Phase I and II SETIS SIR QA-3-4-20 (Final).pdf

SETIS SIR Questions and Anwsers 3‐4‐2020

ID Question Answer Section 1 Section 2 Section 3

Within these 2 RFP sections an Attachment J0001/J001, Labor Rates and Pricing Rates is referenced, but not provided with the RFP. Will the Government please provide this attachment? Refer to the FAA response to question ID 452. B B.7.1

Within this section, the Government states the following: “Contractors with Government‐approved rates must submit the most recently approved provisional indirect billing and actual rates for both direct and indirect costs subject to ceiling rates set forth under B.7.1 above.” Given that Cost Reimbursement based contracting allows for the recovery of all allowable and allocable cost necessary for contract performance, we respectfully request the Government to remove the above statement that implies the contract labor rates proposed for T&M and LH contracting are to be utilized as ceiling rates for Cost Reimbursement Task Orders. The reference is updated to refer to B.7.1 (i) and (j) B B.7.3

1.Reference Sec on B.7.1 Time‐and‐Materials (T&M), Labor‐Hour Pricing and Sec on L.21.1 Volume VI A – Price Proposal Worksheet Comment/Question: Within these 2 RFP sections an Attachment J0001/J001, Labor Rates and Pricing Rates is referenced, but not provided with the RFP. Will the Government please provide this attachment? SETIS awards will include vendor proposed rate schedules in J001. The L003 submissions will be renamed as J001 in the awarded contracts. B

Section L, L.21 Volume VI Price, L.21.1, Volume VI A ‐ Pricing Proposal Worksheets, page L‐25:

Attachment L003_Pricing Proposal Worksheets [Tab Attachment L003D]: Instructions state we should provide Forward Pricing Rates for six (6) fiscal years, but the table only includes three (3) years FY21 to FY23. Should we only provide for the three (3) fiscal years? A revision to L003 is being provided that adds these three (3) years.

Section L, L.21 Volume VI Price, L.21.1, Volume VI A ‐ Pricing Proposal Worksheets, page L‐25: Are bidders able to modify the excel worksheets? The instructions tell bidders to input escalation in Tab L003D, and that it will automatically calculate the Years 2‐10 rates in Tabs L003B and L003C. Some bidders do not apply escalation to the FBLR, and have approved Disclosure Statements to calculate escalation differently. Please consider allowing bidders to hard enter escalation and provide CACO approved methodology to support the escalation factors proposed. Also, please review the formula for Year 2 to Year 10 are correct as it only calculates the escalation versus the escalated rate.

No modifications are allowed to L‐003B and L‐003C. A revision that properly calculates each year is being provided.

Section L, L.22 Volume VII Other Proposal Documentation Part 2, page L‐27: Instructions state that each Offeror must submit completed SF‐33 and signed SF‐30s (Amendments). Where are the SF‐30s available as we can't locate them on the FAA SETIS site?

There have been no SF‐30s forms issued to date with the SIR revisions, future amendments will include them.

The instructions state that, “Section A of information copies of L001b form must be completed by vendor and submitted with Volume Section II.” Please confirm that the cover page of the Past Performance Questionnaire form can be excluded from this submission.

No, the cover page provides instructions to the customer on how to submit the survey and must be included with the submission. L L.16.2

Instructions state that the Offeror’s “submission must include a copy of the applicable Statement of Work or other tasking requirement detail that documents the scope and depth of this past performance example.” Is it permissible for Offerors to insert divider pages between each SOW for ease of review? Yes, refer to the response to question 334. L L.16.2

The instructions state that, “Offerors need to fill out L001a Prime’s Experience Value Traceability Matrix.” Are Offerors allowed to delete the non‐applicable core capability or intentionally blank rows from the Prime’s Experience Value Traceability Matrix?

In filling out L001a, the non‐chosen core capabilities or blank rows should remain blank and not be deleted. L L.16

Does the Government require offerors to provide evidence of an accepted accounting system for Phase I, or is this requirement exclusive to Phase II (Vol VII)? This is part of Phase II (Volume VII) only. L L.2.8

On December 5, 2019, the SBA published the final rule in the Federal Register changing its regulations on the calculations of average annual receipts from a 3‐year averaging period to a 5‐year averaging period. This rule will be effective January 6, 2020 and also provides a provision for firms to choose between 3‐year averaging and a 5‐year averaging until January 6, 2022.

As the 5‐year averaging method will be in effect prior to the due date for submission of proposals but after release of the SIR, will the FAA allow firms to use either a 3‐year or 5‐year averaging period?

L.2.6 has been revised to specify a maximum annual receipt of $41.5M for the last three (3) years. AMS has not changed the 3 year period. L L.2.6

The SIR states that eligibility as a small business under NAICS code 541330 Engineering Services Except Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons is based on annual average receipts for the last three (3) fiscal years and cannot exceed $38.5 million.

The SBA revised the annual receipt‐based industry size standards for NAICS codes effective August 19, 2019, prior to the release of the SIR. The size standard for NAICS code 541330 was adjusted from $38.5 million to $41.5 million. Accordingly, will the FAA change this reference to match this current standard?

The SIR has been revised to reflect this higher value. L L.2.6

"Section B.9 of the SIR states that, when requested by the government, a contractor may propose addi onal Labor Categories and Ceiling rates."In cases where the government does request an additional Labor Category and Maximum rate from one contractor, will the government provide the remaining pool of contractors an equal opportunity to add the same category and ceiling rate?

Yes, if the FAA requests an additional labor category, all contractors will be allowed this change. B B.9

B.7.1.(h) ‐‐ Time and Material (T&M) or Labor Hour (LH) TOs."The SIR states that for T&M or LH type TOs, the quantity of hours ordered from each labor category will be specified as deliverable hours billable at the ceiling rates specified in Attachment J001, Labor Rate Tables, or as negotiated, if lower rates are proposed for the TO. Unless otherwise specified in the TO, the Contractor may deliver 70% to 130% of the hours specified for each labor category without a formal modification as long as the

Contractor does not exceed the obligated funding for the TO."Will the government consider revising this requirement to allow the contractor to expend between 70 % and 130 % of the total labor hours specified across the entire task order and not set target for each TO Labor Category? This change would be advantageous to the government because it would reduce the number of requests for task order modifications and will also reduce burden on contractor task order management costs. No changes to this range will be made in the contract , but the FAA may consider changes to this range on individual Task Order. B B.7.1

Attachment L003_Pricing Proposal Worksheets. Row 10 on worksheet L‐003D is labeled "Other Overheads" and the fields to the right are grayed out. Please clarify if offerors are to ignore this line item.

This row will be adjusted to have the same color as rows 8‐10. L

Attachment L003_Pricing Proposal Worksheets. Please confirm offerors are permitted to revise this section (i.e. insert rows and change naming conventions) to be consistent with their disclosed accounting practices. Offerors may revise tab L‐003D to identify its specific cost elements, as required per their accounting systems. However, no changes are allowed to the labor rate tables (L‐003B and L‐ 003C. L

"Section L.21.1, para (4) states that the Offeror will provide Forward Pricing rates for six (6) fiscal years beginning with the Projected Year One (1) contract start date." Please confirm that the "fiscal years" for an offeror's indirect rates are the Contractor's Fiscal Years, consistent with the cadence for which indirect rates are generated.

Section L21.1 has been updated to cite "Offeror should assume a start date of October 1, 2020 for Year One (1)." Offeror's pricing must use this period for its billing rates regardless of their individual fiscal year periods.

L L.21

L.21.1 Volume VI A ‐ Price Proposal Worksheets; Attachment L003_Pricing Proposal Worksheets.

"Section L.21.1, para (4) states that the Offeror will provide Forward Pricing rates for six (6) fiscal years beginning with the Projected Year One (1) contract start date.

Attachment L003, worksheet L003D requests rates for three years only"

Please confirm that Forward Pricing Rates are required for three years only, in accordance with Attachment L003, and update Section L.21.1 accordingly.

L003D is being updated to include all six years. L L.21

SIR Section B.7.1, (i) Materials (T&M, LH and Cost Reimbursable TOs), Item 2), page 6; and (j) Travel (T&M, LH and Cost Reimbursable TOs), Item 4), page 7. Similarly, this section requests indirect costs rates for 10 years and indicates these rates will become yearly ceiling rates. Respectfully request that the FAA reconsider the requirement for ten years of indirect cost rates and revise the requirement to request only three years of indirect cost rates.

The FAA has no plan to change this section. B B.7.1 (i)

SIR Section L.21.1, paragraph (4), page L‐25. Due to high variability and uncertainty associated with cost and revenue projections far into the future, government contractors rarely, if ever, forecast indirect rates 6 years into the future. The DCMA Manual on Forward Pricing Rates states that out‐ year rates are typically 3‐5 years. Respectfully request that the FAA reconsider the requirement for six years of forward pricing rates and revise the requirement to request only three years of forward pricing rates.

Refer to the FAA response to question ID 432. L L.21

SIR Section L.21.1, paragraph (4), page L‐25.Similarly, this section requests indirect costs rates for 10 years and indicates these rates will become yearly ceiling rates. Respectfully request that the FAA reconsider the requirement for ten years of indirect cost rates and revise the requirement to request only three years of indirect cost rates.

The SIR requires 10 years of fixed price ceiling rates and forward pricing rate details for the first 6 years. Also note Section B.8.2 Rate Refresh for Option Periods Two (2) and Three (3). L L.21

The solicitation does not state whether companies can or cannot use past performance of affiliate companies. Does the government allow affiliate past performance for this solicitation? Past Performance of affiliated companies is not acceptable. Refer to Section L.16.1 Volume I

Section I for details. L L.16.1

SIR Section L.21.1, paragraph (4), page L‐25. Due to high variability and uncertainty associated with cost and revenue projections far into the future, government contractors rarely, if ever, forecast indirect rates 6 years into the future. The DCMA Manual on Forward Pricing Rates states that out‐ year rates are typically 3‐5 years.

Respectfully request that the FAA reconsider the requirement for six years of forward pricing rates and revise the requirement to request only three years of forward pricing rates.

The SIR includes 10 years of fully burdened ceiling labor rates, which will require Offerors to base these rates on their projections. The FAA does not plan to change this requirement. L L.21

In the Phase I evaluation of the core capabilities, will the government assign significant strengths to experience in a large complex IDIQ environment over a past performance in a smaller (<$1M) single award environment? The FAA will evaluate in accordance with section M. M M.3 (b)

The Instructions tab of Attachment L003 references tabs: L‐1A, L‐1B, L‐1C and L‐1D. Please confirm these references should be: L‐003A, L‐003B, L‐003C, and L‐003D.

L003 will be updated to refect L‐003A, etc. L

"The instructions for the Price Proposal Narrative include a requirement to address the rationale used for the development of the proposed Direct Labor Rates.

However, the instructions in section L.21.1 do not request direct labor rates. "

Please clarify the requirement in L.21.2 and confirm that the offeror should explain how they developed their proposed Fully Burdened Ceiling Rates

L.21.1 Price Proposal Worksheets in Excel 2016 format require inclusion of fully burdened labor rates. The L21.2 and L003 references to "Direct Labor" have been changed to "Fully Burdened Labor Rates" for clarity. L L.21

428 Will the FAA require CMMI SVC Level 3 and/or ISO ‐9001 Certification at the Task Order Level?

Yes, potentially. There may be a task order that requires supporting an FAA organization to obtain CMMI SVC Levels and/or ISO‐9001 certification. C C.3.7

'Section L.21.1 requires offerors to round all labor rates to two (2) decimal places. However, the formulas (yellow highlighted cells) in L‐003B and L‐003C are not rounded to two (2) decimals.

Please confirm offerors are permitted to update the formulas to round to two (2) decimals, or whether the FAA will issue a revised template.

Tabs L‐003B and L‐003C will be updated to calculate with 2 decimal places. If Offerors find any aspect of the updated L003 calculates improperly, advise the FAA immediately. L L.22.1

Is the FAA requiring a Large Business to contract a percentage of the total revenue with Small Businesses? If so, how will you manage this?

Large Business awardees will include a negotiated small business subcontracting plan that specifies small business subcontracting goals. This plan is subject to the provisions of AMS 3.6.1‐4 and 3.3.1‐6. L L.20

How will the FAA ensure that Large Businesses are meeting their Small Business subcontracting Plan and Goals?

Large Businesses are required to submit semi‐annual summaries per AMS 3.6.1‐4 as well as including quarterly performance data in their QPMR submissions. L L.20

"Section L.21.1, paragraphs (2) and (3) indicate that Worksheets L003B and L003C are to be completed with fully burdened ceiling rates.

However, the Attachment L003, Instructions request ""direct labor rates"" for worksheets L‐1B and L‐ 1C, and worksheets L003B and L003C ask for ""Direct Rates"" in columns E and F. "

Please confirm that L003B and L003C are to be completed with the fully‐burdened, team‐wide ceiling rates per the SIR Instructions, and update the Worksheet instructions accordingly.

L003 has been updated to replace "direct labor rates" with "fully burdened labor rates" L L.22.1

The RFP instructions for VI B indicates offerors should use the same format as Technical Volume I Section I.

Please confirm this should be Technical Volume II Section I.

The SIR has been updated. L L.15

The RFP instructions for VI A requires offerors to complete Attachment L003 with Fully Burdened Rates.

Please clarify if Attachment J001, Labor Rate Tables also needs to be submitted, or if Attachment L003 replaces Attachment J001.

No, a separate J001 is not required and will not be accepted, the Offeror's proposed L003 will become J001 in any award. L L.15

The RFP references Attachment J001, Labor Rate Tables, which was not provided with the final SIR.

Please provide Attachment J001.

Please provide Attachment J0001. Will the FAA please provide Attachment J0001 in .xls format?

Refer to the response to question 422. B B.7.1

Section M.4 Phase II ‐ Final Evaluation, Management Approach Factor (Volume III) indicates that, "Management Approach Factor assessments will determine an adjectival rating (Excellent, Good, Acceptable, Marginal and Unacceptable) in accordance with Section M.5. Offerors who score “Unacceptable” for this Factor will be excluded from further award consideration. The assessment definitions under section M.4.5 will apply to this assessment."

We respectfully point out that there is no Section M.4.5. in the SIR, it appears that the FAA intended to reference Section M.5 here instead. Please confirm.

Section M.4 Phase II ‐ Final Evaluation, Management Approach Factor (Volume III) will be amended to reference section M.5. M M.4

Section L.25 indicates that, "For proposal evaluation purposes, the FAA will determine whether or not an Offeror qualifies as a small business based upon the individual business declaration form submitted by the Offeror as part of the proposal."

We do not see a requirement for submittal of a completed Business Declaration form in the Section L volume content specific instructions. We respectfully request that the FAA clarify in which Volume (and which Volume section) Offerors should include their completed Business Declaration form. L.25 will be corrected to delete the reference to a business declaration form. The FAA will utilize the System for Award Management (SAM) for this verification. L L.25

Section L.22.3 indicates that, "The Offeror must submit sufficient information to demonstrate its responsibility and capability to perform a contract of this size and duration. This information must include the following: For each and every team members (i.e. the Prime Offeror and all subcontractors) of the Offeror’s team: a description of all current or pending legal action under Federal, State, Local, or Foreign Government contracts initiated, ongoing, or completed within the past three (3) years, including but not limited to requests for equitable adjustments, cure notices, terminations for convenience, terminations for default and suspension and debarments." Duplicates 417 L L.22.3

Section L.22.3 indicates that, "The Offeror must submit sufficient information to demonstrate its responsibility and capability to perform a contract of this size and duration. This information must include the following: For each and every team members (i.e. the Prime Offeror and all subcontractors) of the Offeror’s team: a description of all current or pending legal action under Federal, State, Local, or Foreign Government contracts initiated, ongoing, or completed within the past three (3) years, including but not limited to requests for equitable adjustments, cure notices, terminations for convenience, terminations for default and suspension and debarments."

We respectfully request that the FAA establish a reasonable dollar value threshold to better bind the scope of this requirement. For example, for other large dollar vehicle competitions we have typically seen Government agencies establish a $5M threshold for reporting on current or pending legal action. In addition, as information related to current of pending legal action may be highly proprietary to each team member, we respectfully request that the FAA consider amending this requirement to limit it to Prime Offerors only or, if FAA will not agree to limit to Prime Offeror's only, we recommend that the FAA amend the requirement to allow for submission of sanitized subcontractor data (such as yes/no responses for applicability of the overall requirement or individual elements, as appropriate) in a Prime Offeror's proposal, with any associated descriptive information provided directly to FAA (or upon request of FAA) by subcontractors as necessary. This section was updated ‐ see L.22.3. In addition the reference to cure notices is being removed. The FAA does not plan any further changes to this provision. L L.22.3

Section L.23.3 indicates that, "The Offeror must submit sufficient information to demonstrate its responsibility and capability to perform a contract of this size and duration. This information must include the following: Certified financial statements (balance sheet, income statement, and statement of cash flow) for the Offeror for the last three (3) completed company fiscal years"

Private companies are not required to have certified financial statements. To better faciliate competition, we respectfully request that the FAA expand this requirement to allow for privately held companies to submit comparable financial information in lieu of certified financial statements.

This requirement was previously deleted by SIR update ‐ see L.22.3. L L.22.3

Section L.22.3 indicates that, "The Offeror must submit sufficient information to demonstrate its responsibility and capability to perform a contract of this size and duration. This information must include the following: A Dun and Bradstreet Comprehensive Report (CR) for the Offeror dated no earlier than six (6) months prior to the proposal submission date."

D&B does not have access to financial information for private companies. As a result, D&B ratings for private companies are compiled only using external information that D&B gathers. To better faciliate competition, we respectfully request that FAA expand this requirement to allow for submission of a comparable report, for example, the NAIC (National Association of Insurance Commissioners) provides ratings for private debt which may also be used to satisfy this requirement, and more accurately and transparently that D&B with regard to privately held companies.

Submission of the D&B report along with other required financial documentation is appropriate for this evaluation. L L.22.3

Section L.18.2 indicates that each offeror's proposed Program Manager must have a, "BS degree in related field minimum requirement" and "Advance degrees and PMI certification desired."

Please clarify the Program Manager qualification requirements. Section H.23 Program Manager indicates that, The Contractor’s PM must possess a minimum of fifteen (15) years of relevant program management experience with a minimum Bachelor’s degree. Advanced degrees and PMI certification are desirable." For consistency and to better faciliate competition, we respectfully recommend that the Section H.23 requirement for a minimum of a Bachelor's degree (vs. a BS in a related field) be incorporated into Section L.18.2.

Section L.18.2 Program Manager will be amended to require a minimum of a Bachelor's degree. L L.18.2

Section L.2.1 indicates that, "The FAA contemplates award of a hybrid contract type resulting from this Screening Information Request which will include fixed price, time and materials and cost reimbursable contract line items." However, Section B.3 indicates that, "This contract is an IDIQ contract. Work under this contract will be ordered by placing TO awards against this contract using the ordering procedures described in Section G, Contract Administration Data."

For the avoidance of doubt, we respectfully request that Section L.2.1 be amended to refer back to Section B.3 to establish the contract type for SETIS awards.

No change is necessary as the award will not include Section L.2.1. L L.2.1

Section I.2.8 sets forth the 3.2.5‐15 Attorney‐Client Privilege clause.

Section H.11 also contains an abbreviated version of this Attorney/Client Privilege clause. For the avoidance of doubt, we respectfully recommend that the FAA delete the Section H.11 version of this clause.

H.11 will be removed. I I.2.8

As Section F.2 3.8.2‐22 Substitution or Addition Of Personnel indicates that, "The Contractor must assign only those individuals whose resumes, personnel data, or personnel qualification statements have been submitted and determined by the CO to meet the minimum requirements of the contract.

The Contractor must not substitute or add personnel except in accordance with this clause."

We respectfully request that the FAA clarify the requirement for CO approval of staff. Section H.24 indicates that CO approval "may" be required while Section F.2 indicates CO approval is required.

H.25 (renamed from H.24) has been updated to clarify that CO approval is required for all resumes before work commences for proposed staff. H H.24

Section H.7.6 indicates that, "The Contractor must notify the COR within 24 hours, or the next business day, whenever an employee performing work under this contract terminates employment."

We respectfully request that the FAA limit this notification requirement to reporting of voluntary termination of key personnel vs. any employee working under the contract, and also expand the notification timeframe for key personnel voluntary termination notification to at least 48 hours, or 2 business days. Voluntary terminations are often communicated to HR departments first, and while contractors make every effort to ensure timely communication of such terminations, there may be a delay in receipt of notice internally, particularly when such termination occurs with subcontractor resources. In the event that the FAA still requires notification when any employee performing work under the contract terminates their employment, we respectfully request at least 5 business days to report such terminations.

The FAA will not change this provision. H H.7.6

Clause 3.13‐15 Confidentiality of Data and Information in Section H.1 indicates that, "In the event the work required to be performed under this contract requires access to proprietary data and information of other companies, the contractor must obtain agreement from such other companies for such use unless such data are provided or made available to the contractor by the Government."

Section (d) of this clause further indicates that "the contractor agrees to hold the Government harmless and indemnify the Government as to any cost/loss resulting from unauthorized use or disclosure of third party data or software by the Contractor..." please explain the process by which the Government will disseminate third party data directly to the Contractor. The Contractor to Contractor process for exchange of data is clear but given the indemnification requirements of this clause, we would like to better understand the Government's process for providing third party data so that we can implement appropriate internal controls around third party data provided to us directly by FAA.

We respectfully request that the FAA define the process by which the FAA will disseminate third party data directly to Contractors. The Contractor to Contractor process for exchange of data is clear (execute a NDA to obtain access to the data), but given the indemnification requirements of this clause we would like to better understand the FAA's process for providing third party data to Contractors in support of TO performance so that Contractors can implement appropriate internal controls around protection of third party data provided to them directly by FAA. We also recommend that the FAA consider expanding the indemnification requirement to include appropriate notification by the FAA to a Contractor of any resulting claim, right of a Contractor to participate in or control defense of such claim, etc. Additional relevant information will be task‐order‐specific and will be provided following contract award. H H.1

Section G.14 indicates that, "The Contractor, and each assignee under an assignment entered into under this contract, and in effect at the time of final payment under this contract, must execute and deliver, as a condition precedent to final payment under this contract, a release discharging the Government, its officers, agents, and employees of and from all liabilities, obligations, and claims arising out of or under this contract, subject only to the following exceptions..."

Please clarify this requirement as payment will occur at the task order level and most Contractors' risk profiles do not allow for execution of release of claims until internal closeout processes have been met (confirm that all invoices have been submitted and paid, formally close any subcontracts, etc.). We respectfully suggest amending this section to indicate that Contractor will sign a release of claims upon completion of the closeout process for each task order. The FAA will not change this provision of the contract G G.14

Section G.11 indicates that, "Training: The Government will not allow costs, nor reimburse costs associated with the Contractor training employees in an effort to attain and/or maintain minimum personnel qualification requirements of the contract. Other training may be approved on a case‐by‐ case basis within an approved TO. Attendance at workshops or symposiums is considered training for the purposes of this clause."

As clients often direct Contractor staff to attend workshops or symposiums in support project scope

(vs. to supplement Contractor staff knowledge or to benefit the Contractor in some way ‐ for example, in support of C.3.23 Policy Studies where a contractor may be directed to attend a workshop or symposium on behalf of FAA to gather data and report back to the FAA or incorporate into project artifacts/deliverables ) we respectfully request that the FAA amend the scope of this clause to exclude instances of client directed attendance at workshops/symposiums or conferences. Such situations will be considered on a task‐by‐task basis. G G.11

Section G.10 further indicates that, "In addition to the above, vendor’s compliance with small business subcontracting goals set forth in Clause L.21 Volume V (Small Business Subcontracting Plan

– Large Business Offeror’s Only and Limitation on Subcontracting ‐Small Business Offeror’s Only set forth in Section I, Clause 3.6.1‐7 will be evaluated."

We respectfully request that the FAA review this section in its entirety to confirm that an additional requirement with regard to Subcontractor Billing Information has not been mistakenly replaced with what appears to be a mistranscribed Section M statement.

This paragraph will be removed for G.10. It is already addressed under Section M. G G.10

Section G.10 indicates that, "all invoices submitted for payment that include subcontractor costs must include the amount invoiced for each subcontractor (specified by vendor name) by labor, travel and ODC for the month and cumulatively since TO award."

Please clarify that this requirement only applies to invoices submitted under T&M/LH or Cost Reimbursable TOs. G.10 has been revised to clarify it does not apply to Fixed Price Task Orders. G G.10

Section F.7.4 indicates that, "The Contractor must prepare and provide the FAA with a monthly status summary of all of its staff and all subcontractor staffing, including those who have received FAA PIV badges. Reporting information must include staff member name, Prime vendor, Subcontractor name, TO(s) assigned to work on, On‐Site/Off‐Site Work Location, Street Address of Work Location if Off‐Site, Interim/Final Suitability Date, PIV Badge Number, PIV Badge Expiration Date, and PIV Badge Return Date as identified in the Contractor Tracking Report template provided."

For ease of administration post‐award, we respectfully request that the FAA add a clarifying statement to this Section indicating that this requirement only becomes effective upon each Prime Contractor's first TO awarded under the vehicle. Section F.7.4 has been amended. F F.7.4

Section F.7.2 indicates that, "The Contractor must prepare and provide the FAA with a monthly Contract Cost Status Report (CCSR) comparing budgets with incurred costs during the reporting period and contract‐to‐date at both the TO and summary task levels. The CCSR must also include the estimated funding depletion date for each active TO."

For ease of administration post‐award, we respectfully request that the FAA add a clarifying statement to this Section indicating that this requirement only becomes effective upon each Prime Contractor's first TO awarded under the vehicle. Section F.7.2 has been amended. F F.7.2

Section F.7.1 indicates that, "The Contractor must conduct Program Status Reviews and Quarterly PMRs on an as requested basis to address program accomplishments, issues, performance metrics and other requested topics."

Per the Section F.7(g) table, which provides a summary of the contract reporting requirements, there is no reference to Program Status Reviews. Also, the Section F.7(g) table indicates that the schedule for the Quarterly Program Management Review (PMR) Briefing is "Quarterly or as directed" vs.

Section F.7.1 which indicates Quarterly PMRs are to be conducted on an "as requested basis." Please clarify the delivery schedule requirements for the Program Status Reviews and the Quarterly PMRs.

Are the Program Status Reviews to be conducted on an as requested basis only, with the Quarterly PMRs to be conducted quarterly only? Is there a difference in what each type of review is intended to address in terms of content, format, etc.? Further, for ease of administration post‐award, we respectfully request that the FAA add a clarifying statement to this Section indicating that these requirements only become effective upon each Prime Contractor's first TO awarded under the vehicle. Section F.7.1 has been amended. F F.7.1

Section B.7.1(j) indicates that, "If authorized in the TO, the FAA will reimburse the Contractor for travel at actual direct costs in accordance with the limitations set forth in G.10 Travel Reimbursement."

We respectfully point out that Section G.10 aligns with Subcontractor Billing Information and request that the FAA include the correct reference to Travel Reimbursement requirements at Section G.12. Section B.7.1(j) has been amended. B B.7.1 (j)

(L.15(i) ‐ Labeling ‐ page L.15) Please confirm that a cover letter will not count against the page limit for Phase I or Phase II. Section L.15 has been amended. L L.15

L.15 (Table 3) and L.22.4 (c):

The SIR limits Mentor Protégé documentation in Part 4 of Volume VII to 5 pages; however, Offerors may have an existing Mentor Protégé Agreement that exceeds this. Will the FAA consider excluding the Mentor‐Protégé Agreement referenced in L.22.4 (c) from this page count limitation? Section L.15 has been amended. L L.15

SIR Section L.22.2 requires Offerors to submit signed SF‐30s (Amendments) within Volume VII;

however, it does not appear the SF‐30s have been posted to FAACO. Can the FAA provide this form for each amendment issued? The FAA will include SF‐30s with any further amendments to the SIR. L L.22.2

L.21.1 and Attachment L003:

SIR Section L.21.1 states, “Labor rates submitted with more than two (2) decimal places will result in material non‐conformity.” The calculated rates in Tabs Attachment L‐003B and Attachment L‐003C, which are based on Offerors’ proposed escalation, automatically result in rates that have more than two decimal places. To avoid this and any interpretation of a material non‐conformity, it is recommended that the FAA update the formulas used in columns H through AG to utilize the Excel ROUND function so there are no decimal places greater than two (i.e. the formula in cell AG10 becomes “=ROUND(+AD10+(AD10*$AF$5),2)”). A corrected L003 is being re‐issued that rounds to 2 decimal places. L L.21

Attachment L003:

In tabs Attachment L‐003B and Attachment L‐003C, can the FAA update the formulas calculating rates in Contract Year 2 (columns H and I) to be consistent with the correct formula used in Years 3‐ 10? For example, cell H10 has the formula “=+E10*$H$5” but it appears it should be “=+E10+(E10*$H$5)”. A corrected L003 is being re‐issued. M

The SYSTEMS ENGINEER/INTEGRATOR labor category permits a substitution of 10 years of relevant experience for a Bachelor’s Degree. The ENGINEER labor category has the same degree requirements but does not allow relevant experience as substitution for a Bachelor’s Degree. Will the FAA add 10 years of relevant experience as an acceptable substitution for a Bachelor’s Degree in the ENGINEER labor category? No. J J005

In Attachment L003_Pricing Proposal Worksheet, tab Attachment L‐003B and Attachment L‐003C, there appears to be a math error in the calculation of the escalation of the Year 2 labor rates. When an escalation factor is entered on the Yearly Labor Rate Escalation row in the YR 2 cell on tab Attachment L‐003D, the amount that is shown on the L‐003B and L‐003C tabs for Year 2 is only the escalation amount and does not include the base labor amount from Year 1. Should Offerors make this correction themselves or will the FAA provide an updated Attachment L003? The FAA will issue a corrected L003. L L.21

In Attachment L003, Tab L‐003D, FY Forward Pricing Rates are requested. Please clarify the specific FY dates associated with this request. For example, if SETIS is scheduled to start November 1, 2020 does “FY 2021” refer to the period from November 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 and each subsequent FY refer to the period from October 1 to the following September 30th period?

L.21.1 has been updated to assume a start date of October 1, 2020. Each billing rate schedule will coincide with the FAA's fiscal year cycle starting October 1 througth September

30. L L.21

To help the FAA better differentiate between a large number of expected proposals, we suggest the FAA score Volume I in a manner similar to Volumes II & III, i.e., on the basis of proposal strengths, weaknesses, and risks. The FAA will retain its stated evaluation approach for Phase 1. M M.4

The SIR references Attachment J001 ‐ Labor Rates and Pricing Rates, however this document was not included as part of the SIR package. Please clarify whether the Government will provide this Attachment or advise if the Offeror’s populated Attachment L003 will be incorporated as part of the IDIQ Contract as Attachment J001. Refer to the response to question 422. L L.21

The SIR requires an Offeror to "provide Forward Pricing Rates for six (6) fiscal years beginning with the projected Year One (1) contract start date." Please confirm that a shorter period of Forwarding Pricing Rates will be accepted by the Government if an Offeror's cognizant audit agency has not established Forward Pricing Rates for six years. A shorter period is not acceptable. L L.21

Section L.19(c) requires that an Offeror's proposal "...disclose in Volume IV all relationships, in accordance with FAA AMS clause 3.1.7‐6 Disclosure of Certain Employee Relationships." As the information required for disclosure under clause 3.1.7‐6 contains Personally Identifiable Information (PII) (names, work addresses and employment information) please clarify whether FAA would allow team members to submit a “sanitized” disclosure to the Offeror which does not contain a team member’s Personally Identifiable Information (PII) as well as a “unsanitized” disclosure directly to the FAA Contracting Officer which contains Personally Identifiable Information (PII)? Submission of the requried information to the FAA would not violate the Privacy Act L L.19

Section L.19(a) requires that an Offeror's proposal "...disclose all potential conflicts of interest for the Offeror and its team members in accordance with FAA AMS clauses 3.1.7‐1, 3.1.7‐2, 3.1.7‐4 and 3.1.7‐ 5." As this type of a disclosure may contain information that is deemed to be highly sensitive and confidential, would the FAA allow team members to submit that portion of the disclosures directly to the FAA Contracting Officer? No, team members cannot submit directly to the FAA. L L.19

Would the Government consider removing the term "cure notices" from Section L.22.3 ‐ 'Other Proposal Documentation Part 3 ‐ Information Regarding Financial Capability'? Cure notices rarely result in legal action and the threshold for issuing a cure notice is subjective and varies across agencies and prime contractors. Refer to the answer to question 417. L L.22.3

L.22.3 'Other Proposal Documentation Part 3 ‐ Information Regarding Financial Capability' contains the following requirement: "For each and every team members (i.e. the Prime Offeror and all subcontractors) of the Offeror’s team: a description of all current or pending legal action under Federal, State, Local, or Foreign Government contracts initiated, ongoing, or completed within the past three (3) years, including but not limited to cure notices, terminations for default and suspension and debarments." As the information requested from team members in this section is confidential (e.g., ongoing legal action), would the Government please confirm that team members may submit the information required for this section directly to FAA for evaluation?

No, please comply with the proposal instructions. Team members cannot submit directly to the FAA. L L.22.3

385 There are two Section H.23's. Would the FAA consider renumbering section H?

Yes, Section H will be updated to renumber the second H.23 to H.24 and to renumber the remaining provisions. H H.23

Page M‐12 states: "(b) Approach for Identifying Addressing OCIs During Contract Performance. If the Offeror is determined to be eligible for award under (a) above, then the FAA will evaluate Volume V to determine if the Offeror has proposed an acceptable approach to how the Offeror will: (1) Identify potential and actual OCIs that could impact new or existing TOs during contract performance; and (2) Avoid, neutralize, or mitigate OCI(s) identified during contract performance, and implement TO‐ specific OCI Mitigation Plans where appropriate." Can the FAA confirm that the reference to Volume V should state Volume IV? Confirmed, the reference should be to Volume IV. This typo will be corrected. M

Currently, under SE2020 and SE2025 primes may work together on task orders competed across contracts. This benefits the FAA by maximizing competition, enabling the SB primes to have options to either prime or sub, and optimizing the quality of the bids. In H.31, the Final SIR states: "SETIS prime contractors may not participate as subcontractors in any SETIS Task Order competitions between SETIS Small and Large Business contractors." We recommend the FAA permit primes (one from a Large Business track and one from a Small Business track) to team on task orders competed across large business and small business tracks as the FAA does now. This would enable primes who already team together on the Large Business and Small Business tracks to continue that partnership and provide solutions that would otherwise be unavailable to the FAA. We also recommend that if this provision is granted, each prime can only submit one bid (as prime or sub). This provides the FAA with the highest level of competition and permits Small Business‐track primes to compete on either track. This provision will remain unchanged. H H.31

On Page L25 of the Final SIR, the government requires offerors to provide Forward Pricing Rates for six (6) fiscal years beginning with the projected Year One (1) contract start date. The table in Tab L‐ 003D only allows for three (3) fiscal years. Would the FAA please confirm that offerors may modify the template to allow for the submission of the additional years requested? L‐003D has been updated to include the six fiscal years. L L.21

This question is related to the submission of the value of experience capability matrix for Phase I in L001a versus Phase II in L002: Our assumption is that if an experience contract reference and associated contract value amount is used in both L001a for Phase I and L002 for Phase II for the same capability area, that the listed experience value must be the same in L001a and L002. Can you please confirm this? Your submittal must be accurate in both phases. L

The latest update from yesterday deleted amendment 2 but does not appear to have posted a new amendment 3. Similarly, the past performance questionnaire was deleted and not replaced. When do you anticipate posting these and replacements for other deleted items? Amendments 3 and 4 have been posted since submittal of this question and include all current attachments.

Does FAA intend to employ the recently updated 541330 small business size standard of $41.5M vice $38.5M? The SIR has been amended. L

The Instructions for Attachment L001b specify a 5‐year window for completed project references;

whereas SIR Section L.16.2 references a 3‐year window. Which time frame is acceptable? The SIR has been amended. L L.16.2

Attachment L001(b) Past Performance Questionnaire, the first paragraph states “The Offeror shall send the questionnaires for relevant projects that are in progress or completed in the past five (5) years …” whereas the SIR states that projects must have been completed in the past three (3) years. We believe there is a mistake in L001(b). Refer to the FAA response to question ID 378. L

This section now states that “the Volume I Section II submission must include a copy of the applicable Statement of Work or other tasking requirement detail that documents the scope and depth of this past performance example.” However, this new allowance for another tasking requirement detail in L001c is not included in the opening of L.16. Please confirm that submissions other than a traditional SOW/PWS will be accepted for submission as part of L001c.

L001c refers to the submission of the actual SOW/PWS or tasking requirements, in its original format as awarded. L L.16.2

L.16.2 and Attachment L001b L.16.2 Factor 2 states, “Each example of past performance cannot have ended more than three (3) years from the SIR’s release date…”; however, the instructions within Attachment L001b state, “The Offeror shall send the questionnaires for relevant projects that are in progress or completed in the past five (5) years…”. Can the FAA correct Attachment L001b to reflect three (3) years? Refer to the FAA response to question ID 378. L L.16.2

In the FAA’s response to item 300 and others, the answer demonstrates that NAS experience is evaluated more highly than other experience. The description of the Cybersecurity core capability calls out NAS and other FAA but non‐NAS system areas (R&D and Mission Support) that are essential for the offeror to demonstrate technical knowledge and experience with. The same standards and government policies govern information security of all FAA IT systems. Would the FAA clarify how experience with these FAA non‐NAS systems (weather dissemination, AIT, etc.) will be weighted compared to FAA NAS systems (ERAM, TBFM, TFDM, etc.)? Must the offeror demonstrate experience with all three of the listed FAA IT system areas (NAS, R&D and Mission Support) to be evaluated as compliant? The evaluation will be in accordance with Section M. A A.1

M.4 Organizational Conflict of Interest (Volume IV), paragraph (b), would the Government please provide additional detail on the possible OCI concern relative to any member of the team participating under the SE2025 or SE2020 SIR 1 or SIR 2 contracts given that all task orders awarded under both contracts will be ending within 12‐18 months after the SETIS award. The Offerors Approach for Identifying and Addressing OCIs During Contract Performance, as required by paragraph (b), would be a complete description of the approach to identify, avoid, neutralize, or mitigate any OCI’s that may occur and that no additional/duplicative description relative to team participation under SE2025 or SE2020 is necessary.

M4 notes the FAA will evaluate if the Offeror has an acceptable OCI mitigation plan for any member of its team who is a SE2020 or SE2025 prime performing on a SE2020 or SE2025 task order which may present an OCI to a new SETIS awardee. The OCI plan required as part of the SETIS proposal must address the Offeror's plans to mitigate these potential situations. M M.4

M.4 Organizational Conflict of Interest (Volume IV), paragraph (b), the second set of items numbered (1) and (2) should be numbered (3) and (4). Agree, this section has been renumbered. M M.4

Would the Government provide an estimate regarding the number of large business awards that are anticipated under SETIS? No. M M.3 (a)

SIR No. 693KA8‐20‐ R‐00002 Section L.16.1 asks offerors to provide “a narrative description of the Offeror’s breadth and depth of NAS‐relevant experience in performing Core Capabilities in relation to the Tasking Requirements of the SOW (i.e., Section C.3). For purposes of this SIR, technical breadth and depth refers to the full span and extent of knowledge and experience relevant to the NAS of a prime vendor and/or team member in each of the core and/or additional capabilities across the tasking requirements to which specific topics are focused upon, amplified and explored.” Typically, the Government will credit an Offeror with the experience or past performance of a related company (e.g., a sister company) where the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the sister company (e.g., workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) will be meaningfully contributed to contract performance. As GAO found in GM–Bulltrack, B‐ 414591.6 (Comp. Gen. Oct.

30, 2018), “An agency properly may attribute the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated company to an offeror where the firm's proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate will affect the performance of the offeror.” The Government will benefit from increased competition for this procurement if it permits past performance citations from related entities.

QUESTION: Will the government please clarify that the Offeror may cite the past performance of a sister or subsidiary company so long as the offeror demonstrates the “meaningful contribution” of the related company to performance of the resulting contract in response to SIR No. 693KA8‐20‐ R‐ 00002?

No. L L.16.1

In Section L.17, the instructions permit offerors to submit an executive summary for the Volume II Section I that includes a matrix and supporting narrative that summarizes the Integrated Team’s ability to support the complete list of Core and Additional Capabilities. We recommend the FAA permit offerors to provide a one (1) page Volume I, Section I executive summary that similarly provides a matrix and supporting narrative that summarizes the Prime's ability to support the Core Capabilities. The FAA will not change this section. L L.17

L.21.2 (c) Should the Price Proposal Narrative include…