all Offerors listed on the QPL as stated below. " This incorrectly identifies the OCD Volume as Volume I.B. Will the government please correct the reference to read "...Technical Volume (I.A) and the OCD (I.C)..."? | The Government has corrected the reference. | |
| 4 | SAI SIR Section M | 17 | M.6.2.1 | The section states, "The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s price proposals using Price Model and additional supporting documentation submitted by the Offeror." Section L does not appear to make allowance for supporting documentation as part of Volume II. What additional supporting documentation is the government referencing, and where within the cost volume would the government like us to include such "supporting documentation"? | Section L.6 requires: "Offerors must include all information related to the proposed price, all required supporting documentation, and data to substantiate that all requirements of this SIR are fully addressed." Additionally, M.6.2.1 mentions "The FAA will evaluate the Offeror’s price proposals using Price Model and additional supporting documentation submitted by the Offeror." Furthermore, no page limit has been established for Volume II in which this supporting documentation can be provided. This supporting documentation entails any Price Volume related documentation an Offeror deems necessary to support Bases of Estimate, explanations, assumptions, and other related Price Volume items. |
Section J.1
| Comment Number | Section | Page | Paragraph | Comments | Government Responses | |
| 1 | J.1 | 9 | 3.1.1 and | |||
| Appendix B | Coverage Volume is a defined term in J.1, but it is somwhat ambiguous, as it is not precise in geospatial or airport definition terms. |
For the purpose of clarifying the area where SAI-26 performance will be evaluated, we recommend that Coverage Volume be redefined as follows (or similar):
a) The runways, the taxiways that connect to runways, and the taxiways that run parallel to runways typically used for taxiing traffic to/from the runways, from the ground to 300 feet above.
b) A volume described horizontally as a 10-degree wedge extending 5 nmi beyond the runway thresholds, and vertically in a 4-degree elevation wedge centered on a 3-degree glide slope to the runway threshold. Site specific coverage volumes will be identified during site surveys.
Section C PWS C.4.2.9.2 will be updated to add appropriate language.
2 J.1 8 Appendix B Could the FAA clarify how the time when the system is in degraded system state is accounted for in the uptime / downtime calculation? A degraded system state does not affect the Availability calculation.
Section J.1 Appendix B (page 9) will be updated to revise definition of System State.
| 3 | SAI SIR Attachment J.1 | SAI-31: J.1 | |||
| J.7 | J.1, [SAI-31] states the “Adjusted Service Availability must be greater than or equal to 0.99 over the preceding 12 months.” This document also provides the definition of Adjusted Service Availability. However, the J.7 TPM Availability requirement states the system “overall Operational Availability must be greater than 0.99 over the preceding 12 months.” No definition of Operational Availability is provided. We believe the intent is to harmonize these requirements on the term “Adjusted Service Availability”. Will the government please confirm that the intent is to harmonize these requirements on the term “Adjusted Service Availability”? | Section J.7 will be updated to replace "Operational Availability" with "Adjusted Service Availability". | |||
| 4 | FAA Order 6050.19E | FAA Order 6050.19E appears to be focused on the use of equipment which “utilizes” the use of radio spectrum – however contextually “utilization” appears to be solely focused on transmitters of RF. If the ADS-B receivers deployed for SAI are passive in nature and do not transmit RF, will the government please clarify the role that FAA Order 6050.19E plays and what level of approvals the receivers need by FAA, NTIA, or FCC? | FAA Order 6050.19E does not apply to passive radios, however, the MRD does not preclude the use of other non-passive technologies. Vendors must comply with FAA Order 6050.19E as applicable to proposed solution. | ||
| 5 | SAI SIR Attachment J.1 | ||||
| SAI SIR Attachment J.2 | 4,6 | J.1 |
J.2 SAI-2, SAI-29 Will the FAA more specifically define the coverage requirements for the approach corridors in terms of altitude graded from the runway threshold out to five miles? For example, is coverage at the surface required on the outer edges of the 5nm radius from runway? Site specific coverage volumes will be identified during site surveys.
Section C PWS C.4.2.9.2 will be updated to add appropriate language.
6 In several locations, BARO correction for the altitude reported is listed as an example of an enhanced function. What is the CONOPS for this feature? As an enhanced function, the SAI system may correct Mode C altitudes for local barometric pressure.
