FAA_Vendor_QA_Responses_Final.pdf

Responses to Vendor Questions Screening Information Request (SIR) 693KA8-21-R-00001

Dual Frequency Operations – Phase 2

FAA Responses to Vendor Questions & Comments

Regarding Screening Information Request (SIR) 693KA8-21-R-00001

August 16, 2021

SIR Reference: Section L.14

Question 1

In light of the removal of Zeta from the list of companies in L.14 that may support DFO-2 proposal evaluation as either an advisor or an evaluator, the Contractor respectfully requests confirmation from the FAA that Zeta did not participate in the drafting of the DFO-2 SIR, or have access to WAAS DFO Segment 1 incumbent competition sensitive financial information as defined in

AMS 3.1.7-1.

FAA Response:

FAA confirms that Zeta did not participate in any way in the drafting of the DFO-2 SIR, or have any access to WAAS DFO Segment 1 incumbent competition sensitive financial information.

SIR Reference: Task Order 2, 3.7.11

Question 2 For Hardware provided by FAA, will the FAA perform TO 2 3.7.11 activities or does the FAA expect the Contractor to do all or a subset of activities?

FAA Response:

The referenced section of Task Order 2 (3.7.11) requires the contractor to perform logistics support activities related to government furnished equipment (GFE). Section 3.7.11 also articulates specific circumstances under which the FAA will carry out similar activities.

SIR Reference: Task Order 2, 3.7.3.7

Question 3

The Contractor Release field performance monitoring period is defined as the two weeks after the completion of SSM/cutover. The Offeror recommends that the Contractor Release field performance monitoring period be changed to begin at the start of Release SSM fielding and end 14 days after the completion of Release SSM.

FAA Response: FAA Concurs with this request and has revised Task Order 2 to be consistent with this recommendation.

SIR Reference: Task Order 2, Attachment 2

Question 4 In TO 2 Attachment 2, the date for DF LOC Completion (September 2025) is earlier than the predecessor GPS L5 IOC Date (January 2026). This appears to be inconsistent with the last two paragraphs of Section 3.6.1, which require validating IOC availability requirements (per Table 1) before LOC capability is complete. A similar issue exists with GPS L5 FOC Date (2029) and DF IOC Completion (December 2026). Would the Government either clarify this apparent inconsistency or adjust the dates in TO Attachment 2?

FAA Response:

FAA has revised Task Order 2 Attachment 2 for GPS L5 FOC date of 2027.

However, WAAS DF LOC is not dependent on GPS L5 IOC milestone achievement, and WAAS DF IOC is not dependent on GPS L5 FOC milestone achievement. DFO IOC is an aviation certified system that must meet reduced availability requirements (Per TO 2 paragraph 3.6.2) with the GPS L5 IOC constellation.

SIR Reference: Section B.6.2a

Question 5

Contractor requests a change in contract type for Task Order 01 (Material & ODCs) and Task Order 02 CLINs 0005 (ODCs) and 0006 (Hardware & Hardware Kits) to CPFF or FFP. (It should be noted that Materials will be required for Task Order 01 Sections 4.4 and 4.5 for the GFE Environments.)

Fee, similar to G&A, should be allowable on Material/ODC Costs. Such inclusion is provisioned for in the FAA's Procurement Guidance T3.2.2 Appendix 3 Template for Detailed Independent Government Cost Estimate for Products, Services, or Construction, and also in the Government's Weighted Guidelines.

FAA Response: FAA has considered this request, and declines to make the change in contract type requested. Fee will not be allowed on materials.

SIR Reference: Section C.3

Question 6

Section C.3 states that contract management is a mandatory element of all TOs issued under the DFO-2 contract and that FAA expects a "high volume, multiple contract type Task Orders". Please confirm that the Offeror is to only bid Contract/Program Management for Task Order 1 and Task Order 2, and not future Task Orders. If not, what assumptions should be made about future Task Orders?

FAA Response:

All program management services procured under this contract will be procured under Task Order 1 and must be bid accordingly. Section C.3 language regarding program management and contract management has been revised to clarify this expectation.

SIR Reference: Section G.13.1

Question 7 The Offeror requests removal of language in G.13.1 Ordering Procedures that states, “All costs associated with the preparation, presentation, and discussion of the Contractor’s proposal in response to a task order solicitation will be at the Contractor’s sole and exclusive expense.”

FAA Response: FAA concurs with this request, and a revised section G has been provided.

SIR Reference: Section G.9.2

Question 8

The SIR directs the Contractor to obtain CO pre-approval for ODC/Travel expense and to provide invoice backup for travel/ODC including receipts for expenses over $75. Request waiver of pre-approval requirement for Contractors with government approved accounting systems and travel policies/systems in compliance with federal travel regulations.

FAA Response:

FAA has considered this request and declines to waive the pre-approval requirement. However, per the language in G.11 and G.12, contractor travel and ODCs may be authorized by either the COR or the Contracting Officer, and e-mail communication is sufficient to establish pre-approval.

SIR Reference: Section J-01

Question 9 CDRL inconsistencies between J-01 and Task Orders 1 & 2:

A011: J-01 Block 10. Frequency says the SAR is to be delivered only once, but Block 16 implies per Release.

FAA Response: The SAR is to be delivered once for each WCR as under DFO Segment 1.

FAA has edited the referenced CDRL definition accordingly.

SIR Reference: Section L.21.2.1

Question 10 Offeror recommends addition of ODC worksheet (tab) to pricing model (similar to tab 6) that identifies non-travel ODC.

FAA Response:

FAA concurs with this recommendation and has revised the Price Model to contain a worksheet for non-travel ODCs. All non-travel ODCs must be described in the Price Narrative and said description must include support for the prices proposed.

SIR Reference: Section L.21.2.3

Question 11 Offeror requests a change to B.6.2.1 FFP Task Orders to allow Contractor to bid using current forward pricing rates at the time the effort is bid.

FAA Response: FAA has considered this request, and declines to change the required methodology for pricing the FFP task orders.

SIR Reference: Section L.21.3

Question 12 The Offeror requests the ability to modify the Materials tab (#6) in the Price Model to distinguish between Task Order 1 and 2 material, and include estimated quantities, extended values, and Contractor Release.

FAA Response: FAA permits the modification to the Price Model contemplated in this request.

SIR Reference: Section L.21.3

Question 13 Instructions for Tab 2 (TO #1) point to a dependency on Tab 6 (Material), request that the dependency point to Tab 5.

FAA Response: FAA concurs with this request and has provided a revised Price Model.

Question 14

Instructions for Tab 3 (CPFF scope) of the Price_Model point to a dependency on Tab 2 (T&M/LH scope) for Fully Burdened Rates. "The Base Period - Year 1 rates should match those from tab 2, as should the indirect rates (Row 4)" which does not align with B.6.1.

The Offeror requests that the Government update instructions for Tab 3 to clarify that Task Order 002 (CPFF scope) is calculated independent of the T&M rates created through tabs 1, 4, and 5 due to different contract type.

FAA Response:

FAA concurs with the observation regarding a needed change to the instructions for Tab 3, and have revised the Price Model to replace the dependency on Tab 2 with a dependency on Tab 1.

FAA declines to edit the Price Model as requested regarding calculation of Task Order 2 and T&M rates. FAA expects Offerors to utilize consistent indirect rates across all contract types for the base year. Discrepancies in direct or indirect labor rates across contract types, if present in any year, must be identified and a rationale provided in the Price Narrative.

Question 15 The Offeror requests the ability to make slight modifications to the pricing model in order to align with the Contractor's pricing structure, through only the addition of extra columns and/or workbook tabs.

FAA Response:

FAA will permit the modifications contemplated in this question. Additional columns may be added for additional indirect rates, as necessary. Any additional tabs required should only consist of additional data, not additional calculations. These additions must also be clearly identified, described, and supported in the Price Narrative.

SIR Reference: Pricing Model Tab 3

Question 16 Contractor requests the ability to modify the Formula in the Proposed Fee cells, so fee is not applied to Cost of Money.

FAA Response: FAA concurs that Proposed Fee should not be applied to Cost of Money and has revised the Price Model to correct this calculation.

Question 17 Offeror requests confirmation that Contractor standard forward pricing rates labor categories can be used to bid Task Order 2 labor categories.

FAA Response:

FAA confirms that Offeror may use its standard labor categories. Application of Offerors' labor categories to, or in place of, FAA labor categories must be clearly identified and explained in the Price Narrative. All Key Personnel must be identified as well.

Question 18

The pricing model requires that Task Order 1's two 2-year Option periods be priced. There is no new Task Order scope defined or instructions in Section L.21 on how to price the Option periods. Please clarify how the FAA expects the Offerors to bid Option periods.

FAA Response:

Consistent with FAA's response to Question 6 above, all program management services procured under this IDIQ contract will be procured under Task Order

1. Offeror can assume that, regardless of the number or scope of other task orders procured by FAA under this IDIQ, the option periods for Task Order 1 would cover all Program Management scope for those periods.

SIR Reference: Section I.2

Question 19 Please clarify which proposal volume should include the documentation to satisfy requirements of I.2 AMS 1.13-1 Notice of Earned Value Management System.

FAA Response: Volume I (one) should include the referenced documentation. Section L has been revised to reflect this expectation.

SIR Reference: Section J-32

Question 20

J-32 has qualification requirements for many positions that exceed typical requirements for those positions, or are too restrictive. Examples include:

• Requirement for a PMP certification for non-program management positions.

• Requirements for government-only training/certification

• Requirements for specific engineering degrees versus a STEM degree master's degree

• Requirements for advanced (masters) degree versus allowing for equivalent experience and education

The Offeror requests that J-32 be modified to allow for more flexibility in staffing. Offeror requests that at a minimum, a statement be added to J-32 allowing for equivalent experience and education.

FAA Response:

FAA agrees that waivers may be appropriate in certain circumstances and has provided an appropriate edit to Section C.1.3. No edit has been made to Attachment J-32.

SIR Reference: Section L.4.4

Question 21 The Offeror requests that the FAA ensures that the titles in Section L.4.4 are consistent with Section L.15 to L.20 instructions for titles and section structure.

FAA Response: FAA has revised Section L.4.4 to make it consistent with the titles language provided in Sections L.15 through L.20.

SIR Reference: Section L.4.4

Question 22 Please confirm whether the FAA expects a glossary of terms with each proposal volume? If yes, please confirm that the glossary pages will be excluded from the page count limitations.

FAA Response:

FAA expects a glossary of terms with each proposal volume, and has provided a revision to Section L to reflect this expectation. Pages devoted to a glossary of terms will be excluded from page-count limitations. Section L has been revised to reflect this expectation.

SIR Reference: Sections L.4.5, L.4.6, L.4.7, L.8

Question 23

The Offeror requests confirmation of the maximum file size the FAA can accept via email. The Offeror also requests that the FAA provide an alternative delivery method to the email address in Section L.8a since many proposal volumes are larger than most email servers can handle. In addition, please confirm that no hardcopy documents are to be delivered.

FAA Response: FAA confirms that it can receive emails with attachments of up to 20 megabytes in total size to the address provided for submission of Offers. FAA confirms that no hard-copy documents are to be delivered. Offerors may submit volumes to the provided email address using multiple email submissions. Section L has been revised to provide instructions for submission of volumes via more than one email.

SIR Reference: Sections M.6 and M.7

Question 24

Section M.4 introduces Risk and Opportunity Assessment as part of the Best Value Determination. The Offeror requests that the government expand Sections M.6 (Evaluation Factors) and M.7 (Evaluation Ratings and Definitions) to include Risk and Opportunity Assessment.

FAA Response: FAA has considered this recommendation and declines to make a change in response.

SIR Reference: Section M.6.2.4.4

Question 25 The Offeror requests a change to M.6.2.2.4 b.

From: "… activities outlined in Section C and Section F..."

To: "... activities outlined in Section F...".

FAA Response: FAA Concurs with this request and has revised Section M as requested.