Vendor QA Responses.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 Draft Screening Information Request (SIR) 693KA8-21-R-00001

SIR

Reference: Sec B.2

Question 1 Contractor will need a mapping of SOW and Task Order paragraphs to the CLINs in Section B.2 to ensure that work scope is priced into the correct CLINs.

FAA

Response:

FAA will provide the requested mapping of all work to CLINs within Task Orders to be issued under this contract. For example, the provided drafts of TO 1 and TO 2 contain such mapping (see Section 2.1 of both TO 1 and TO 2).

Question 2 Please identify the funding source for each CLIN. (i.e. F&E vs. Ops funding)

FAA

Response: The funding source will be identified for each CLIN within each Task Order issued. .

Question 3 Please confirm the contract type for the ODC CLINs X004 and that the intended work scope is travel. Where will FAA define travel NTEs?

FAA

Response:

Contract type for each CLIN will be defined within each task order. Travel NTEs will also be defined within each Task Order.

SIR

Reference:

Sec B.2 Sec L.2

Question 4 Please confirm the Cost Type CLINs X001 are Cost Plus Fixed-Fee per Section L.2 AMS Clause 3.2.4-1 Type of Contract (Apr 1996).

FAA

Response:

Cost Type CLINs referred to in Section B.2 include both Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) and Cost Reimbursable (CR) contract types. The contract type for each CLIN will be identified within each Task Order issued.

Reference: Section B.2

Question 5

Contractor concurs with providing pricing broken out as reflected in the Section B.2 CLIN structure for evaluation considerations by the FAA. However, management of contract budget by contract year would be administratively burdensome and costly, as tasks do spread across multiple contract years and are subject to shift based upon program priorities, making earned value management complicated and misleading when tasks are broken up independent of IMS logic. As such, it is requested that the contract period CLINs be consolidated to allow flexibility in the management of the program. (i.e. consolidate CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001, 6001, 7001, 8001, and 9001 into CLIN 0001)

Response: The FAA appreciates this input and will make adjustments as appropriate in the final SIR.

Reference: Section B.2, TO 1, TO 2

Question 6

The CLIN descriptions in TOs 01 and 02 do not match. (i.e. CLIN 0003 in TO 01 is Program/Laboratory Support and in TO 02 is Software Engineering. Please explain or correct. Further, these CLINs do not tie back to the CLIN structure in Section B.2. (i.e. TO 02 has CLIN 0006 Program/Laboratory Support and 0009 Travel/ODCs. There is no CLIN 0006 or 0009 in Section B.2.)

FAA

Response:

As stated in Section B.2, individual CLIN substructure within each task order will be based upon the specific requirements of the task order. Different Task Orders will not necessarily have the same CLIN structures as each other or as Section B.

SIR

Reference: Section B.2, TO 1, TO 2

Question 7

This statement seems to imply that funding is at the Task Order level: "The ceiling and funding allocations between CLINs on Delivery/Task Orders are estimated distribution values that are not to be exceeded without the approval of the Contracting Officer. The Government reserves the right to re-align funding between CLINs via modification."

Please confirm that funding will be provided at the Section B.2 CLIN level thus avoiding extra accounting for all CLIN/Task Orders.

FAA

Response:

The funding source and contract type for each CLIN will be identified within each Task Order issued. As stated in Section B.2, individual CLIN substructure within each task order will be based upon the specific requirements of the task order. Scope elements will be mapped to CLINs as appropriate in each Task Order.

Reference: Section B.2, TO 2

Question 8 CLIN 0500 Hardware/Hardware Kits in Task Order 2 should be CPFF or FFP. Cost Reimbursement contract type should be limited to Travel Costs.

FAA

Response:

The FAA is considering the appropriate contract type for this CLIN, and will make adjustments as appropriate in the final SIR.

Reference: TO 2, 9

Question 9 Contractor recommends that all F&E travel costs be consolidated in TO 01.

Reference: Sec J21

Question

Please describe the GFI process and dependencies the Contractor should anticipate with FAA Annual Maintenance Release.

Response: FAA refers the vendor to the Final SIR and its attachments.

Reference: TO 1 and 2

Question

Does the following list capture the significant GFE and Contractor-Acquired Material for HW kits?

High-level Assumption List for GFE vs. Contractor Acquisition Hardware Upgrade GUS Receiver - GFE (GIII Receivers for field, Contractor Lab Facility, OKC Lab, Depot), Contractor (Misc.

Cables, Panels for field, Contractor Lab Facility, OKC Lab, Depot) DF LOC at four GUS Sites - Contractor (GUS AIX Processor, Access Router, Firewall, Cables) DF LOC Broadcast - GFE (AIX Processors/Safety Computers for Three C&Vs and Two O&Ms), Contractor (Cabinets/Other C&V LRUs/ Cables for Three C&Vs/Two O&Ms, Access Routers for comm to four field GUS sites) AIX to Linux Upgrade - Contractor (Linux processor replacing all AIX 720 processors/Cables/Panels in the field, Contractor Lab Facility, OKC Lab, Depot) TDM to IP - Contractor (Add Ethernet interfaces at core and OAC routers, New/modified I/O panels for each subsystem, new core routers?, Ethernet cables/miscellaneous HW) for field, Fullerton Lab, OKC Lab and Depot DF IOC - Contractor (Three new C&Vs for the field and /Shadow Systems at Contractor Lab Facility and OKC Lab (Linux/Safety Computers/Cabinets/other LRUs/Cables) Lab repairs & replacements for non-baseline LRUs - GFE (original equipment from DFO contract transfer), Contractor -additional HW, upgrade to data archive, data server farm, data backup system, TBD equipment changes driven by FAA lab changes, etc.

FAA

Response:

The Final SIR will be edited such that "DF LOC at four GUS Sites" will also include materials for adding capability to enhanced shadow GUS at contractor and FAA facilities so that lab GUS site will match field sites. WTMS kits are required for any hardware that is also going to the field, plus WTMS TSS hardware.

Reference: TO 1, 4.4

Question

Please delete the statement "The Contractor must coordinate with the FAA for replacement and repair of GFE LRUs."

FAA Depot coordination is needed for replace & repair of WAAS baseline LRUs in GFE Lab. For non-baseline LRUs, they are replaced/repaired through lab management responsibility. If equipment must be replaced, then ECCB tracks action until fully resolved.

FAA

Response:

The FAA appreciates this input and will revise Task Order 1 as appropriate prior to release of the Final SIR. FAA refers vendor to the final SIR.

Question

Recommend phrase "Update to or modification of any environment for any reason must be captured" is changed to "Update to or modification of any environment must be captured in accordance with ECCB process." Current ECCB scope excludes LRU failures and provides for unique handling of Shadow Systems changes to support the dynamic configuration changes needed for release development and testing. Adding LRU failure management to ECCB scope will increase ECCB cost, impact both release schedule and lab stability.

Reference: TO 1, 4.6

Question

Will FAA provide a list of initial SW licenses for all contractors to bid? What assumptions should Contractor make with regards to new licenses required due to FAA lab changes during base period? Contractor to provide best estimate of new and modified SW licenses (and associated SW/HW maintenance) needed for GFE lab and field units for the DFO-2 release work (LINUX, IP, etc.). Assumption is that FAA will procure their own SW licenses and SW/HW maintenance agreements for FAA Engineering Labs.

FAA

Response:

FAA will provide this information in bidding assumptions to be provided with the Final SIR. FAA refers the vendor to the Final SIR and its attachments.

SIR

Reference: Sec F.1

Question

Section H.10 covers substitution of Key Personnel so the clause AMS 3.8.2-22 Substitution or Addition of Personnel (Oct 2006) in Section F.1 should be removed as duplicative.

Reference: Sec G.3

Question

Section G.3 is entitled ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF KEY PERSONNEL for Government and Contractor personnel; however, the clause content is limited to description of Government personnel only. Recommend renaming Section G.3 to ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF GOVERNMENT KEY PERSONNEL, and delete reference to Contractor Key Personnel in this section.

Reference: Sec H.10

Question

It is recommended that the Key Personnel roles be identified at the Program/Contract level in Section H.10 as required for the scope of work defined in the SOW in lieu of being identified in the individual Task Orders since Key Personnel efforts may span multiple Task Orders. Key Personnel list in Section H aligns with Guidance in Section L.19.2 b.1.

Reference: TO 2, 3.7.5.3

Question

Please delete last paragraph: "The Contractor must follow established FAA contracting procedures for on-boarding new personnel on the contract. The Contracting Officer Representative or Contracting Officer must immediately be notified upon termination or transfer of third party personnel from the contract."

The paragraph is applicable when FAA is badging employees. Contractor needs to be able to adjust staffing to support program execution needs and has limited need to FAA badge program personnel.

Question 19 First sentence, "...and two (2) two- option periods." Was intended wording "two-year option periods"?

FAA

Response:

The intended wording is “…and two (2) two-year option periods.” FAA refers the vendor to relevant revised sections of the Final SIR and its attachments for the actual language.

Question

The TO 1 and TO 2 Periods of Performance are inconsistent for the base and option periods. Period of performance data is in multiple sections within each Task Order.

Reference: 2892E

Question

Section 3.1.3.1.1.1 TTA has changed from 6.2 to 5.2 seconds. Does the FAA expect the WAAS system implementation to change to reduce TTA by 1 second to meet the 5.2 requirement or does the current design meet the 5.2 TTA requirement? The VRTM in Appendix H for 3.1.3.1.1.1 still shows 6.2 seconds.

FAA

Response:

FAA does not expect the WAAS system implementation to change; current design is sufficient to meet the 5.2-second TTA requirement.

Question

Please confirm that TO 1 and TO 2 will be awarded concurrently since there is scope interdependencies between the two.

For instance, TO 1 provides for Quarterly Meetings, IMS, and Lab but need Technical work in TO 2 for those activities to be performed. Likewise TO 2 work cannot be performed without TO 1 or its equivalent.

Response: FAA intends to award both TASK ORDER 1 and TASK ORDER 2 immediately upon contract award.

Question

Where will GFE Environments be defined in SIR for Contractor? Assume that GFE Environment changes needed to align with FAA Engineering Lab changes will be covered in a Task Order other than TO 1 or TO 2.

Reference: TO 2, 3.6.2 paragraph 7 and 3.6.3

Question

Proposal assumption is that when DF IOC is fielded, that changes will be made to the existing fielded SF O&M to also support DF O&M functions. Please confirm that the following sentence from 3.6.3 does not refer to a standalone fielded DF O&M HW: "The Contractor must construct and deliver necessary DF IOC O&M hardware to the FAA's National and Pacific Operations Control Center sites."

FAA

Response:

FAA will edit TASK ORDER 2 to clarify prior to release of the Final SIR, and refers the vendor to the Final SIR and its attachments.

Reference: TO 2, 3.6.3, 3.7.9

Question

Please confirm that Contractor is responsible or directly involved with DF LOC/IOC equipment installations as well as TDP to IP field installations. Assume all other LRU replacement installations are performed by NASE.

FAA

Response:

FAA refers the vendor to the Final SIR and to Task Orders 1 and 2. NASE currently handles all such installation, though FAA could procure installation support through a task order.

Reference: Sec B.2 (page 2)

Question

In the 1st paragraph describing the CLIN structure by year, the last sentence should state, “i.e.: Base Period 1 = 0001, 0002, 0003, Option 1 Period 1 = 6001, 6002, 6003, Option 2 Period 1 = 8001, 8002, 8003, etc.”

Reference: Sec B.6.1, 2nd paragraph

Question

Section B.6.1 Cost Reimbursement Pricing states that "The fee, if, applicable will be negotiated for each TO consistent with statutory limitations." We recommend the following change: "The CPFF fee percentage shall be defined at the Section B CLIN levels and to apply to all Task Orders."

Reference: Sec B.6.1.2

Question

Section B.6.1.2 states that "For T&M type Task Orders, profit on materials is not allowable." Request this statement be revised to "For T&M type Task Orders, profit rate on material will be a fixed TBD %." The % to be negotiated.

SIR

Reference: Sec B.6.1.2

Question

Delete the phrase "subject to the indirect ceiling rates established in the contract" and replace it with "utilizing approved/proposed DCAA/DCMA forward pricing rates."

Reference: Sec B.6.1.3, L.22.2.3

Question

Recommend that a FFP Pricing be broken out as a separate paragraph, reading as follows: "All TOs issued on a Fixed Price basis will be priced in accordance with approved/proposed DCAA/DCMA (or AMS 3.3.2-1 FAA Cost Principles and Procedures) forward pricing rates. The Contractor will provide complete supporting schedules identify all applicable direct and indirect rate estimates building up to the TO cost. Contractors without audited rates shall propose indirect rates in accordance with AMS 3.3.2-1 FAA Cost Principles and Procedures. The fee will be negotiated for each new FFP type TO consistent with statutory limitations. Travel and materials may be estimated for each TO, including applicable indirect costs, utilizing the approved/proposed DCAA/DCMA forward pricing rates. Partial or progress payments under FFP type TOs may be negotiated based on the completion of milestones/deliverables in accordance with applicable AMS clauses in contract or TOs."

Recommend removing all references to FFP type Task Orders in Section B.6.2 (page 3).

Reference: Sec B.6.2

Question 31 Section B.6 has several paragraph numbering issues.

Reference: Sec B.6.2

Question

This paragraph states the T&M rates to be included in Attachment J-37 Labor Rate Tables are ceiling rates. Per definition in FAA AMS Procurement Guidance T3.2.4.A.6.a "A time-and-materials (T&M) or labor-hour (LH) contract provides for acquiring supplies or services on the basis of direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates." Please clarify that the hourly rate tables will be fixed hourly rates, not ceiling rates.

Reference: Sec B.6.3

Question

T&M/Labor Hour Rates should be fixed for the six (6) year base period. Due to the extended period of performance, it is recommended that T&M/Hourly Labor rates for the two 2-year option periods be determined 3 months prior to option exercise years using Contractor forward pricing rates applicable prior to option exercise.

Reference: C-5

Question

Recommend adding task to C-5 for Implement GFE Lab Upgrades (HW, SW) to keep GFE Lab better "aligned' with FAA modifications to NASE Lab.

Reference: C-5

Question 35 On last page in C-5, there is a reference to PCII material. Term needs to be defined.

Response: “PCII” refers to Protected Critical Infrastructure Information.

Reference: Sec C, Appendix A

Question

Software Level D Safety Baseline is listed twice and has formatting issues with extra underlines. The first occurance of the definition: "Software Level D Safety Baseline: DO-178B SL D or equivalent Certification of all Software High- Level Requirements." is a duplicate of line that follows. The first instance may be for Level B and will need corrected description.

Reference: Sec C, C-2.1

Question 37 In the event of a conflict between the SOW and a Task Order SOW, which one takes precedence?

Response: FAA refers the vendor to Section C of the Final SIR regarding Order of Precedence.

Reference: Sec D.4.a

Question 38 Unable to find list of deliverables subject to D.4 in SIR package.

FAA

Response:

FAA refers the vendor to the Final SIR and its attachments. All deliverables will be defined at the Task Order/Delivery level.

Reference: Sec E.4.b, E.7.a, E.7.b

Question

Recommend deleting statement "For periods exceeding thirty (30) calendar days, it is the responsibility of the contractor to confirm receipt and acceptance of the deliverable(s)."

Reference: Sec F.9

Question 40 F.9 – TRANSFER AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF GOVERMNET-FURNISHED PROPERTY (GFP) note typo.

Reference: Sec F.9.d

Question 41 F.9.d Typo on 4th line. S/B “Form 4500-1”.

Reference: Sec G.11.1, G.11.2(e)6

Question 42 See suggested redlines captured in the worksheet Sec G redlines.

Reference: Sec H.13

Question 43 There is no requirement for offices at contractor facility for the onsite QRO team. Is this intentional or an oversight?

Reference: Sec H.18

Question

Contractor requests deletion of this clause as it appears to be an excerpt from FAA Procurement Guidance T3.10.3 Government Property providing instruction to the Government of the management of Government property.

Requirements to the Contractor for the management of Government property are provided in:

F.9 Transfer and Accountability of Government-Furnished Property (GFP) F.10 Transfer of FAA Assets from Depot Support Using LIS Requisition Process H.14 Access to Government Property and Facilities H.16 Accountability for Contractor Acquired Equipment and Material H.17 Government Property Reports (Note the due date should be October 30th of each calendar year.)

I.1 AMS Clause 3.10.3-2 Government Property- Basic Clause with Alternates I and II

Reference: Sec H.20 c

Question

The examples given for Class I ECPs are actually examples of Class II ECPs. Presume that the Class I is a typo and Class II was intended text.

Reference: Sec I

Question

Contractor requests deletion of clause AMS 3.2.2.8-8 Liquidated Damages- Supplies, Services, or Research and Development (Oct 2019) as not appropriate to the scope of work under this SIR and appears to be in conflict with Section H.12 Limitation of Liability.

Reference: Sec I

Question

Contractor requests deletion of AMS 3.2.1.3-2 Right of First Refusal of Employment as the scope of work under this SIR is not commercial activity.

FAA

Response:

FAA acknowledges that this SIR is not being issued under A-76 procedures, and refers the vendor to the revised Section I of the Final SIR.

Reference: Sec J1

Question

Typically paragraph/section references are to the SOW. If this is now Task Order, need to add Task Order reference to the paragraph number. J1 maintenance will be required for each new Task Order that has CDRL responsibility or input.

Reference: Sec J1 and TO 2, 3.7.8.6

Question

Task Order 2, Section 3.7.8.6 and Section J1, Page 22 have different names for A033. Master Test Plan vs. Contractor Master Test Plan.

Reference: L.15.7

Question

In paragraph a), there is no mention of Volume 2 Contract Management and Core Capabilities in the information on hardcopy and thumb drive deliveries.

Reference: L.17.2, L.18.2, L.19.2, M.5

Question

In L.17.2, L.18.2, and L.19.2, the references to Section M evaluation factors should be under M.6.x rather than M.5.x.

Unable to find correct reference for M.5.6. Will the two Cost Volumes be evaluated against the same criteria or different?

Reference: L.19.2

Question

In Part 4 description, there is a mention of a notional schedule in Section C. Unable to find the referenced notional schedule.

SIR

Reference: L.19.2 b.1

Question 53 Reference to Attachment J-x should be changed to J-32.

Reference: Sec L, page 4

Question

TYPE OF CONTRACT. The FAA contemplates award of a contract with the combination of Cost Plus Fixed Fee

(CFPP)…

Typo: CFPP should be CPFF

Response: The FAA concurs and will make adjustments as appropriate in the final SIR.

Reference: Sec L.15.1, L.15.4, L.21

Question

Section M.2 identifies two Cost Volumes (volumes 6 and 7). Section L.15.1, L.15.4, and L.21 should be updated to reflect added volume or correction to M.2 is required. To avoid duplication of data, it is recommend that one Cost Volume is required with separate sections for Task Order 1 and Task Order 2 pricing.

Reference: M.6.1.1a

56 Additional tasks orders beyond TO #2 may require price increase to Task Order #1.

Reference: Sec M.6.1

M.6.1 references M.6.2 for Contract Management and Core Capabilities scoring but that section is for Task Order 2 evaluation factors. Please verify if the reference is correct.

Reference: TO 1, 4.4, page 8

Question

Tech Center data collection equipment allows access to data from each of the GFE Environments. Please update reference to be specific to the GFE Shadow Systems. The other GFE Environments are not remotely accessible nor is there anything to be monitored.

Reference: TO 1, 3.11

Question

Remove the phrase "administratively controlled by the FAA" with regards to the Contractor's DCE folders for CDRLs and Contract Letters. Contractor can't electronically deliver documents and letters if FAA controls the folder.

SIR

Reference: TO 1, 4.3

Question 60 Add DFO-2 Contractor to the list of WIPP participants.

Question

Assumption: To maintain awareness, configuration control and to support efficient lab access for Contractor engineers, the Contractor would like to perform all audits, updates, upgrades, and software deployments to the Contractor’s lab GFE. The Contractor and FAA to define a joint method for managing lab audits and updates that is efficient while satisfying the security requirements for both organizations as well as DO-178B objectives for lab GFE.

Reference: TO 1, 4.4, page 8

Question

Recommend TO SOW change "The Contractor must develop and maintain a password vault for the GFE at contractor facility. This data will be accessible by FAA personnel who need access to the data."

Reference: TO 1, 4.8

Question

Recommend that SIR package include better definition/description of WCRB, the various product baseline CCBs, and the ECCB.

Reference: TO 1, 4.8.1

Question

SCRs are also used to propose changes to system level requirements (in addition to hardware and software requirements, as the SOW states).

Reference: TO 2

Question

Assumption is that FAA DER will be included in the early design of the security, LINUX, and associated software changes to ensure DO-178B compliance is maintained. Assumption is that Contractor can contact the FAA DER during design and implementation phase for these two major upgrades.

Reference: TO 2

Question

Assumption: All deployed WAAS operational workstations in the field and shadow systems will be configured using the existing build download capabilities of the WAAS ONM application and the “load_app” portions of the configurator tool.

SIR

Reference: TO 2, 3 3rd paragraph

Question

The third paragraph mentions initial Release work efforts specified in Section X (placeholder section). Section 3.1 GUS Receiver Upgrade states that this upgrade must be included in the first development effort. Is this the only work effort intended to be specified as part of the first Release? Should "Section X" be replaced with "Section 3.1"?

Reference: TO 2, 3.2

Question

Assumption: All WAAS operational and non-operational software will be migrated to 64 bit for the LINUX release.

This includes the level B automation platforms and the WAAS safety computer development environments. Note the level B target code will be compiled for 32 bit.

Reference: TO 2, 3.2.1

Question 69 Please add definition of O&M data retention requirements.

Response: The FAA will make adjustments as appropriate in the final SIR.

Reference: TO 2, 3.3.1

70 Where will FAA processes be defined in the SIR?

Question

Assumption: Automation study will including looking at automation for Build Generation, SW Confidence testing, SW Integration Testing, System Testing, and Tool Qualification.

Question

Assumption: The FAA will be responsible for procuring and installing any Software COTS/FOSS for the FAA environment to support automated testing

Reference: TO 2, 3.3.2

Question

Assumption: The field will continue to use a configurator type of approach for implementation but a different solution approach might be used for the Engineering Labs. A non-configurator implementation for the field while require and ECP for the additional effort and schedule.

Reference: TO 2, 3.4

Question 74 Assumption: System remains IPv4 and will retain current IP addresses.

Reference: TO 2, 3.4

Question 75 Assumption: Contractor and FAA Engineering networks will use PEV circuits without a firewall/NESG.

Reference: TO 2, 3.4, 2nd to last paragraph

Question

Sentence references implementing design in accordance with "Section 3.10?" of this Task Order. Should it be Section 3.7?

Response: The FAA will make adjustments as appropriate in the final SIR.

Reference: TO 2, 3.5

Question

Last sentence of the second paragraph states that security architecture must address streamlined security updates as supportable under Sections 3.4 and 3.5 of this Task Order. Since this is Section 3.5, was this statement intended to reference a different section? Maybe section 3.2 (Processor upgrade)?

SIR

Reference: TO 2, 3.6.2.1

Question

Does the FAA agree with assumption that any work associated with statements like "as directed", "as requested" and "as needed" will be covered by Task Orders from the FAA at the time the work is performed? If not, please provide clarification on the scope of work required for these activities.

FAA

Response:

The Dual Frequency Operations – 2 Procurement is structured as an IDIQ; all labor, hardware and software will be contracted through Task Orders.

Reference: TO 2, 3.6.3, Table 1

Question 79 Please define Terminal phase from Table 1. This doesn't appear to defined in the draft Rev E System Spec.

Reference: TO 2, 3.7.2

Question 80 Reference to Scope Analysis Section 3.7.3.1 should point to Section 3.7.3.2 instead

Reference: TO 2, 3.7.2

81 Will referenced WAAS-specific documents like NWIDs be provided in Final SIR via J-2 Technical Data Package?

Reference: TO 2, 3.7.2; Sec C, Appendix A

Question 82 A high-level description of Change Impact Analysis is needed for all bidders.

Reference: TO 2, 3.7.3

Question 83 Reference to Implementation Report Section 3.7.3.5 should point to Section 3.7.3.6 instead

Reference: TO 2, 3.7.3.1

Question

FAA Maintenance Release needs to be defined in SOW or Task Order along with some basic description for assumed scope to support necessary collaboration and CM activities.

Reference: TO 2, 3.7.3.2.1.2

Question 85 Where is Section J-X?

Reference: TO 2, 3.7.7, 3rd paragraph

Question

Third paragraph should reference FAA Second Level Engineering Support (NASE) to provide formal builds rather than WAAS Operations.

Reference: TO 2, 3.7.7.2

Question 87 Please add "and coding standards: after "programming language(s)" to the last sentence.

Reference: TO 2, 3.7.7.8 and 3.7.7.9

Question

For the phrase "For each Release, as ordered by FAA" implies that FAA determines what CDRLs must be delivered.

Recommend rewording to "If impacted by a Release, ". 1423s for Technical CDRLs should be required for delivery if impacted by a release.

SIR

Reference: TO 2, 3.7.7.9

Question

New requirement for LLRs for each SDD to be maintained in DOORS DB in accordance with SDP. LLRs are currently documented as PDL embedded in the source code in accordance with the SDP. However, it is unclear whether the statement “LLR for each SDD shall be developed, documented and maintained in the DOORS database” implies that the PDL/LLRs would need to be extracted from the source code and inserted into the SDD, or whether attaching the source code (containing the PDL/LLRs) to the SDD would be sufficient to satisfy this requirement. Potential maintenance implications for both Contractor and FAA team if LLRs are maintained in both the code and the SDD.

Reference: TO 2, 3.7.8.10

Question

Product Acceptance Test Plans apply to all new "equipment complements" delivered and installed by the contractor.

What does the FAA consider an equipment complement - is it a new HWCI (cabinet)? Or any new LRU level equipment?

Reference: TO 2, General

Question

Where are key GFE/GFI milestones and associated dates to be assumed by Contractor defined in SIR? Examples are key FAA milestones dates for functionality to be fielded, dates for MOPS and other DF-related standards and GFI algorithms, date for GPS-III constellation progress, FAA cloud service catalog provided, FAA cloud service availability date.

SIR

Reference: Section B - B.6.2

Question 92 Administrative Comment: Lists Attachment B-1, but we believe it should be J-37.

Reference: Section B - B.6.3

Question

The paragraph states that offerors cannot submit a rate increase proposal, however, Section L does discuss the use of Forward Pricing Rates. This seems to be inconsistent.

Reference: Section F - 3.8.2-22

Question

As the current clause is written, it appears that the CO is required to sign off on all employees before they begin work.

Was the intent of this clause to address Key Personnel or all contract personnel?

FAA

Response:

As the clause is written, the CO will only be required to approve personnel providing services under Time & Materials or Labor-Hour orders in positions with specified minimum qualifications for their labor categories.

Reference: Section H - H.18.2

Question

We concur with the content of this paragraph. It would be beneficial if the FAA could identify the type of Property Management System to be employed to ensure a smooth transition to contract execution on Day 1.

Reference: Section I - 3.2.2.8-8

Question 96 Liquidated Damages Supplies, Services, or Research and Development (Oct 2019)

Response: Offeror’s SIR reference and associated language do not contain a question.

Reference: Section I - 3.2.3-3

Question 97 Disclosure and Consistency of Cost Accounting Practices (Oct 2019)

Reference: Section I - 3.2.3-5

Question 98 Administration of Cost Accounting Standards (Oct 2019)

Reference: Section I - 3.5-3

99 Patent Indemnity (Apr 2017)

Reference: Section I - 3.10.1-17

Question 100 Change Order Accounting (Apr 1996)

Reference: Section I - AMS 3.2.1.5-4 (c)

Question

We acknowledge the importance of this paragraph for continuity of operations. It would be beneficial to offerors to know the specific timeframe that the contractor has after contract award to submit the Continuity of Contract Performance Plan to the government.

Reference: Section L - L.14

Question

Zeta Associates is currently listed as one of the companies that may support the proposal evaluation as either an advisor or an evaluator. Zeta Associates is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin. Pursuant to Zeta Associates Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan for contract 693KA8-18C-00012, Zeta will recuse its personnel from participation in source selection activities in support of programs where Lockheed Martin will compete. Zeta will also recuse its personnel from evaluating prospective LM products and services for future programs. While Zeta Associates intends to comply with the OCI Mitigation Plan, we believe that removing Zeta Associates from the list of potential non- FAA evaluators will preclude the perception of any potential OCI. We believe this is in the best interest of all parties, including the FAA.

Response: The FAA appreciates this input and will not involve Zeta Associates in the evaluation of SIR responses.

Reference: Section L - L.16.5

Question

This section addresses the percentages of planned subcontracted value to be allocated to small businesses. Is there a target percentage of the total contract value that the FAA anticipates will be subcontracted to small businesses?

FAA

Response:

FAA anticipates that the target percentage in the Final SIR will be 45%. FAA refers the vendor to the Final SIR and its attachments.

Reference: Task Order 02 - 3.6.1

Question

The first sentence references the WAAS AIX corrections processor baseline. Contractors should be able to demonstrate in their proposal the advantages to the FAA of initially hosting existing WAAS corrections and safety processor algorithms directly to the Linux platform for DF LOC, rather than initially hosting those corrections and algorithms to AIX and then making the transition to the Linux platform.

Reference: Task Order 02 - 3.6.2

Question

Paragraph under CDRL A210 currently requires the use of the existing IBM processing platforms and AIX operating system prior to transitioning from AIX to a cloud-based Linux network. Contractors should have the option to present and demonstrate in their proposal the cost, schedule, and risk benefits to the FAA of initially hosting existing WAAS corrections and safety processor algorithms on a Linux platform for DF LOC without first performing this on the AIX operating systems.

Reference: Task Order 02 - 3.6.2.1

Question

In the second paragraph, the term "AIX-hosted" limits the options of offerors who may have alternative hosting solutions of benefit to the FAA.

Reference: Task Order 02 - 3.6.3

Question

If the previous recommendations for paragraphs 3.6.2 and 3.6.2.1 are incorporated, then the second sentence that reads "…update the DF IOC specific aspects of the DF LOC/IOC Architecture Design Document (CDRL A0209)..." is no longer applicable. It will have already been addressed by the contractor.

Reference: Task Order 02 - 11

Question

Key Personnel positions identified in this paragraph are not consistent with the Key Personnel identified in Task Order 01, which identifies a Program Manager, Contracting Lead, Technical Director, and Project Engineer as the Key Personnel. Are the Key Personnel identified in Task Order 02 in addition to those identified in Task Order 01?

FAA

Response:

The key personnel for each task order will be identified within, and will be selected as appropriate to the scope of that task order. The key personnel stated in Task Order 2 do not incorporate by reference the key personnel of Task Order 1.

FAA refers the vendor to the Final SIR and its attachments.

Reference: Section B - B.6.2

Question

This passage references Section J – List of Attachments, Attachment B-1, Labor Rate Tables. This Attachment is not listed in Section J, please revise.

Response: Labor rate tables will be added to Section J; FAA refers offerors to Section J of Final SIR.

Question 110 This passage references Attachment J-37, Labor Rate Tables. This Attachment is not listed in Section J, please revise.

Question

References Section H.X, Government Property, Information, and Workspace. This subsection is not found in Section H, please revise.

Question 112 This passage references Section B.6.3, Rate Refreshment. Please change to Section B.6.5, Rate Refreshment.

SIR

Reference: Section B - B.6.5

Question

Is it not possible to submit a rate increase proposal? Section L discusses the use of Forward Pricing Rates, which is consistent with Government proposals. Recommend that these sections be consistent to reduce potential confusion.

Response: FAA refers vendor to Final SIR.

Reference: Section G - G.19

Question

This passage indicates only 30 days for contractor CPAR response. Recommend that the CPAR response be adjusted to a standard 60 day response time.

FAA

Response:

Per AMS Clause 3.10.1-26, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (Apr 2013), vendors have 30 calendar days to provide a response to a CPAR once it has been received from the FAA Assessing Official.

Reference: Section I - para 3.2.1.3-2

Question 115 Right of First Refusal—how many Government employees are expected to be affected?

FAA

Response:

FAA acknowledges that this SIR is not being issued under A-76 procedures, and refers the vendor to the revised Section I of the Final SIR.

Reference: Section I – para 3.2.4-17

Question 116 What are the Order Limitations expected to be?

Response: FAA refers vendor to Final SIR.

Reference: Section I – para 3.2.4-20 (d)

Question 117 Will this date be the POP end date?

FAA

Response:

The POP end date for each Task Order will be defined in that Task Order. FAA refers vendor to appropriate AMS sections and to the Final SIR.

Reference: TO 01 - para 4.4

Question

It is not clear if the Contractor bids the maintenance, repair, and LRUs replacement, spares for GFE Environments in the base IDIQ proposal or in subsequent change orders per TO 02 Section 3.7. Please advise what GFE Environment Scope is to be bid in the base IDIQ proposal.

FAA

Response:

Contractor should bid all maintenance logistics functions for GF test environments as part of TASK ORDER 1. Any changes based on contractor- or FAA-developed release is covered under Section 3.7 of TASK ORDER 2.

Reference: TO 01 - para 4.6

Question

Is the Contractor expected to price software licenses per Section 2 into the base IDIQ proposal or will s/w license procurement approval and costs be handled through a separate Change Orders per Section 3.7 after contract award?

Response: Yes, the Contractor must price software licenses through Section 2.

Reference: Section H - H.20

120 Other than classification approval, does a Class II change require change board approvals?

Response: FAA refers vendor to the FAA-STD-012A document.

Reference: TO 01 - Task Order Assumptions

Question

Software elements in this table (Windows XP, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, and VxWorks 6.6.3.1, etc.) appear to be substantially out of date and are no longer maintained by the vendors. Utilization of these software artifacts will likely have a definitive impact on system cybersecurity. Is the intent to update/upgrade the software listed in this table to modern/maintainable operating systems and software implementations?

Response: The upgrade of the SW licenses will be performed based on the WAAS and DFO2 Task Order requirements.

Reference: TO 02 - para 3.1

Question

The "either" that was added to the new draft implies the need for an "or" somewhere in this sentence. Without that the intent is not clear.

Response: FAA refers vendor to final SIR.

Reference: TO 02 – para 3.2

Question

The "compiled for 64-bit operation" that was added to the new draft should also be reflected in the processor architecture references. Recommend changing instances of x86 with x64 to align with the desired 64-bit operation.

SIR

Reference: TO 01 – para 4.4

Question

Who is responsible for the sustainment of the existing technical baseline during the DFO 2 program? If this effort is intended for the DFO 2 Contractor, is the sustainment effort to be bid in the base IDIQ proposal or is it intended to be covered under a separate Task Order?

FAA

Response:

Sustainment of the technical baseline is a joint effort between contractor and FAA. Contractor should bid efforts expected to maintain development integration and test environments, along with SW tools that operate those environments as part of Task Order 1.

Reference: TO 01 – para 4.4

Question

Can the FAA provide an estimate on the amount of data that may be transferred for the remote access so that the contractor can appropriately estimate the circuit bandwidth?

FAA

Response:

Contractor does not need to provide circuits; FAA will provide the circuits themselves. This requirement regards contractor's obligation to provide FAA access through contractor security systems in order to access the equipment in question.

Reference: TO 01 – para 4.4

Question

The contractor assumes the communication circuits will be provided as GFE. Can we also assume that any supporting cryptographic hardware will also be provided as GFE?

Response: Yes. The FAA will provide all equipment needed to satisfy this capability.

Reference: TO 02 – para 1

Question

What is contained within the hardware sets to be provided? Can the FAA provide HW and SW list of those details? Is the WAAS sustainment transition scope intended to be bid as part of the base IDIQ contract, or is this scope intended to be handled under a separate Task Order?

FAA

Response:

All WAAS development integration and test HW/SW is defined in TDP. Contractor is responsible for maintaining the development integration and test HW/SW as part of TASK ORDER 1 for duration of POP of TASK ORDER 1.

Reference: TO 02 – para 3.1

Question

Is the Contractor responsible for pricing the implementation effort including hardware and software kits for the GUS receiver in the base IDIQ contract, or is this scope intended to be handled under a separate Task Order?

FAA

Response:

The contractor is responsible for pricing all hardware kits for work defined in Task Order 2. For the GUS Receiver Upgrade, the FAA will provide the GUS Receivers as GFE. The Contractor is responsible for all other HW upgrade kit contents. SW upgrades to support all upgrades will be included as part of the Release software developed per TO Section 3.7.

Reference: TO 02 – para 3.7.1

Question

Can the contractor assume that the only set of documentation that they will be responsible to update and maintain is those that are directly impacted by the contractor’s system updates?

FAA

Response:

The contractor must update and maintain the documentation described in the paragraph in question. FAA will revise Task Order 2 as appropriate and refers the vendor to the Final SIR.

Reference: TO 02 - General

Question

There are several references in both TO 1 and TO 2 with regards to a "Contractor facility" to perform formal verification of WAAS changes, host GFE equipment, and provisioning, staging, testing storage of components. Is this Contractor facility intended to be costed in the base IDIQ proposal, or will this be handled under a separate Task Order? Can the FAA provide estimated facility requirements (e.g. sq. footage, power)?

FAA

Response:

Environment transition and contractor facility requirements will be procured under a separate Task Order if necessary.

This facility is not intended to be costed under Section C, Task Order 1 or Task Order 2.

Reference: Section C - C.5

Question

Is the Contractor expected to price the planning effort for the transition of GFE development, integration, and test environments for WAAS in the base contract, or will this be handled in a separate Task Order?

Response: A Task Order for transition of environments will be developed and issued separately if required.

Reference: Section C - C.5

Question

In addition to the requirements in FAA-E-2892e, we recommend requiring a cyber risk-based assessment where the threats and risks are analyzed and mitigations incorporated into the system architecture and implementation to ensure cyber resilience. Implement SBAS Resiliency: Assess risk, design, develop and test WAAS modifications required to support the characterization of the current and projected operational threats to achieve resiliency, particularly in the cybersecurity domain.

Reference: Draft SIR Section L - L.16.5

Question

Does the FAA expect to have the same Small Business / Disadvantaged requirement (at least 45% of total subcontracts) as outlined in the original draft SIR or is the FAA expecting to revise this requirement?

Response: FAA refers to the response to question 103, and refers vendor to final SIR.

SIR

Reference: Draft SIR Section L - L.16.5

Question

As far as the Small Business Requirement, will the Prime receive credit for a second-tier Subcontractor utilizing any of these businesses?

Response: No, the prime contractor will not receive credit toward this requirement for second-tier contractors.

Reference: TO 01 & 02 - NA

Question

Does any part of the base IDIQ contract for TO 01 or TO 02 require pricing of hardware or software development or implementation, or is this scope intended to be handled in separate Task Orders?

Response: Yes, this SIR requires pricing of hardware and software development and implementation.

Reference: General - NA

Question 136 When does the FAA expect to release Draft 2 Sections L and M?

Response: FAA anticipates the release of revised Sections L and M as part of the Final SIR in late May, 2021.

Reference: General - NA

Question 137 When does the FAA expect to release the Final WAAS DFO-2 SIR?

Response: FAA anticipates release of the Final SIR in May 2021.

Question

Bidders need a common definition of the GFE Environments in order to bid maintenance efforts. Will this be provided in Section J of the Final SIR?

Response: FAA Refers offeror to the final SIR.

Reference: B.2, TO 2

Question

Contractor requests a change in contract type for Task Order 02 CLIN 0500 (Hardware & Hardware Kits) to CPFF or FFP. Fee, similar to G&A, should be allowable on Material 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.

Rationale: The disallowance of profit/fee on such a large portion of this Task Order is contrary to the Government's instructions that state that "If the Government is to use profit/fee to motivate contractor performance and achieve the above goals, practices primarily intended to reduce profit/fee or diminish the impact of profit/fee analysis are not in the Government's best interest."

Response: FAA refers the vendor to the Final SIR.

Reference: B.2

Question

In order to develop a compliant CWBS and to invoice in accordance with FAA requirements, the SIR needs more clarity on the relationship of CLINs in Section B and Task Orders including how FAA expects to manage funding and ceiling authorizations.

Response: FAA will revise Section B and the Task Orders as appropriate, and refers vendors to the Final SIR.

Reference: B.6.4

Question

Request replacement of the phrase "subject to the indirect ceiling rates established in the contract" with "utilizing approved/proposed DCAA/DCMA forward pricing rates."

Response: FAA Refers offeror to the final SIR.

Reference: E.6.b BASIS OF ACCEPTANCE, pg. 2-3

Question

Request deletion of "Custom services and cost reimbursable items such as travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) will be accepted upon receipt of proper documentation as specified in the contract or order."

Rationale: there is no formal acceptance of such costs on a Cost Reimbursable CLIN or Task Order and will increase administrative costs chargeable to the FAA.

Reference: F.1 AMS 3.1-.1-4, pg. 1

Question

Request deletion of AMS 3.10.1-4 FOB Origin- Government Bills of Lading or Prepaid Postage (April 1996) as it requires "Any direct charge for postage costs shall be listed as a separate item on invoices for the supplies shipped."

This will drive additional administrative costs for both the FAA and Contractor.

Reference: G.11 TRAVEL, pg. 8

Question

Request deletion of this clause as obtaining approval for all travel prior to commencing travel and conducting a cost analysis prior to the start of each trip will drive additional administrative costs for both the FAA and Contractor.

Contractors are required to comply with Federal Travel Regulations.

Response: FAA declines to delete the language in question.

Reference: G.12 OTHER DIRECT COSTS, pg. 8-9

Question

Request deletion of this clause as obtaining pre-approval prior to the procurement of ODCs will drive additional administrative costs for both the FAA and Contractor.

Reference: G.17 CONTRACTOR ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, pg. 11

Question

Request deletion of the statement, "The Contractor must present evidence of an adequate accounting system before award of a Cost Reimbursable Task Order to the IDIQ contract CO." Contractors are required to provide evidence of an adequate accounting system in their proposal per L.11 and L.16.4, prior to award of the IDIQ contract.

Reference: I.1 AMS 3.2.2.8-8, pg. 1

Question

Request deletion of AMS 3.2.2.8-8 Liquidated Damages, Supplies, Services, or Research and Development. The nature of this contract requires schedule flexibility due to the workshare between the FAA and Contractor.

Reference: K.3.2 TREATMENT OF LABOR

Question

Request deletion of K.3.2 Treatment of Labor for Such Administrative Functions as Contract Administration, Subcontract Management, Human Resources, and Contract/Invoice Accounting as the treatment of such costs as direct or indirect are determined by the Contractor's CAS Disclosure Statement.

FAA

Response:

FAA concurs with request to delete, but will require these costs be identified and proposed under Task Order 1. FAA refers the vendor to the Final SIR.

Reference: L.15.4, pg. 10 OFFER ORGANIZATION & L.16,L.17, L.18 and L.19, pg. 13 -

Question

The Tables in Draft 1 Section L.15.4, pgs. 10 -11 conflict with instructions prescribed in Sections L.16, L.17, L.18, and L19. The table (L.15.4) states: "Offers must contain the content specified for each volume and adhere to the volume restrictions contained in the following table:" Tables in L.15.4 need to align with instructions in L.16 - 19.

Reference: L.20; L.20.1, pg. 20

Question

A clarification is needed in Draft 1 Section L to confirm if Volume V - Past Performance requires inclusion of an Executive Summary. The requirement states: "The Offeror must submit an executive summary regarding its overall proposal."

Response: Volume V – Past Performance will not require its own Executive Summary. FAA refers the vendor to the Final SIR.

Reference: TO 2, 3.1

Question

Updates to the third paragraph state that the Contractor must design SGS changes to support "either the receipt and broadcast…" of the L5 WUM without completing the "or" of the sentence. Was an alternative approach intended to be provided?

Response: FAA appreciates this input and will make changes as appropriate to the Final SIR.

Reference: 2892E 3.1.3.1.1.

Question

In 2892D, TTA requirement is 6.2 seconds. In 2892E, TTA changed to 5.2 seconds. Does the FAA expect the WAAS DFO-2 Contractor to implement a modified design to reduce TTA by 1 second to meet the 5.2 requirement? The VRTM in Appendix H for 3.1.3.1.1.1 still shows 6.2 seconds.

FAA

Response:

FAA does not expect the WAAS DFO-2 contractor to implement a modified design to reduce TTA. Existing design suffices to meet this requirement.

Reference: I.2 AMS 3.2.1.3-2, pg. 11

Question

Contractor requests deletion of AMS 3.2.1.3-2 Right of First Refusal of Employment as the prescription clause for this AMS clause states that it should be used for SIRs and contracts issued under OMB Circular A-76…