This is important because: SAI-10 states, “The display of Targets must be configurable based on location and altitude.” If a user selects an altitude range filter from 0 to 500’ (AGL), so as to limit the display of overflights and aircraft in the traffic pattern, then, without a local barometric pressure correction, landing aircraft would not ever be displayed on days when the local barometric pressure was lower than 29.42” because the aircraft Mode C altitude (based on 29.92” Hg, aka pressure altitude) would indicate that the aircraft was 500’ AGL when, in fact, it would be on the surface. Similarly, on a day when the local barometric pressure was 30.42”, the aircraft Mode C altitude would indicate that the aircraft was 500’ below ground level when, in fact, it would be on the surface.
| 7 | SAI SIR Attachment J.1 | 5 | J.1 | |||
| SAI-15 | Attachment J.1, SAI-15 Note: What does the FAA mean regarding ‘Access to the FAA Admin/Mission Support networks may be granted for client-side display of targets via a web browser’? Does this mean that display processors may be connected to the FAA network in tower so long as the display is driven from a web browser? Would we be limited on Monitoring and Control access in the event this is used? | As stated in PWS C3.1.5, GFE computer(s) may utilize the FAA Admin/Mission Support network to access the vendor’s data feed from their off-site processing computer/facility to provide a web browser based SAI display. This client-side display computer(s) connected to the FAA Admin/Mission Support network may not send data (other than interface configuration commands) to the vendor’s processing computer/facility. The vendor is responsible for any connectivity their solution requires to send data to their processing computer/facility. | ||||
| 8 | Section J.1 – 3.2 Performance Requirements [SAI-28] • Section J.7, Table 1 | The ADS-B latency requirement listed in Section J.7 Table 1 is 1.3 seconds. This is inconsistent with the latency requirement listed in Section 3.2 [SAI-28], which is 1 second. Could the FAA please clarify the ADS-B latency requirement? | J.7 Table 1 will be updated to align with J.1 MRD Section 3.2 (SAI-28) 1-second ADS-B latency requirement. |
Section J.2
| Comment Number | Page | Section | Line Number | Comments | Government Response |
| 1 | 2 | 4 Acquisition Approach | Please clarify the acquisition process following the addition of a vendor's product to the QPL. In the questionnaire there was reference to a "receipt of direction" and "receipt of order", but the distinction between them is unclear. Is the FAA expecting to issue an order on an airport by airport basis, or for the bundle of the first 5 airports? | The FAA will be issuing orders for the first 5 airports sites will be on an airport-by-airport basis. |
The FAA will request price proposals for subsequent airports or blocks of airports.
From the Draft SIR questions to Industry questions 3.a and 3.b 2 Section J.2 Please clarify whetherfollowing Data cabling will be provided by the Government (Client).
- Backbone and horizontal Fiber and copper cabling between the ATC Tower/ Approach management room to Data Center/Equipment room.
- Horizontal cabling to the field equipments like workstations etc.
- Cable trays, Ducts etc
If no, please provide the layout of the Airport building (site layout as well as building layout with duct route and cable tray route) and required operators positions location for us to include the cabling. Data cabling is the responsibility of the Contractor (see PWS C.3.1.5). Proposed cabling will be identified during site survey by the Contractor. The FAA is responsible for cable trays and ducts at FAA facilities.
Section C PWS.4.2.9.2 will be updated to add language under site surveys to include identification of cable routing.
| 3 | Clause 4-Acquisition Approach- | ||||
| • | SAI solution’s cybersecurity attributes have been evaluated by a FedRAMP accredited third party assessment organization | We understand that FedRAMP provide assessment for cloud products and services. Please clarify whether On Premise Server platform also require Cyber security attributes assessment by FedRAMP accredited 3rd party organization? | The sentence, "SAI solution’s cybersecurity attributes have been evaluated by a FedRAMP accredited third party assessment organization", was provided as an example of an "opportunity" that a proposed solution could provide it is not a requirement. | ||
| 4 | 2 | Training | Can FAA provide an estimate of the average number of ATC personnel that vendor needs to train at facilities of this size? |
| Would FAA entertain a "train-the-trainer" approach to training? | Training approach will be for cadre training (train-the-trainer). Section C PWS will be revised to reflect this change to the training approach. | |||
| 5 | J.2 SA-15 | Technical | The SIR states "Note: Access to the FAA Admin / Mission Support networks may be granted for client-side display of targets via a web browser." |
| Does this mean that vendor-furnished workstations as part of the SAI could be connected to the FAA Admin/Mission Support network for use to display targets via a web client? | As stated in PWS C3.1.5, GFE computer(s) may utilize the FAA Admin/Mission Support network to access the vendor’s data feed from their off-site processing computer/facility to provide a web browser based SAI display. This client-side display computer(s) connected to the FAA Admin/Mission Support network may not send data (other than interface configuration commands) to the vendor’s processing computer/facility. The vendor is responsible for any connectivity their solution requires to send data to their processing computer/facility. | ||
| 6 | What is the expected life span for the surface awareness system? | The FAA anticipates that the SAI service will be awarded as 15-year task orders (including all options). However, if the SAI service performance at a particular site is unsatisfactory, the FAA may recompete the service. |
Section J.3
| Comment Number | Section | Page | Paragraph | Comments | Government Responses |
| 1 | J.3 | All | All | Please clarify whether Offerer's are required to complete and submit J.3 with the Technical Volume, or if this document is simply provided as a reference guide for clarification on how FAA intends to validate requirements during the OCD. If J.3 is required as part of Volume 1, please clarify whether it is excluded from the 60 page count limit. | If an Offeror views a compliance matrix as beneficial to the evaluation of its proposal, the Offeror is welcome to include it. However, a compliance matrix will count against the Technical Volume page limit. |
| 2 | J.3 SAI-12 | Technical | The requirement that display presentation must be discernable in all lighting conditions is subjective. |
Can FAA provide a minimum NITS or cd/m2 brightness level that would be acceptable for such a display? Language is purposefully subjective to allow a variety of COTS computer monitors.
Section J.7
| Comment Number | Page | Section | Line Number | Comments | Government Response |
| 1 | Attachment J-7 | Please clarify whether Furniture or Console for the Operator positions will be provided by the Government (Client). If no, please provide the layout of the room to us to provide the console. | All necessary equipment required to install the SAI equipment (MRD SAI-11) is the vendor's responsibility, this does not include furniture. |
Section J.8
| Comment Number | Page | Section | Line Number | Comments | Government Response |
| 1 | SubCLIN1C | Should "a base at" be removed in all of these descriptions? For example, "Airport Tower equipment and connectivity nonrecurring price year 1 for a base at AUS". | The Government has made this correction. | ||
| 2 | SubCLIN1C | Please consider adjusting the cost/price model to enable bidders to vary pricing by the number of controller displays (a.k.a. working positions) needed at each airport. This could be accomplished within the current cost/price model by enabliing the quantity of Airport Tower equipment and connectivity to refer to the number of working positions. For example, if the AUS site survey indicated that 2 SAI displays were needed in the AUS ATCT, then the quantity for 01C1.AUS.01 in Cell H1 could be set to 2. In this scenario, the the quantity of 01C2.AUS.01 would also double (from 6 to 12, representing 2 displays for 6 months, for a total of 12 display months). | The instructions in Amendment 1 of Attachment J.8 have been updated to include the number of displays to assume for each of the 5 airports identified. | ||
| 3 | CLIN2 | Given that SubCLIN1A, SubCLIN1B, and SubCLIN1C utilize airport-specific CLINS, we suggest that CLIN2 also use airport-specific CLINS to enable the price for enhanced capabilities to vary by airport. Furthermore, we suggest that CLIN2 also support the ability to independently itemize and quantify different types of enhancements. For example, we may want to offer an enhanced SAI controller display option, the price of which would depend on the number of enhanced displays needed at each airport. If the FAA chooses to leave the cost/price model as is, so that all enhancements are bundled into a single CLIN, please clarify how the FAA will evaluate very different enhancement offerings from different vendors. Will a vendor be penalized for offering a much more significant bundle of enhancements if that enhancement CLIN ends up also being significantly higher in price than another vendors offer? A more ganular CLIN2 itemization would enable the FAA to more easily compares apples to apples. | |||
| The instructions in Amendment 1 of Attachment J.8 have been updated to include the number of displays to assume for each of the 5 airports identified. |
Related to the second part of the question, the Government understands the basis for this request but desires the simplicity of a single set of enhanced capabilities. This management effort becomes greater with a larger set of airports. The value of enhanced capabilities will be evaluated in accordance with the SIR during Tier 3.
| 4 | Labor Rates Tab | Can the vendor add or modify the "rows" the "Labor" categories to better match our internal labor categories/rates? | The Government desires the simplicity of the labor categories and levels presented. Offerors are able to propose the qualifications for each level. Please work within this construct. | ||
| 5 | Maximum Escalation Factor | Please confirm if the "max" escalation rate is for all resources labor, materials, subcontract etc. | Yes, confirmed. | ||
| 6 | 1 | 3.1.1 - Display System | |||
| Requirement [SAI-1] | 4 | Can the FAA please provide a summary of the current controller positions (during peak hours) at BNA, TPA, DAL, AUS, and IND. Also, please provide your current assumption as to which positions would require or benefit from an SAI display. This will enable bidders to better estimate the scope for each airport and improve the comparability of estimates across bidders. | Amendment 1 of Attachment J.8 identifies the number of display positions Offerors must assume for the pricing of the 5 airports requested. Offerors must assume 3 displays; two in tower cab and one in radar room. | ||
| 7 | Attachment J-7 | There is no mention of controller position required. Please provide number and locations of operator positions required in each Airport - AUS, BNA, DAL, IND and TPA. | Amendment 1 of Attachment J.8 identifies the number of display positions Offerors must assume for the pricing of the 5 airports requested. Offerors must assume 3 displays; two in tower cab and one in radar room. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .