693KA8-24-DSIR-EPICSII QA Responses.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 52 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Enterprise Programs, Infrastructure, and Communications Services (EPICS) II Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 693KA8-24-DSIR-EPICSII-01
About this file
This is a Questions & Answers document containing 130 industry questions and FAA responses regarding the Enterprise Programs, Infrastructure, and Communications Services (EPICS) II Draft Screening Information Request (DSIR). Key details clarified include: EPICS II will be a recompete of the current EPICS I contracts held by incumbents Noblis, LS Technologies, and Veracity Engineering; the FAA intends to award four contracts - one unrestricted, one small business, and two small disadvantaged business (SDB) awards; and the final SIR release is anticipated by January 2025 with awards not planned for FY24.
The Q&A addresses major concerns around teaming restrictions (vendors can only participate on one solution delivery team), financial requirements (line of credit minimums being reconsidered), and evaluation criteria. Key clarifications include: the FAA will remove prohibition against adding team members after Phase I, Phase I excluded offerors may join Phase II teams, past performance must be for work performed by the offeror with total contract value of $16.5M, and task orders will be issued based on FAA program office needs rather than contract year dates. The document also clarifies technical requirements around labor categories, security clearances, and organizational conflict of interest restrictions.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 693KA8-24-DSIR-EPICSII-01 Sect J Att J1.pdf | ||
| 693KA8-24-DSIR-EPICSII-01 SIR Notice.pdf | ||
| 693KA8-24-DSIR-EPICSII-01 Sect L Att L4.pdf | ||
| 693KA8-24-DSIR-EPICSII-01 Sect L Att L1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 693KA8-24-DSIR-EPICSII-01 Sect J Att J4.pdf | ||
| 693KA8-24-DSIR-EPICSII-01 Sect L Att L3.pdf | ||
| 693KA8-24-DSIR-EPICSII-01 Sect J Att J3.pdf | ||
| 693KA8-24-PSIR-EPICSII-01 Sect L Att L5.pdf | ||
| 693KA8-24-DSIR-EPICSII-01.pdf | ||
| 693KA8-24-DSIR-EPICSII-01 Sect L Att L2.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
EPICSII Q&A
| Question # | Document Title | Impact to | ||||
| Phase 1 or 2? | Page # | |||||
| Reviewer's Questions, Clarifications and/or Discrepancy | FAA Response | |||||
| 1 | Section L.7.2 | Phase 1 & 2 | L-133 | Regarding one proposal, one team restriction, does this apply to affiliates? In other words, can a large business prime the unrestricted pool while a Joint Venture (JV) under a mentor protégé program primes the small business pool? Or does this restriction include one proposal/team per company including all affiliates? | The restriction applies to affiliates. A large business may NOT prime in the unrestricted pool and then participate as a member of a JV competing as a prime in one of the small business categories. | |
| 2 | Section L.6 | Phase 1 | L-133 | Would the Government considering changing one of the Small Disadvantage Business (SDB) awards to Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) award to support the Government's goal to reach additional small business socio-economic targets? | At this time, the FAA does not intend to change the award categories for EPICS II that are provided in Section M.2.2 - Competition Categories. | |
| 3 | Section L | Phase 1 | L-133 | Limiting vendor participation to one solution delivery team has a disproportionate negative impact on small business subcontractors as they often provide specialized expertise which provides value to teams across large and small business offerors. Additionally, small business flexibility and expertise is best leveraged by the Government when they can provide unique subcontractor support to task orders across different competition categories. The current language in Section L.7.2 will require small businesses to only apply their specialized support to one competition category, limiting the ability for the Government to access specialized subcontracting across the contract. Would the Government consider eliminating the restriction in which vendors can only be a part of one solution delivery team? | The FAA will not eliminate this restriction. However in the final SIR release, the FAA will remove the prohibition against adding team members after Phase I. Offerors invited to participate in Phase II may - at their sole discretion - add Offerors (and team members of Offerors) excluded after Phase I. An entity may only appear on a single Phase II solution delivery team whether as a prime contractor, sub-contract, or JV member. | |
| 4 | Section L.4 | Phase 2 | Can the Government confirm it's intention that all PPQs must reference work performed by the Offeror, based on the following statement in L.14, "PPQs for work performed by teammates or subcontractors of the Prime Offeror are not acceptable."? | Confirmed. Past Performance Questionarie (PPQs) must be for work performed by the Offeror. The FAA will evaluate past performance for Joint Venture (JV) Offerors in accordance with Procurement Guidance T.3.6.1.B.6(c) | ||
| 5 | Section L.16.4 | Phase 2 | The Line of Credit requirements for small business will likely limit the number of small businesses offerors which can bid on this opportunity due to their high minimum, limiting competition. For services contracts, lines of credit are needed to cover salaries of contractor personnel during contract start-up. Based on estimates of 21% obligated dollars for one small business awardee and 15% obligated dollars split between two awardees, three months of salaries would equal $3M for the small business awardee and $1.1M for each of the SDB awardees. Three month salaries would be sufficient to cover any anticipated contract start-up costs. With this estimate and to provide even more buffer would the Government adjust the line of credit minimum to $4M for small business and $1.5M for SDB to promote small business competition without creating risk to the government? | The FAA is reconsidering the financial line of credit minimum or requirements to provide a line of credit with an FAA specified dollar value. The final SIR will be updated to reflect changes. | ||
| 6 | Section L.7.2 | Phase 1 | L-133, L-134 | Please clarify if each individual vendor may only participate on a single team across all award types (Full & Open, Small, SDB), or if a vendor may participate on a single Full & Open vendor team, single Small vendor team and single SDB team. | Each vendor may only participate on a single team (i.e., one solution delivery team) across all award types. | |
| 7 | Can the FAA provide the specific maximum cumulative dollar ceiling value of all contracts awarded under the this SIR, as it is currently listed as TBD? | The ceiling amount will be specified at contract award. | ||||
| 8 | Could you provide examples of scenarios where hybrid Task Orders (containing both T&M and FP CLINs) would be applicable? Are there preferred or ratios for these hybrids? | Refer to AMS Policy T3.2.4 - Types of Contracts for information on contract types. Instructions specific to an individual Task Order will be specified in the Task Order Request for Proposal (TORP). | ||||
| 9 | Section C | Could the FAA clarify any specific key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics that will be used to evaluate the success of the services provided under this contract? | The FAA will assess contractor performance using CPARS (see AMS Procurement Guidance T.3.10.B.9 and AMS clause 3.10.1-6 for more details). The AMS Procurement Guidance is also incorporated into Section I. The FAA, may at its discretion, incorporate, performance metrics into individual Task Orders. | |||
| 10 | Section C | What specific types of Government Furnished Property (GFP) will be provided? Are there any restrictions or special conditions for using these items? | See Sections C.3.3 - C.3.5, AMS Clauses 3.10.3-2 and 3.10.3-2 Alternative I, CDRL F0004 (in Attachment J3) for general information. Each individual Task Order will list GFP (if any) provided under the task order. | |||
| 11 | Section C | Are there any additional non-government documents or industry standards that should be considered during the proposal preparation that are not listed in the SOW? | No. | |||
| 12 | Section G | Can the FAA provide a sample Task Order template or format to understand the level of detail required for each submission? | The Government will issue a sample Task Order template or format with the final SIR. This will support the understanding of the level of detail required for each submission. | |||
| 13 | Section G | Could the FAA elaborate on the frequency and format for the monthly status reporting, especially any specific software or platforms to be used? | Monthly Status Reports (MSRs) must be submitted every month. See Section C.5.4, Table F.4-1, CDRL F002 (in Attachment J3). | |||
| 14 | Section H | What are the specific security clearance levels required for personnel working on this contract? Are there any additional cybersecurity measures or compliance standards that contractors must adhere to? | See Section H.17 and the following AMS clauses: 3.14-1, 3.14-2, 3.14-3, 3.14-4, 3.14-5, 3.14-6, 3.14-9, 3.14-13, 3.14-14, 3.14-15 and 3.14-16. The clauses are incorporated into Section I of the contract. |
The FAA will determine specific clearance levels for each task order at the time of the issuance of the task order request for proposal.
| 15 | Section L | Are there any specific formats that must be followed for the proposal volumes and sections (e.g. technical, management, past performance, price)? | See Tables L.10.1.1, L.10.1.2 and Section L.10.2 entitled, "Other Formatting Instructions". | |
| 16 | Section L | Can the FAA provide more detail on the weighing of the evaluation factors and sub-factors? For instance, how will technical capability be weighed against past performance? | See Section M specifically, Section M.4 for more details. | |
| 17 | Section M | Can you explain the two-phase evaluation process in more detail, including any timelines or milestones that offerors should be aware of? | A description of the two-phase source selection process for this procurement can be found in Section M.2.1. The final SIR will include language allowing a member (prime or teammate) of a solution team eliminated in Phase I to join a Phase II solution delivery team. These teaming arrangements must be worked out between or among vendors. Each vendor may only participate on one Phase II solution delivery team across all award types (i.e., a member of a solution delivery team that was eliminated in Phase I may not join more than one Phase II solution delivery team). | |
| 18 | Section M | How will the FAA ensure that proposals are evaluated fairly across different competition categories? Are their specific guidelines for this process? | All Offerors will be evaluated in accordance with (IAW) Section M evaluation criteria. M.2.2 states that: "Each Offeror is only competing with the other Offerors in that Competition Category, and FAA will make a separate best value determination for each Competition Category." There will be no competition/comparisons "across different competition categories". | |
| 19 | Phase 2 | What specific documentation is required to demonstrate the offeror's responsibility and compliance with conflict of interest and organizational conflict of interest (OCI) mitigation plans? | Refer to Section L.16.3. of the Draft SIR for OCI compliance and requirements for OCI Mitigation Plan. In addition to the OCI Mitigation Plan, Offerors must submit a narrative statement as detailed in Section L.16.3. | |
| 20 | Are there any limitations or specific requirements regarding the use of subcontractors? What documentation is required for subcontractor qualifications. | The following clauses in Section I regard the use of subcontractor qualifications: 3.6.1-14 [Small Business Subcontracting Plan, 3.6.1-7 [Limitations on Subcontracting, 3.2.2.7-6 [Protecting the Government's Interest when Subcontracting with Contractors Debarred, Suspended, or Proposed for Debarment, 3.13-14 [Reporting Executive Compensation and First - Tier Subcontractor Awards] and 3.1.7-6 [Disclosure of Certain Employee Relationships]. Section L.13 also concerns subcontracting. | ||
| 21 | Is this a new contract or a contract re-compete? If re-compete, what is the current contract number and who is the incumbent? | This is a recompete of the EPICS (or EPICS I) contracts. |
The incumbents are Noblis (DTWAFA-17-D-00014), LS Technologies (DTWAFA-17-D-00015) and Veracity Engineering (DTWAFA-17-D-00032).
| 22 | Will the Government be changing the Solicitation Number upon RFP release? | Yes, the final release of the SIR will be a different number. | |||
| 23 | Will the Government consider set-aside for (8a, WOSB, EDWOSB, HUBZone, etc.)? | The FAA does not intend to set-aside awards other than those identified in the Draft SIR for small businesses at this time. | |||
| 24 | When does the Government plan to release the RFP? | The Final SIR is anticipated to be release no later than January 2025. Please check 693KA8-24-PSIR-EPICSII-01 in www.sam.gov for updates. | |||
| 25 | Will the Government be making the award for this requirement in FY24? | No, the award for this requirement will not be in FY 24. | |||
| 26 | Section C.5 | Phase 2 | C-31 | The PWS requires the contractor's Program Management Office to be within 15 minutes by walking of 800 Independence Ave. Please clarify when this office must be in place. | The FAA intends to update this requirement in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) to specify that the office space must be in place within a specified timeframe post contract award. |
| 27 | Section L.7.2 | Phase 1 | Pg. 133 | We respectfully request that FAA reconsider the restriction that a vendor may only be part of one solution delivery team. Potential offerors have already spent extensive time developing their teaming strategies, which include individual vendors participating as subcontractors on multiple teams and establishing teaming arrangements between two companies to flip the prime/subcontract arrangements for different competition categories. Allowing vendors to participate in multiple proposed solution delivery teams enhances competition. It also provides FAA the benefit of selecting awards from a broader range of optimally configured solution delivery teams with rich expertise and deep experience. | See the responses to Questions 3, 6 and 32. |
| 28 | Section M.5-1 | Phase 1 | M-149 | It appears that the value for size under the unrestricted competition category was mistyped ($16,500,00 vs $16,500,000). Please correct to avoid potential confusion. | The value for the unrestricted competition category will be corrected to $16,500,000 in the final SIR. |
| 29 | Section M.5-1 | Phase 1 | M-149 | "Subject to the restrictions noted in Table M.5-1 for Offerors in the Unrestricted Competition Category (relative to size and type) and the requirement in the paragraph above, the FAA will consider contracts performed by members of the Offeror’s solution delivery team (or EPICS II team member) in its evaluation of Team Experience." Please clarify if: 1) this pertains to SB offers only; and 2) restrictions in M.5-1 apply to all experience provided by a SB offeror's team members. | 1. The language quoted in the question, copied from the SIR, applies to all Offerors. |
2. The restrictions in Table M.5-1 apply as follows:
a. Offerors in the Unrestricted Competition Category must satisfy the requirements in Table M.5-1 relative to size and type with a contract that the Offeror itself performed as the prime contractor. An Unrestricted Competition Category Offeror may use contracts performed by team members to satisfy the scope and complexity requirements.
b. Offerors in the SB/SDB Competition Categories may satisfy the size/type requirements with a contract that it or one of its team members performed as the prime contractor. SB/SDB Competition Category Offerors may also use contracts performed by team members to satisfy the scope and complexity requirements. However, SB/SDB Offerors are subject to the restriction that the Offeror must have been the prime contractor on at least one of the contracts cited in Volume I Section 2 that the FAA finds satisfies at least one of the requirements (size, type, scope or complexity). It doesn’t matter which requirement(s) (size, type, scope or complexity) that contract is used to satisfy.
| 30 | Section M.5-1 | Phase 1 | M-149 | "Not every experience cited in Volume I, Section 2 must be comparable to EPICS II in every aspect (size, type, scope, and complexity)" This statement appears to conflict with the definitions provided in table M.5-1 for size, type, scope and complexity, which state "to be comparable...". Please clarify if experience can be deemed comparable even if some cited experience(s) does not meet the definitions provided in Table M.5-1 for size, type, scope or complexity. | Each experience cited must be comparable to EPICS II in at least one way (based on the definitions of "comparable" in Section M.5-1 applicable to the Offeror). Not every experience cited needs to be comparable to EPICS II in every way. See the language in M.5.1 that states "Not every experience cited in Volume I, Section 2 must be comparable to EPICS II in every aspect (size, type, scope, and complexity). However, across the totality of the experiences cited, there must be at least one contract or task order comparable to EPICS II relative to size, type, and complexity. The Offeror must also demonstrate that the experiences cited together meet the definition of “comparable in scope” in Table M.5-1 ... " |
| 31 | Section M.6.2 | Phase 2 | M-52 | M.6.2 indicates that past performance references must be for work performed totaling $16.5M. For Team Experience, M.5.1.2, comparable experience requires an average annual value of $16,5000,000. Please confirm that for Past Performance, the total contract value of a past performance reference must be at least $16.5M, versus average annual value of $16.5M. | Confirmed. The value for Past Performance is the total contract value. The value for the "comparable experience" aspect of team capability is based on the average annual value. |
| 32 | We would like to ask why the FAA has chosen to only let subs on one team versus the ability to sub on both the large portion and the small business set aside of this opportunity? | Agencies have broad discretion to structure of solicitation/contracts to avoid OCIs. EPICS II has a wide breath of work and a very high potential for OCIs across EPICS II Task Order (TOs). Thus, the FAA is imposing a constraint on participation in current and/or future contracts. The "one solution team" constraint is to avoid OCIs. It is not negotiable. Additionally, the objective of a multiple award contract is to obtain access to teams offering different and/or innovative technical solutions. Overlapping teams reduce the technical diversity of the available to FAA under the contract. | |||
| 33 | Section L.7.2 | Phase 2 | L-133 | regarding the text "Nor may a vendor be proposed as a subcontractor to multiple Offerors." What happens in the case that a subcontractor is unknowingly listed as a vendor to different Prime offerors? Are the Prime offerors disqualified from Phase 2? Does the subcontractor get removed and is unable to be a vendor to either team? How does the FAA propose that Prime Offerors certify the exclusivity of their team per L.7.2? | For the final SIR, FAA will revise Section L.16.1 to require that an Offeror(s) provide a copy of their teaming arrangement(s), Joint Venture agreement(s) (JV) and SBA Mentor Protégé agreement(s). The Offeror(s) are responsible for ensuring members of their team are fully committed to performing the work and complying with any arrangement(s) in place for the one solution delivery team for EPICS II. |
| 34 | Section M.5-1 | Phase 2 | L-148, L-149 | Does the contract that is "comparable to EPICS II in terms of complexity" need to be an FAA contract? XXXX has a non-FAA current prime contract that is relevant to EPICS II in size, type, and complexity but does not cover all Functional Areas. The contract, on its own, might cover a few of the Functional Areas. | Comparable EPICS II contracts are not required to be FAA contracts. |
| 35 | Section G.6.1 | Post Award | G-44 | What criteria will the FAA use to determine that an EPICS II awardee "possesses superior capabilities to meet the requirement?" | The FAA may, as one example, consider a vendor's performance under a previous EPICS II Task Order that are similar in size and scope. |
| 36 | Section H.7.2 | Post Award | H-55, H-56 | This section states that "OT is defined as time worked by a Contractor's employee in excess of 40 hours per week, the Contractor must obtain written approval for overtime in advance from the CO. Even if the CO approves overtime, the Government will not reimburse the Contractor for overtime premiums unless specifically required by statute or regulation." Does the government intend to track the hours worked on a weekly basis? Would this limit the flexibility for contractor support to enter into Alternate Work Schedules with a Regular Day Off (RDO)? Additionally, if employees are classified as non-exempt under the FLSA, is that the specific statue or regulation where premium pay (time and a half) will be reimbursed? | The contract and/or contractor supervisor, control the time management of the contractor employees. The FAA employees cannot act in a capacity of the supervisor with contractor employees. They also cannot act in a manner that interferes with the relationship between the employee(s) and its company. The FAA will monitor and track costs will be based on each Task Order. For additional information regarding service contracting with FAA, please refer to AMS Procurement Guidance T3.8.2 - Service Contracting. |
| 37 | Section G.5.1 (a) | Post Award | G-42 | The current EPICS contracts have two periods of performance. One is the contract year and the other is the specific TO , and they overlap. In order to minimize those challenges on EPICS II, will the FAA consider making the start and end dates of the TO coincide with the contract year dates? | Task orders will be issued based on the needs of the FAA program offices which may or may not coincide with the period of performance dates of the IDIQ contracts. |
| 38 | Section L.7.2 | Phase 1 | Pg. 133 | Government’s support of Small Business includes the following goals: |
| • | To gain access to the new ideas that small businesses provide |
| • | To support small businesses as engines of economic development and job creation |
| • | To offer opportunities to disadvantaged and socio-economic groups" |
The FAA Small Business Office states that, “The commitment, innovation, and capabilities small businesses bring to the table are critical and support the FAA in achieving its core mission of safety” and “We fully recognize and embrace small businesses are critical to properly maintaining and evolving the National Airspace System (NAS).”
| Since each of the 4 planned awards will be independently evaluated and awarded (section M.2.2), restricting Small Businesses to a single Prime team as a subcontractor will limit their exposure to one Prime and one set of teammates to learn and interact with during the proposal and throughout execution. It would be developmentally beneficial for small businesses to have exposure to proposal and contract execution practices from multiple team structures (SDB, Small, Unrestricted) in different phases of development . It will also be beneficial for small businesses to have access to a broader scope of task orders, not just those offered to a single offeror, to develop additional qualifications and promote their growth to be able to compete on the Prime level in the future. We respectfully request you do not limit small businesses as a subcontractor team member to a single Prime team, as there are different benefits to teaming with a SDB, Small Business, and Unrestricted business, as each designation has different operational challenges that will be helpful to a Small Business as they continue to mature and grow. | See the responses to Questions 3, 6 and 32 . | |||||
| 39 | Section L.7.2 | Phase 1 | Pg. 133 | The restriction in section L.7.2 of the DSIR says that a company can only pick one Prime for this acquisition. Small businesses had the opportunity under EPICS I to be represented on both the Small and Large contract awards. As such, having a small business that is currently on both EPICS I Large and EPICS I Small teams pick just one Prime for EPICS II will force that small business to basically forfeit a portion of their present business/workforce. If a small business decides to team with an EPICS II Large company, they will lose their incumbent EPICS I Small business/workforce. Similarly, if a small business decides to team with an EPICS II Small company, they will lose their incumbent EPICS I Large business/workforce. The implications of this will have a negative impact on small businesses represented by both EPICS I contracts and it would be contrary to the FAA Small Business Office’s commitment to expand procurement opportunities for small businesses, as this restriction clause reduces current procurement opportunities for small businesses. We respectfully request that the FAA reconsider allowing participation on multiple teams. | See the responses to questions 3, 6 and 32. | |
| 40 | Section L.3.4 | L-132 | This sections states, "The FAA will provide the inquiries and answers to all Offerors, without attribution to the questioner, prior to the required date and time for submittal of the Offeror’s proposal.". The disposition/resolution of the questions has the capacity to alter the composition of bidding teams, therefore for the responses to be useful, it will need to be provided much sooner. We respectfully request the FAA provide resolution to this submission prior to the release of the final SIR for at least those items relevant to Phase 1. | The FAA responses to the SIR Question and Answers (QA) relevant to Phase I will be (are) released prior to the Phase I proposal due date. | ||
| 41 | I-74 | What is the significance of September 30, 2011 in this clause in the DSIR? | The AMS clause will be removed from Section I in the final SIR. | |||
| 42 | Section M.6.2 | Phase 1 | M-153 | Section M.6.2 requires a contract or task order to have a total value of $16.5M to be considered relevant, regardless of the response category -- Unrestricted, Small Business (SB), or Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB). This value will be challenging for SBs and, in particular, SDBs to submit three Past Performance References (all of which must be from the Prime Offeror per Section L.14). To maximize competition in the SB and SDB response categories, would the Government consider a tiered contract value by category (e.g., $16.5M for Unrestricted, $10M for SB, and $5M for SDB)? | The FAA will not use tiered values by competition category. The total value of $16.5M is for past performance is over the entire contract period of performance, not per year. | |
| 43 | Section L.10 | Phase 2 | Would the Government consider reducing the page limit for Volume II-Technical (55 pages) and Volume III-Management (30 pages) for SB and SDB offerors as has been done for other recent FAA acquisitions, such as ATEPS II? | The FAA-requested information is relevant to both SB and SDB Offerors. Therefore, the FAA will not use different page limits for SB and SDB Offerors. The page limits, specified in Section L.10 are ceilings (or maximums). An Offeror may submit proposal volumes with fewer pages than the page limit for either the Technical and Management Volumes, if they desire to do so. | ||
| 44 | Section L.7.2 | Phase 1 | Pg. 133 | Section L.7.2 restricts all vendors from participating in more than one solution delivery team. To maximize competition in the SDB response category, would the Government consider eliminating this restriction? | See the responses to questions 3, 6 and 32. | |
| 45 | Section L.7.2 | Phase 1 | Pg. 133 | Participating on multiple teams is allowed on the current EPICS contract. Will the FAA allow a company that is to prime EPICS II SDB the ability to be a sub to a Full and Open Company? | See the responses to questions 3, 6 and 32. | |
| 46 | Section M.5.12 | Phase 1 | M-149 | Section M of the draft SIR states that if the SB Prime does not have a qualifying contract then you can use one of your subs contracts as long as they were the prime on the contract being referenced. Will the FAA consider giving more weight to the priming EPICS II SB/SDB who qualifies with their contract with an annual average value greater than $16.5m yearly revenue with more than 10 active TOs to ensure FAA is getting established SB/SBD? | The FAA will not change the basic requirement (in terms of average annual contract value and/or the number of concurrent task orders). Evaluators will have the discretion to assign strengths for aspects of the proposal that exceed the requirement if - in their professional judgement - the impact/benefit of larger/more active contract warrants it. | |
| 47 | Attachment J-1 | Cloud Network Engineer and Test and Evaluation Engineer labor category families require a BS. However, all other labor categories that require a Bachelor's only list a 'B' in the labor category table. Would the FAA consider changing all minimum requirement for Bachelor's in a related field to 'B' for consistency? | FAA will ensure that the degree designation is correct throughout Attachment J-1. | |||
| 48 | Section G.2 | G-40 | In Table G.2.1 Elizabeth H. Williams is identified as the Contracting Officer. In Section L.3.2 Ms. Williams is identified as the contract specialist and Alessha Mason is the CO. Will the FAA please clarify? | The primary point of contact is Alessha M. Mason. Elizabeth H. Williams is the alternative Point of Contact (POC). www.sam.gov requires you to select both a primary and alternative (POC). | ||
| 49 | Section M.7.1 | M-155 | M.7.1 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE states, "Cell TBD in the “Summary” tab of Attachment L3 reflects the TEP that FAA will use for in the Best Value Determination." Attachment L3 is the Team Experience Template. Is the Attachment L3 reference in this section intended to be a reference to Attachment L6? | The correction to M.7.1 to "Attachment L6" will be reflected in the final SIR. | ||
| 50 | Attachment J-1 | ATTACHMENT J-1 - LABOR CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS include allowable substitutions, such as "Bachelor's Degree in a related field may be substituted for 4 years’ experience." Would the government please confirm that these are considered equivalencies (e.g., Bachelor's Degree = 4 years' experience and vice versa)? | The final SIR will clarify labor categories where education may be substituted for experience or vice versa. However, if a labor category requires a specific credential and/or license it cannot be substituted for either education and/or experience. | |||
| 51 | Attachment L.6 | In order to provide offerors with ample time to review and prepare responses, will the Government please provide Attachment L6 - Price Worksheet prior to the final release of the SIR? | Attachment L.6 entitled "Price Worksheet" will be issued with the final SIR. | |||
| 52 | Attachment J-1 | Would the FAA consider adding an allowable substitution for an Associates Degree? For example, an Associates could be substituted for 2 years of relevant experience. | See response to question 50. | |||
| 53 | Attachment L.2 | As part of the Phase I submission, Attachment L2-Solution Delivery Team Template requires offerors to "List the EPICS II Labor Categories that this Team Member will provide." In reference to Attachment L6-Price Worksheet (which has not been released), Section L.15.2 of the SIR states, "Note that the quantity of labor hours specified in this Tab is for evaluation purposes only. The FAA reserves the right to order labor in different quantities as requirements dictate." |
G.5.1 ISSUANCE OF REQUEST FOR TASK ORDER PROPOSALS (RFTOPs) also describes the general process for awarding Task Orders “when the need for services arises.” This process includes issuance of an “SOW that identifies the work to be performed,” the Contractor submitting a technical proposal which will be evaluated by the FAA for technical feasibility, as well as a price proposal which will be evaluated by the FAA for fairness and reasonableness.
| As Phase I excludes Pricing requirements, labor rates and final work allocations will not have been established/negotiated with teammates at this point. Furthermore, as the labor mix Offerors are required to propose at the IDIQ level will be directed by the SIR, that the FAA acknowledges different quantities of hours may be ordered, and that ordering will occur at the Task Order level following a separate proposal and evaluation process, it is premature at this phase to require a list of labor categories that every individual teammate will provide. We respectfully request that the Attachment L2 requirement to specify labor categories that each team member will provide be removed for the IDIQ proposal. | The final SIR will not remove the requirement to specify which labor categories will be performed by each team member. | |||||
| 54 | Section G.5.1 | G-42 | G.5.1 ISSUANCE OF REQUEST FOR TASK ORDER PROPOSALS (RFTOPS) describes the general process for awarding Task Orders. This process includes the Contractor submitting a technical proposal which will be evaluated by the FAA for technical feasibility, as well as a price proposal which will be evaluated by the FAA for fairness and reasonableness. Every technical approach requires a unique mix of staff, skillsets, level of effort, and other factors. As such, please confirm that the RFTOP process will also include the Contractor proposing labor hours and labor categories necessary to complete the effort (with the Contractor also providing supporting rationale/Basis of Estimate). | If authorized in the Request for Task Order Proposal (RFTOP), the Contractor will be allowed to propose a labor mix/level of effort that it deems is necessary to complete the effort. | ||
| 55 | Clause 3.3.1-11 | I-74 | This section includes the statement, "No legal liability on the part of the FAA for any payment may arise for performance under this contract beyond September 30, 2011…" Will FAA confirm that the 2011 date should be to updated to align to the TBD date entered at the beginning of this section? | See response to question 41. | ||
| 56 | Section L.16.1 | L-141 | Section L.16.1 states: “This section must include copies of any subcontracts or teaming arrangements." Given that a typical teaming agreement is 10 to 15 pages in length and given the size of the teams being assembled to support this effort, providing copies of complete teaming agreements may result in Volume VI being 300+ pages. Such a large amount of repetitive information will be burdensome both for offerors to assemble and the Government to review. Would the Government revise the DSIR to allow offerors to submit the 1st page (identifying the subcontractor/teaming partner) and signature page of teaming agreements in lieu of the entire agreement? This approach will significantly reduce the page count of Volume VI while still allowing the Government to verify that appropriate teaming arrangements are in place. | The FAA will require copies of teaming arrangements, Joint Venture (JV) agreements, and Mentor Protege agreements. The FAA will not accept arrangement or agreement signature pages only. | ||
| 57 | Pg. 14 | Project Leader labor categories description states "Must be familiar with the FAA AMS." Making this a firm requirement will limit the candidate pool as the AMS is unique to FAA. Will the FAA consider revising the language to state "Must be familiar with the federal government acquisition frameworks, such as FAA AMS or the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)" | The FAA will remove the requirement that the Project Lead (labor category) "must be familiar with FAA AMS" in the final SIR. | |||
| 58 | Pg. 3 | Education requirements for Cloud Consultant is listed as Associated Degree (AA) for each level. The LCAT description includes the following statement: "this expert assesses a company's needs and suggests software and devices to best meet that company's technical and budgetary requirements". Based on review of Cloud Consultant roles across various industry career job sites, Cloud Consultant positions typically have education requirements that generally focus on degrees that provide a solid foundation in computer science, information technology, and related fields. Common degrees include Computer Science, Information Technology, Software Engineering, Computer Engineering, Systems Engineering, and Network Administration. Anticipated low rates associated with AA degree minimums are not likely be accommodate salary expectations for candidates with technical degrees and the requisite combination of technical and business acumen. | The FAA will update the requirement to specify that a Cloud Consultant requires a Bachelor's Degree in the final SIR. | |||
| 59 | Section I | I-60 | Both AMS 3.5-13 Rights in Data – General and AMS 3.5-16 Rights in Data – Special Works are incorporated into the Draft SIR for the IDIQ. However, AMS 3.5-16 Special Works clause references T3.5.A.4.e.(1) which states that the clause should only be included in narrow circumstances (production of audio visual works, histories of agencies, surveys of Government establishments, investigatory reports, etc.). We recommend that the Government remove AMS 3.5-16 at the IDIQ level and only include it on task orders where it is applicable. | The AMS Procurement Guidance T3.5.A.4.e.(1) references to "production of audio visual works, histories of agencies, surveys of Government establishments, investigatory reports, etc." are provided as examples of contracts for when there is a specific need to limit distribution and use of the data or to obtain indemnity for liabilities that may arise out of the content, performance, or disclosure of the data. Per the AMS clause 3.5-16, Rights in Data - Special Works, the clause is for use in contracts (or may be made applicable to portions thereof) that are primarily for the production or compilation of data (other than limited rights data or restricted computer software) for the Government’s own use. Data rights requirements will be determined at the Task Order level. | ||
| 60 | Section I | I-61 | The Draft SIR includes AMS 3.10.4-19 Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP) (January 2018). Since the GIDEP exchange is typically for contracts involving the acquisition of parts and products, could the clause be included when applicable on a Task Order basis (e.g. Task Orders over $50M)? | The FAA intends to make AMS clause 3.10.4-19, Government Industry Data Exchange Program (GIDEP), applicable only to an individual task orders over $50M. | ||
| 61 | Section K | K-115 | Offerors are required to be registered in SAM and as part of the annual renewal process, offerors complete and update on-line Representations and Certifications. May offerors complete any provisions that are not covered by our SAM registration in lieu of providing an entire copy in the proposal submittal? | No. Offerors must provide a complete version of the Representations and Certifications per Sections K and L. | ||
| 62 | Pg. 74 | Cybersecurity SME education and experience requirements are lower than the corresponding levels for the Cybersecurity Engineer. FAA has typically sought to eliminate or significantly reduce the use of SME LCATs on contracts. We recommend revising the Cybersecurity SME education and experience requirements to align with other SME LCAT requirements prescribed in J-1, or remove this LCAT entirely. | The Cybersecurity SME labor category will be removed from Attachment J-1 in the final SIR. | |||
| 63 | Pg. 17 | Given the anticipated scope, scale, and complexity of Task Orders under the EPICS II contract, we recommend that the Task Order Lead require a valid PMP certification. | The FAA will not require Project Management Professional (PMP) certification for the Task Order Lead labor category. | |||
| 64 | Section H.13.C | H-57 | Potential EPICS II Offerors deliver systems engineering, strategy, research, and technical advisory services to clients across the federal government spanning Federal Civilian Services, Intelligence, Homeland Security, and Defense missions. We respectfully request that Section H.13(c) be revised to state “The Contractor (or subcontractor) must receive written permission from the Contracting Officer before entering into a business relationship with any companies that are or are expected to be a NAS system provider (as either a prime, contractor or an affiliate, subcontractor, consultant or employee) for performance of any FAA work.” Such as revision provides a mechanism to ensure adequate protection against potential OCIs as defined in H.13(c) while simultaneously providing industry the ability to establish business relationships to pursue opportunities outside FAA. This approach aligns with recent OCI clauses in recent FAA SIRs such as Systems Engineering and Technical Innovative Solutions (SETIS) and Air Traffic Engineering and Program Support (ATEPS) II. | The FAA will review the suggested language for H.13 and, if deemed necessary for the EPICS II procurement, updates will be provided in the final SIR. | ||
| 65 | Section L.16.4 | L-143 | L.16.4 Volume IV, Section 4, Documentation of Offeror Responsibility includes a requirement to provide “formal or informal” Requests for equitable adjustment and pending or ongoing claims initiated, ongoing or completed within the past three years under any Federal, State, Local or Foreign Government Contracts. To the best of our knowledge, there is no definition of “informal” claim or request or equitable adjustment in the AMS or the FAR. Accordingly, contractors would not typically track “informal” activities in a comprehensive, reportable manner. Would the Government please revise the disclosure requirement to remove the parenthetical term “(formal or informal)” in the fourth solid bullet in Section 4, page L-143? | In the final SIR, the "formal or informal" will be removed from Section L - Pg 143. The FAA may also include in the final SIR language that will require Offerors to provide their Disclosure of Claims pending submission. | ||
| 66 | Section M.2.2 | Phase 1 | How does the FAA plan to verify a small business offeror’s specific designation such as Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), 8(a), HUBZone, Woman-owned Small Business (WOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business (SDVOSB), etc.? | Small business representations made by Offerors will be verified using the System for Award Management (SAM). | ||
| 67 | Section M.2.2 | Phase 1 | If a small business offeror’s specific designation (e.g., 8(a)) is scheduled to change during the solicitation process, will the FAA consider the specific designation at the time of the initial offer or at the projected time of award? | In accordance with AMS Guidance T3.6.1.B.4, the FAA will consider the specific designation at the time of the Phase II offer. | ||
| 68 | Section L.7.2 | Phase 1 | If a Joint Venture is composed of a Large Business and an SDB, can the Large Business and SDB join a different team while their Joint Venture bids as an SDB or Small Business? | See the responses to Questions 3, 6 and 32. | ||
| 69 | Section L.7.2 | Phase 1 | To encourage 8(a) firms to bid as a Prime, will the FAA provide 8(a) firms an exception to the prohibition on participation on multiple teams and allow 8(a) firms (not a joint venture) to join one Unrestricted bid team if they are a Prime on an SDB bid? | See the responses to Questions 3, 6 and 32. | ||
| 70 | Section L.14 | Phase 2 | Will the FAA clarify if they will evaluate the past performance based on the overall joint venture’s experience as opposed to past performance of individual businesses within the joint venture? | In accordance with AMS Policy T.3.6.1.B.6 (C), the FAA will consider the past performance of each individual entity in the Joint Venture (JV) in addition to past performance of the joint venture itself. | ||
| 71 | Section C.1.3 | Phase 1 | Is the FAA considering reducing the scope or number of the distinct functional support areas required for the SDB offers? | The FAA does not intend to reduce the scope and/or number of functional support areas for Small Disadvantaged Businesses Offerors or other small business Offerors. | ||
| 72 | Section G.5 | Phase 2 | G-41 | Please clarify how the TORPF competition will work. For categories, there will be only one awardee; will it be just directed? And for SDB category, will it be competed since there will be two awardees? | The FAA will make the determination, based on the requirements of individual Task Orders, if a Task Order will be competed or issued as a directed award in accordance with Section G of the SIR/Contract. Task Orders may be competed among small businesses or issued non-competitively in accordance with AMS Policy 3.6.1.3, Principles for the Small Business Program. | |
| 73 | Section L.7.2 | Both | L-133 | This paragraph indicates that team members (aka subcontractors) can be part of only one team. Can the FAA confirm that this is a correct interpretation? If yes, can members of a JV (who intends to be the offeror or prime) join another team? For example, if companies A and B form a JV as an offeror, can companies A and B also join another team? | This is a correct interpretation for Phase I. Where a JV is the Offeror (meaning, the prime), the members of that JV may not join another team in any category. |
If the JV Offeror is not invited to participate in Phase II, the JV, entities comprising the JV, and their teammates are not prohibited from joining a solution delivery team that was invited to join Phase II.
| 74 | Section L.7.2 | Both | Pg. 133 | This paragraph indicates that team members (aka subcontractors) can be part of only one team. Can the FAA confirm that this is a correct interpretation? If yes, we urge the FAA to reconsider this decision for the final SIR. Small businesses with niche capabilities for core missions of EPICSII will be limited in providing these services to the FAA since they cannot be in multiple teams across different categories. | This is a correct interpretation. See the response to Questions 3, 6, and 32 for more details. |
| 75 | Section M.7.1 | Phase 2 | M-155 | The last paragraph in Section M.7.1 references a "Summary" tab in Attachment L3 that reflects the TEP. Attachment L3 is the "Team Experience Template"; should this be changed to Attachment L6? | The "Team Experience Template" will be corrected to Attachment L-6 in the final SIR. |
| 76 | Section L.13.3 | Phase 2 | L-138 | Can FAA provide Attachment J4, EPICS II Resume Template, in Microsoft Word format? | The FAA will provide Attachment J4, EPICS II Resume Template, in Microsoft Word format in the final SIR. |
| 77 | Section L.14 | Phase 2 | L-139 | Can FAA provide Attachment L4, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), in Microsoft Word format? | The FAA will provide Attachment L4, Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) in Microsoft Word format in the final SIR. |
| 78 | Section L.10.1.2 | Phase 2 | Can FAA confirm if Key Personnel Resumes, which are required in Section 3 of Volume III, are counted against the page limit of 30 for the volume? Would the FAA consider limiting resumes to three pages each and confirming that resumes are excluded from total page count limitations? | The final SIR will specify the page limit for resumes. Resumes are counted against the page limit for Volume II, Section 3. | |
| 79 | Section L.16.4 | Phase 2 | L-143 | Within Vol IV, Offerors are required to submit a Dun and Bradstreet Comprehensive Report (CR); however, these reports are no longer available through D&B. To ensure Offerors provide FAA with the appropriate information, please clarify what "other commonly used sources" is referring to? What does FAA want contained in the "comprehensive report"? | The FAA will make updates to the Dun and Bradstreet report requirements in the final SIR. "Other commonly used sources" is a public reporting agency/company that provides a comprehensive business report that provides a detailed overview of a company's borrowing history, repayment behavior, and the overall financial health of the Offeror(s). An Offeror(s) can consider reporting that includes business credit information assigned by a credit reference agency (e.g. Experian, Equifax, FICO and Creditsafe) or publicly available sources. The FAA is not requiring or directing Offerors to utilize any of the companies listed in this response. |
| 80 | Section H.7.2 | Post-Award | H-55 | Would FAA reconsider the overtime requirements on contract? It is common for staff to work in excess of 40 hours per week and for the need to do so be identified by FAA towards the latter part of the week. Having to obtain advance approval from the Contracting Officer in these circumstances could cause an unnecessary administrative burden on the FAA and lead to personnel not being able to perform work requirements due to this restriction. | The FAA does not anticipate overtime being a common occurrence and/or practice for EPICS II Task Order (TOs). If overtime is considered, only the Contracting Officer (CO) can authorize overtime. Overtime will only be granted on a TO for unusual and/or compelling circumstances. In the final SIR, see H.7.2 for more details. |
| 81 | Section L.16.3 | Phase 2 | L-57, L-141 | Paragraph (c) of Section H.13 states, "The Contractor must receive written permission from the Contracting Officer before entering into a business relationship with any company that is or expects to be a NAS system provider (as either a prime contractor or an affiliate, subcontractor, consultant, or employee)." |
Please confirm if this requirement to seek advance written permission applies to relationships with entities who are considered NAS system providers, even if those relationships are established outside of the EPICS II contract. As an example, if the Offeror were to work with a company on another FAA program (outside of EPICS II) or in a commercial context, would that relationship need to be vetted and approved by the EPICS CO?
| Is it accurate that any existing relationships would need to be disclosed in Offerors' OCI Plans? | Yes. It is accurate that existing relationships in the National Aerospace System (NAS) and any and/or all FAA contracts/programs needs to be disclosed in an Offeror(s) OCI Plan. The EPICS II Contracting Officer (CO) must receive advanced notification to determination whether an OCI does or does not exist. See the response to questions 32 and 74 for more details. | |||||
| 82 | Section L.15.2 | Phase 2 | Pg. 140 | Can a draft of Attachment L6 - Price Worksheet be provided as part of the draft SIR review? | See response to Question 51. | |
| 83 | Section I.1.2 | Post-Award | I-91 | AMS Clause 3.10.2-2 is incorporated into Section I; however, EPICS II (Section B.2) does not contemplate any cost reimbursement task orders. Can the FAA verify this selection and consider replacing AMS 3.10.2-2 with 3.10.2-3 and 3.10.2-1? | AMS clause 3.10.2-2 will be removed from Section I in the final SIR. | |
| 84 | Section I.1.1 | Post-Award | I-60 | Based on the prescription for AMC Clause 3.10.2-5 (Competition in Subcontracting), can FAA confirm if this clause is applicable to EPICS II? If not, can it be removed from Section I? If it is deemed to be applicable, can the FAA re-evaluate the restrictions in Section L.7.2 as these prohibitions make it difficult for the resultant Contractor to select subcontractors on a competitive basis. | AMS clause 3.10.2-5 will be removed from Section I in the final SIR. The EPICS II contract award(s) will be based on adequate price competition. | |
| 85 | Section H.6 | Phase 2 | H-54 | Section H.6 references the "Labor Category and Skill Level Descriptions" as Attachment J-2. Should this be changed to J-1 based on the list contained in Table J.1-1 on page J-112? | Section H.6 will be updated in the final SIR to reference Attachment J-1. | |
| 86 | Section L.15.1 | Phase 2 | L-140 | Section L.15.1 does not contain any instructions beyond requiring Offerors to explain any exceptions, deviations, and assumptions. It is recommended for FAA to require documentation to support the data entered into Attachment L6. Can L.15.1 be revised to outline additional instructions for Section 1 of Volume V (i.e., rationale used for development of the proposed T&M rates, escalation assumptions, explanation of indirect rates)? | Prior to the final SIR release, the FAA will review the language in Section L.15.1 (regarding exceptions, deviations and assumptions) and, if necessary make changes. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .