SETIS SIR Phase II QA 091721 Posting.pdf

SETIS SIR Phase II Questions and Anwsers 9‐17‐2021 ID Title Question Answer QuestionType Section 1 Section 2 Section 3

Proposal Scoring ‐‐Volume II & III, as part of the Amendment 12 changes, the Government removed the criteria of “Breadth and Depth of NAS‐relevancy” from the Adjectival ratings for scoring of Volumes II & III.

Team’s breadth and depth of NAS relevant experience is required as it is stated in Section L.17 Volume II Factor I: Core Capabilities (Page L‐20) proposal Requirements “Factor 1: Core Capabilities: The proposal must provide a narrative detailing the team’s experience for each Core Capability listed in Table 4 and as outlined in the SOW Appendix. For each required Core Capability, the proposal must detail the team’s breadth and depth of NAS‐relevant experience in relation to the Tasking Requirements of the SOW (i.e., Section C.3).”

Additionally, Phase II‐Final Evaluation (page M‐8) under Volume II–Technical, Factor 1: Core Capabilities and Factor 2: Additional Capabilities Evaluation, states that “The FAA will evaluate Factors 1 and 2, in relation to contracts/Task Orders referenced in L002 based on the degree to which the proposal demonstrates the breadth and depth of NAS‐relevant experience for each Core and Additional Capability in relation to the Tasking Requirements of the SOW (i.e., Section C.3).”

Given that the breadth and depth of NAS‐relevant experience is part of both Section L (Requirements) and Section M (Evaluation) for Volume II, will the Government consider reverting to the language in Amendment 9 by inserting the “Breadth and Depth of NAS‐ relevancy” criteria into the description of various adjectival proposal Ratings that will be used while interpreting the scoring of Volume II & III as part of section M.5, Page M‐14, Proposal Scoring ‐‐Volume II & III?

Language in Amendment 9 referencing breadth and depth was removed due to duplication.

Breadth and depth of NAS‐ Relevancy related to Section C.3 of the SOW will be evaulated as defined by Factors I & II in Section L.17 and evaluated based on Section M.4. SIR M M.5

Volume VI A ‐ Price Proposal Worksheets L003B, L003C, L003D: The start date for which the vendor is to assume for providing fully burdened rates for year one is noted as October 1, 2020 in Amendment 12 of the SIR. Please provide an updated start date.

Templates and SIR will be revised with an updated start date of April 01, 2022. SIR L L.21.1

Will the Government confirm that offerors should assume a start date of October 1, 2020 for pricing purposes, or should an updated date be used?

Templates and SIR will be revised with an updated start date of April 01, 2022. SIR L L.21.1

Can the Government please confirm that it will publish a full list of companies down selected to continue with Phase II of the SETIS II opportunity?

No, vendors were individually notified of the down select decision as it pertains to their company. SIR L L.7

Could the Government please clarify what the SIR date from which the three‐year contract reference applicability period is calculated? The instructions include “The Period of Performance for the Contract and Task Order (if there are TOs) must be recent, that is currently ongoing or completed within the last three (3) years from the release date of this SIR.” What is the SIR date from which the three‐year contract reference applicability period is calculated? Are we correct to assume that the issue date of 12/10/2019 (the Issue Date of Phase 1 of the solicitation) is the date by which the applicability period is calculated? Yes. SIR L L.16.2

We respectfully request clarification whether a SETIS Prime bidder's teammate (subcontractor) can submit a sealed package direct to the FAA with only Attachment L002 containing their contract/task order data. Some teammates have expressed concern providing this level of company data to potential Prime bidders, and would prefer to send their portion of this attachment (L002) direct to the FAA.

No. Team members can not submit directly to the

FAA. SIR L L.17

In SIR Section M, it appears that Volume I proposals are used only during the Phase I evaluation. Since Volume I provides rich information about the Prime Offeror’s capabilities, we respectfully request that the FAA also include Volume I in the Phase II evaluation.

No. SIR M

SIR Section L.22.3 requires submission of a Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Comprehensive Report (CR). We have contacted D&B, and their representative informed us that CR reports are no longer available. What other D&B report or financial information should Offerors submit as a suitable substitute(s)?

Please see update made to Section L.22.3 in SIR Amendment 14.

SIR L L.22.3

SIR Section L.21.1 states Offerors must assume a start date of October 1, 2020 for Year One (1). Since the Contract Award Acquisition Milestone is the Third Quarter FY22 and the minimum offer acceptance period is 180 days, should Offerors assume a start date of April 1, 2022 for Year One (1)?

Please see response to question 535. SIR L L.21.1

L.1 3.1‐1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATATED BY REFERENCE, Clause 3.2.2.7‐8 Disclosure of Team Arrangements

Requirement: Clause 3.2.2.7‐8 States: In order for FAA to recognize the validity of a team arrangement, the arrangement and company relationships must be fully disclosed by the offeror or Contractor:(1) In the offer; or(2) Before the arrangement becomes effective when formed after the submission of an offer or contract award.

Question: Is the identification of the proposed subcontractors in Offerors proposals sufficient to meet this requirement or are teaming agreements to be submitted with Offeror proposals?

Yes. Identification of the proposed subcontractors in Offeror's proposals is sufficient. SIR L

L.21.1(2), (3) and (4)

Requirement: "Offeror must must a start date of October 1, 2020 for Year One (1)."

Question: Will the FAA provided an updated start date for pricing and proposal purposes? Please see response to question 535. SIR L

L.1 3.1‐1 CLAUSES AND PROVISIONS INCORPORATATED BY REFERENCE, Clause 3.6.2‐15 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees

Requirement: 3.6.2‐15 states: As part of their submittals, offerors will provide a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract.

Question: "The referenced clause is included by reference, which mandates the inclusion of a Total Compensation Plan to set for the salaries and fringe benefits proposed and further states that ""Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of submittal.""

Are offerors to include a TCP with submissions and if so, in what volume/section?"

The Total Compensation Plan required under provision 3.6.2‐15 should be included in proposal Volume III. See update to SIR Section L.18 and M.4. SIR L

"L.21.1(1) L003 Tab ""Attachment L‐003A"""

Requirement:"Offeror must confirm that its pricing templates conform to the specifications contained within the SIR and the checklist"

Question: "Within L003A on the referenced tab, row 52, offerors are asked to sign as 'Certification of Cost Proposal'. Section L states Offeror must confirm its pricing templates conform to the specifications within the SIR and the checklist.

Is the signature required in L003A the certification of compliance with instructions? Please confirm it is not a certification of cost as what may be required with certified cost and pricing data.

Additionally, please clarify what 'checklist' is being referred to at L.21.1(1). Is it Section L requirements combined with the Instructions Tab in L003 or is there a specific checklist offerors should be using and conforming to? "

No. It is not a certification of cost as what may be required with certified cost and pricing data.

For the checklist inquiry, please see update made to Section L.21.1(1) in SIR Amendment 14. SIR L

L.15 (c), Page

Requirement: Volumes VI B and VII. The font type must be Times New Roman and size 12‐ point with single line spacing. The exception is for charts, graphs, tables, and pictures, for which the font size must be no less than 8‐point.

Question: Please confirm the formatting requirements of Volumes VI and VII do not apply to supporting data that may be attached to contractor’s proposal, ex. as Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRRs) from DCMA.

Confirmed. SIR L

L.2.5 (a), Page L‐4 Requirement:3.2.2.3‐20 Offers (January 2018). (a) The offeror (you) must submit responses to this SIR by the following electronic means: “FAA SETIS KSN portal”.

Question: Required supporting documentation such as Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRRs) from DCMA may be marked as Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), requiring that transmission be protected. Please confirm the KSN site meets the requirements for the protection of CUI per FIPS PUB 199.

Access to the “FAA SETIS KSN portal” is approved and granted via a roles and permissions structure.

The FAA KSN SharePoint SQL databases are encrypted at rest per FIPS

140.2 methodology and KSN SharePoint is configured to only use the TLS1.2 protocol. At this time, the FAA cannot confirm that this methodology or protocol meet the FIPS 199 requirements. SIR L

L.1, Page L‐1 Requirement: 3.6.2‐15 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (April 1996).

As part of their submittals, offerors will provide a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract.

SIR Section L.15, Proposal General Instructions, does not provide instructions for the submission of a total compensation plan as part of the Phase II proposal.

Will the Government accept TCPs in the offeror’s format as an attachment to Volume III, Management Approach, and exclude from the Volume III page limit to allow offeror’s to fully address requirements of AMS 3.6.2‐15?

See response to question

525. SIR L

The SIR states:

“The Volume II proposal must provide an executive summary of the Offeror’s proposed Integrated Team and include a matrix with supporting narrative that summarizes the Integrated Team’s ability to support the complete list of SETIS Core and Additional Capabilities.”

There is no page count identified, nor is there a corresponding section M indicating how the executive summary will be assessed by the FAA.

What is the page count for the executive summary and how will it be evaluated?

Please see update made to Section L.15 in SIR Amendment 14. SIR L L.17

Previously, question #354 was answered by the FAA clarifying that “Small Business qualification applies to the date of proposal submission not award”. Can the FAA clarify if that “date” applies to Phase I proposal submission or Phase II Proposal submission date

Submission of Phase I Proposal. SIR L L.25

Previously, question #354 was answered by the FAA clarifying that “Small Business qualification applies to the date of proposal submission not award”. Can the FAA clarify if that “date” applies to Phase I proposal submission or Phase II Proposal submission date

Please see response to question 519. (Duplicate question) SIR L L.25

Amendment 13, Section L, page L‐28, paragraph L.22.3 references a requirement to submit a Dun and Bradstreet Comprehensive Report, is a Dun and Bradstreet Credit Report acceptable for submission?

Please see response to question 529. SIR L L.22.3

On page L20, paragraph 2 of Amendment 13 the paragraph references Factor 2 and Factor 3.

In Amendment 12, Factor 3 was deleted. Should we renumber these two references to reflect Factor 1 and Factor 2?

Page L‐20, Section L.17, Factor 1, Second Paragraph will be moved up and corrected before Factor 1. SIR L L.20

In Volume I, guidance was provided regarding Past Performance Surveys that states, “Each example of past performance cannot have ended more than three (3) years before the SIR’s release date and must include a minimum of twelve (12) months of completed relevant support” (12/10/19). Please confirm the timeframe in which Volume II L002 references will be determined as “recent”? What is the acceptable minimum length of performance?

Per updated Attachment L002 instructions, the Period of Performance for the Contact and Task Order (if there are TOs) must be recent, that is currently ongoing or completed within the last three (3) years from the release date of this SIR.

Minimum of twelve (12) months does not apply. SIR L L.16.2

Please provide clarity and guidance on the Executive Summary requirements:

a.Is the Execu ve Summary rated as part of Volume II?

b.Where should the Execu ve Summary be placed in the final proposal document?

c.How will the Execu ve Summary influence the overall evalua on of Volume II?

Please see update made to Section L.17 in SIR Amendment 14. SIR L L.17

Section K‐11, K‐12. This is aimed at Huawei and ZTE but it is broadly written and could cover the equipment JMA uses to connect to FAA systems ‐ supposedly you check sam.gov for prohibited entities but what are you being asked to know and certify? What needs to go into subcontracts?

Per clause instructions, the Offeror is required to fill out the "Representations".

Confirm the "Representations" information is current.

Subcontractor flowdown requirements are specified in H.8.1. SIR K K.1

M.4 Price Factors, page M‐13

The FAA reserves the right to evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for balance in accordance with AMS T.3.2.3(A)(1)(j). Unbalanced pricing exists where, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more labor categories is significantly understated and the price of one or more labor categories is significantly overstated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques; or the offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be equivalent to allowing an advanced payment (front loaded). Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the FAA determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk. How can offerors ensure their pricing is balanced if the labor hours are not provided? We request the Government provide the estimated hours by labor category that will be used to calculate total evaluated price.

Please see update made to Section M.4 (Price Factors) in SIR Amendment 14. SIR M M.4

M.4 Price Factors, page M‐13, "The FAA will evaluate the proposals for reasonableness, completeness, traceability, consistency, and balance. Price Proposals will not be scored or rated. In evaluating offers, the FAA will use a total evaluated price (TEP), which includes the base ordering period and all subsequent ordering periods. The TEP will be the sum of: 1. The result from multiplying the government‐specified labor hours by the proposed fully burdened rate for each labor category for the base and each ordering period; and 2. CLINs with FAA provided Not‐to‐ Exceed (NTE) amounts. " Two questions: (1) Attachment L003 does not contain the ‘government specified hours’. Please provide. (2) Neither Attachment L003 nor the RFP instructions provided NTE amounts.

Please see update made to Section M.4 (Price Factors) in SIR Amendment 14. SIR M M.4

H.29 , page 71L.15(l), page L‐17M.2(j), page M‐2, "The FAA will allow any SETIS prime contractors to subcontract with any other SETIS prime contractors regardless of size; however, SETIS prime contractors may not participate as subcontractors in any SETIS Task Order competitions among SETIS Small and Large Business contractors. SETIS sub‐contractors may participate with multiple SETIS prime contractors. " While consistent in the referenced sections, the language itself confusing and conflicting.

Please clarify when SETIS primes can/cannot participate as a subcontractor for another SETIS prime.

SETIS prime contractor [awardees] may not participate as subcontractors in any SETIS Task Order competitions between SETIS Small and Large Business contractors. SIR H H.29

L.21.1 (2) and (3) and (4) Worksheet L003B and L003C on page L‐27, Both sections state, “Offeror must must a start date of October 1, 2020 for Year One (1)” Section L.14 on page L‐11 states contract award of Third Qtr FY22. Please advise on an appropriate starting date offerors should use for IDIQ Contract Year 1 pricing.

Please see response to question 535. SIR L L.21 on page L‐26, “Worksheet L003A ‐

Each Offeror must complete the attachment identifying its corporate and teaming information. Offeror must confirm that its pricing templates conform to the specifications contained within the SIR and the checklist.” Does the term ‘checklist’ refer to the instructions located on L003 tab entitled “Tab 1 Instructions”? If not, please provide the checklist that offerors should use to ensure compliance.

Please see response to question 524. SIR L L.21 page 2, RFP states, “The term of this contract is up to ten (10) years including one (1) three‐year base period, one (1) three‐year option period and two (2) two‐year option periods. TOs may be issued at any time during the base and/or option periods. The performance periods will be specified in the TOs and may include option periods which extend the TO up to twelve (12) months beyond the expiration date of this contract.” The pricing template contains only ten years of ceiling rates. Please confirm that offeror Year 10 ceiling rates do not apply to the last year of a task order that extends 12 months beyond the IDIQ period end (Year 10).

If a Task Order extends beyond Year 10, a price analysis will be done to determine if the rates are fair and reasonable. SIR B B.2

If a past performance citation was used for Phase I, but the 3 year limit expires prior to the submission of Phase II, can it still be used?

Phase II references cover the same period as Phase I and must be within the last three (3) years from the release date of this

SIR. SIR A

505 If a vendor is missing information on any of the capabilities – will they be disqualified?

Proposal will be evaluated in accordance with Section M. SIR A

504 Will each capability be graded separately?

Proposal will be evaluated in accordance with Section M. SIR A

503 Will the grading from Phase I be counted in the Phase II evaluation? No. SIR A

502 What is the page limit for the executive summary?

Please see update made to Sections L.15 and L.17 in SIR Amendment 14. SIR A

In order to assemble the best possible technical response and subcontractor team to meet the FAA's requirements, would the FAA please release the complete list of vendors selected for Phase II and the list of interested parties?

Please see response to question 533. SIR L L.7

L.19 (c) states the following:

"Offerors are required to disclose in Volume IV all relationships, in accordance with FAA AMS clause 3.1.7‐6 Disclosure of Certain Employee Relationships."

Please confirm that the AMS clause 3.1.7‐6 disclosure is required from the Offeror as well as its proposed subcontractors.

Subcontractor flowdown requirements are specified in H.8.1. SIR L L.19

Would the FAA please release an updated Attachment L003_Pricing Proposal Worksheets with the evaluated level of effort included?

Previous iterations of the SIR stated that the FAA cost model of estimated labor hours would not be released to Offerors whereas this language was removed in Amendment 13 suggesting it is the FAAs intent that the hours used to evaluate the total price will be released to Offerors.

Please see the update made to Section M.4 (Price Factors) in SIR Amendment 14. SIR L L.26

B.7.1 Time‐and‐Materials (T&M), Labor Hour Pricing (c) Geographic Areas (2) of the SIR indicates that Labor Category (LCAT) Rates are based on performance of work in Washington, DC and/or Atlantic City, NJ and that performance of work outside these geographic areas requires an adjustment to a LCAT's J0001 Rate proportional to difference in price as outlined in Section B.7.1 (c) (2).

Would the FAA please amend the this requirement so a change of locality during performance would not require an adjustment to the impacted LCAT's rate after Task Order award? No SIR B B.7.1

There appears to be some inconsistencies between the mandatory TO management requirements as defined in C.2.2 (e.g., program management and project control necessary to manage the TO; ensure that the cost, schedule, and quality requirements are tracked and communicated to the FAA, etc.) and the efforts defined in B.7.1 (f) TO Management Costs – Administrative (indirect labor) and B.7.1 (g) TO Management Costs – Technical (direct labor).

To ensure consistency across all offers, would the FAA please amend the SIR by realigning and augmenting the list of efforts and responsibilities applicable to SIR sections B.7.1 (f) Task Order Management Costs – Administrative, and B.7.1 (g) Task Order Management Costs – Technical?

To improve consistency, we kindly recommend the FAA add the following efforts and responsibilities in B.7.1 (g) TO Management Costs – Technical (direct labor) because these are mandatory or derived mandatory TO Management requirements per SIR section C.2.2:

Preparing TO invoices, Preparing TO travel requests, Preparing TO financial reports (e.g., communicating 75% funding notification, inputs to technical / price status as required in Monthly Status Reports, external monthly Contract Cost Status Report (CCSR) and external Quarterly Program Manager Report (QPMR) deliverables, and preparing TO close‐out materials).

No change will be made to the SIR. SIR B B.7.1

Would the FAA please confirm the three (3) year recency requirement per Attachment L002 Capabilities Traceability Matrix Instructions issued with Amendment 12 and update the SIR Section L.17 Volume II (Technical Proposal) Instructions to include the requirement?

Attachment L002 Capabilities Traceability Matrix Instructions issued with Amendment 12 includes the field "Contract Duration in (M/D/YY‐M/D/YY) and in (Months) states: "Enter the Period of Performance (Start Date – End Date) and Duration in Months of the Contract and Task Order (if there are TOs) listed in the Reference Contract/TO Number field. The Period of Performance for the Contact and Task Order (if there are TOs) must be recent, that is currently ongoing or completed within the last three (3) years from the release date of this

SIR."

Please see response to questions 532 and 515. SIR L L.26

The subject M.4 Price Factors indicates the FAA has reserved the option to evaluate price realism, and potentially cost realism per AMS T.3.2.3(A)(1)(d)(5) procurement guidance.

Would the FAA please clarify how the "analysis will be considered" as part of the overall evaluation? Specifically, how will the FAA determine if an Offeror's rates are deemed to be unrealistic and what will the FAA do (e.g., adjust evaluated rates upwards/cost realize‐up based on the Most Probable Cost as defined in the AMS procurement guidance or lower an Offeror's non‐priced factors score based on technical delivery risk due to unrealistic pricing)?

Please see update made to Section M.4 (Price Factors) in SIR Amendement 14. SIR M M.4

Amendments 001‐004 to SIR 693KA8‐20‐R‐00002 do not appear to be publicly available.

Would the FAA please post all of the Amendments on the SETIS Public Knowledge Services Network (KSN) Site or on sam.gov? Yes. SIR L L.22.2

Section L.22.4 (d) contains the following requirement: To the extent that the proposed plan goals deviate from the above goals, the Offeror must provide a detailed justification/rationale for the proposed goals. Proposed goals must apply over the life of the contract, including the base period and each option period.

As Mentor‐Protegee Agreements do not typically list goals, please clarify whether the above language was meant to be incorporated in Section L.20 VOLUME V (SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN ‐LARGE BUSINESS OFFERORS ONLY) and if so, would the FAA please remove sub‐paragraph (d) from L.22.4, Part 4.

Please see the update made to Section L.20 in SIR Amendment 14. SIR L L.22.4

L.22.4 (d); Page(s): L‐30 It appears paragraph (d) in SIR Section L.22.4 is in reference to the Subcontracting Plan requirements in Volume V; however, it is contained under Part 4 ‐ Mentor Protégé Program of Volume VII. Is this the correct placement of this paragraph?

Please see the response for question 493. SIR L L.22.4

Page(s): L‐14 Table 3 requires offerors to name Attachment L003 as "Vol. VI A_Price_ XXX_MM‐DD‐ YY.xls"; however, SIR section L.21.1 requires the worksheet to be submitted in Microsoft Excel 2016 format and the FAA's template uses the "xlsx" extension. Please confirm the naming convention may reflect an "xlsx" format.

Please see the update made to Section L.21 in SIR Amendment 14. SIR L L.15

Page(s): L‐27, L003 The answer to question #397 stated that a corrected L003 was being re‐issued that rounds to 2 decimal places; however, the update issued on March 6, 2020 (file dated "01_28_20") does not round the rates for Years 2‐10 in tabs L003B or L003C. Because SIR Section L.21.1 states, “Labor rates submitted with more than two (2) decimal places will result in material non‐conformity" can the FAA either provide another update to this worksheet or revise the referenced language in L.21.1 to state, "Labor rates entered for Year 1 with more than two

(2) decimal places will result in material non‐conformity"?

Please see the update made to Attachment L003 in SIR Amendment 14. SIR L L.21.1

Page(s): L‐28 The SIR requires a Dun and Bradstreet Comprehensive Report (CR) for the Offeror to be submitted with Volume VII, Part 3; however, these reports are no longer available through D&B. Can Offerors provide a Business Information Report Snapshot instead?

Please see the update made to Section L.22.3 in SIR Amendment 14. SIR L L.22.3

L002 The instructions in Attachment L002 state, “Enter the Total Award Amount (Ceiling Value if all Options are exercised) of the Contract and Task Order (if there are TOs) listed in the Reference Contract/TO Number field” and “Enter the Total Dollars Obligated to Date of the Contract and Task Order (if there are TOs) listed in the Reference Contract/TO Number field.” If the referenced work is at the Task Order level, are Offerors only required to enter the award/obligated amounts for the Task Order or must they enter the total award/obligated amounts at both the Contract (e.g. IDIQ) level and the relevant Task Order level?

Please see the update made to Attachment L002 in SIR Amendment 14. SIR L

L002 If an Offeror performed as a subcontractor for the referenced work, who should be listed in the "Reference Name and Title" column? The instructions state this must be the CO or COR and an employee of the Agency; however, if the work was performed as a subcontractor, an Offeror/teammate may not be privy to this information and would have no direct relationship with the CO or COR.

Please follow instructions on L002. SIR L

L002 If an Offeror performed as a subcontractor for the referenced work included in Attachment L002, is it correct that the Government is requiring administrative information (e.g. ceiling value, funded value, and Agency point of contact) at the prime contract level? Having to report this information when work was performed as a subcontractor may not be feasible because the data is not readily available and may require input from the prime contractor who is not obligated to provide such information. In these instances, it is recommended that the Government require the ceiling and funded values at the subcontract level so that

1) the data may be properly validated; and 2) the amounts provided align with the level of effort performed as a subcontractor and not an inflated value from the prime contractor.

Please see the update made to Attachement L002 in SIR Amendment

14. SIR L

Page(s): L‐26 The instructions for Worksheet L003A states Offerors must confirm the templates conform to the checklist. What checklist is this referring to?

Please see response for question 524. SIR L L.21.1

Page(s): L‐26 SIR Section L.20 references the August 2012 version of AMS Clause 3.6.1‐4; should this be changed to the July 2019 version to align with Section I.1?

Please see the update made to Section L.20 in SIR Amendment 14. SIR L L.20

Page(s): L‐27 The instructions for Worksheet L003B/C/D state, "Offeror must [assume] a start date of October 1, 2020 for Year One (1)." Can the FAA provide an update to the estimated start date in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of this section?

Please see response for question 535. SIR L L.21.1

Page(s): 73‐74 The table incorporates “3.3.1‐6 Liquidated Damages ‐ Subcontracting Plan (Jan 2010)";

should this reference 3.6.1‐6 and the January 2021 version instead? In addition, please note there are duplicate entries on pages 73 and 74.

Please see the updated clauses in SIR Amendment

14. SIR I I.1

Please clarify: is this still valid, or should we assume a different date as the start of Year 1 (e.g. October 1, 2021)?

Please see response for question 535. SIR L L.21.1

The RFP states that the price will be evaluated using a total evaluated price (TEP). It continues to say the TEP will be the "sum of the result of multiplying the government‐ specific labor hours by the proposed fully burdened rate for each labor category." Can the government please proved that hours they will be using in this calculation?

Please see the update made to Section M.4 (Price Factors) in SIR Amendment 14. SIR M M.4

Can the Government provide guidance on what proof is needed from the Offeror(s) regarding the ability to cover $150,000 of payroll and other operating and administrative expenses?

Proof will be financial statements, bank letters of credit or other similar financial submissions. SIR L L.22.3

The instructions for worksheets L003B, L003C and L003D state that the start date used should be October 1, 2020. Can you please confirm that the start date should be October 1, 2021?

Please see response for question 535. SIR L L.21.1

For the L002 matrix: should we cite the full TO/Contract obligation amounts for references that we use for multiple capability areas, or should we apply an applicable percentage of total obligations, similar to Phase 1?

Apply the applicable percentages of the total obligations similar to Phase I. SIR L L.17

Is there a specific timeframe limitation to contract references we can cite for Volume II? (i.e.

Volume I required citations to be within 3 years of SIR release).

We ask that FAA consider allowing citation of more recent references after the initial release of the SIR (e.g. awards through release of the latest amendment). Yes. SIR L L.17

Please confirm “Proof of the Offeror’s ability to cover at least $150,000 of payroll and other operating and administrative expenses to accommodate FAA “in arrears” payments for work performed for periods up to 90 days” is correct.

For both the SE2025 and PSS solicitations, the ability to cover amount was at least $1.5M of payroll.

Please see response to question 479. SIR L L.22.3

The most recent Attachment L003 provided in sam.gov is from March 6, 2020 with the filename: “Attachment+L003_Pricing+Proposal+Worksheets_01_28_20”. Please confirm that this is the correct version of the pricing proposal worksheet to be used for Volume VI A.

Please see the update made to Attachment L003 in SIR Amendment 14. SIR L L.21.1

Section L.18.7 includes instructions for providing Facility Clearance information in Volume III, Management Approach. Section L.22.2 includes instructions for providing Facility Clearance information in Volume VII, Other Proposal Documentation, Part 2, Contract Documents and Associated Information. Given this redundancy, would the FAA consider removing the requirement to include Facility Clearance Information in Volume III?

No change will be made to the SIR. SIR L L.18.7

We note that the final evaluation relative weighting in Section M.4 (c) on page M‐7 of the version of the SIR released with amendment 13 identifies the relative importance of the evaluation factors for award decisions, including the weighting for the evaluation factors associated with Volumes II through VI. The score for Volume I is not referenced in the relative weighting for the final selection decision. Please confirm that the evaluation score from Phase I/Volume I will not be used in the award decision. Yes. Confirmed. SIR M M.4

How does the FAA evaluate Vol. II contract references with regard to NAS relevancy?

Specifically, does the FAA automatically weight FAA contracts as being more relevant than DOT/Volpe Center or NASA contracts? Is there a weighting for recency within the 3‐year period? Are ongoing contracts ranked higher than contracts that ended 3 years ago?

Proposal will be evaluated in accordance with Section M. SIR M M.4

The descriptions of the A.2.14 Security capability area and A.1.3 Cybersecurity capability area seem to have significant overlap. For example, both reference FISMA and the NIST framework. Please explain the difference between these two capability areas. We recommend that Cybersecurity aspects of the Security capability area be removed.

No change will be made to the SIR. SIR C C.2.9 (a)

Per the “Instructions for Completing Attachment L002 Capabilities Traceability Matrix,” on the row for “Contract Duration in (M/D/YY‐M/D/YY) and in (Months)” on page 2, the instructions include “The Period of Performance for the Contract and Task Order (if there are TOs) must be recent, that is currently ongoing or completed within the last three (3) years from the release date of this SIR.” What is the SIR date from which the three‐year contract reference applicability period is calculated? We assume that the “Date Issued” in Block 5 of the SF‐33 of the Final SIR for the Phase I proposal (i.e., 12/10/2019) is the date by which the applicability period is calculated. Please confirm. Yes. SIR L L.17

What should an offeror do if they did not allocate the total contract value between capability areas if a single contract reference was used in multiple capability areas during Phase I? Should they use the allocated amounts for the contract reference if it is included in Attachment L002 for Phase II?

Please see response for question 477. SIR L L.17

If an offeror uses the same contract reference in two or more different capability areas in Attachment L002, should the full contract value be shown in all of the capability areas that apply to the contract?

Please see response for question 477. SIR L L.17

Per guidance provided in the Q&A during Phase I, specifically the FAA’s response to Question 333, the Phase I SIR required that respondents citing contract references that applied to multiple capability areas split the contract value in proportion to its applicability to the particular capability area and provide this value within Attachment L001a, Prime’s Experience Value Traceability Matrix. This applied to the core capabilities, which were the focus of Phase I, and the intended use of the contract references for additional capabilities in Phase II even though the additional capability contract references were not required to be included in the Phase I proposal. To ensure consistency and equity in evaluating Phase II responses, we suggest that this same methodology for splitting contract reference values across capability areas be applied to the Phase II proposal, including maintaining integrity with the values submitted for the Phase I proposal within Attachment L002, Capabilities Traceability Matrix. Please confirm this approach.

Please see response for question 477.

SIR L L.17

How will the FAA use the contract values that are provided in Attachment L002 during the evaluation of Phase II proposals? The contract values do not seem to be referenced in the evaluation criteria in Section M. Why is the FAA asking for this information?

Contract value is standard information asked for when requesting information on the teams (offerors) prior experience. SIR L L.17

Please clarify the evaluation criteria for the Volume 2 Executive Summary. It is no longer referenced in M.4, Volume II – Technical, Factor 1.

Please see update made to Section L.17 in SIR Amendment 14. SIR M M.4

Please define the page limit for the executive summary specified in section L.17 as it no longer appears in the table in section L.15.

Please see update made to Sections L.15 and L.17 in SIR Amendment 14. SIR L L.17

Question: Attachment L002 Capabilities Traceability Matrix, Instructions Cell for “Contract Duration in (M/D/YY‐M/D/YY) and in (Months)” states that the Period of Performance must be “currently ongoing or completed within the last three (3) years from the release date of this SIR.” Please confirm that “the release date of this SIR” should be interpreted as December 9, 2019, meaning any ongoing contract or any contract completed after December 9, 2016 is eligible for inclusion.

Please see response for question 469. SIR release date is 12/10/2019. SIR L L.16