NISC IV Final SIR Industry Comments - FAA Response 2.4.2020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 31 KB Posted
- Attached to
- National Airspace System (NAS) Integration Support Contract (NISC IV) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 693KA9-20-R-00005
About this file
This document summarizes industry comments submitted in response to a solicitation for the National Airspace System Integration Support Contract IV (NISC IV) and the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) responses. The solicitation seeks to recreate critical support to a wide range of FAA organizations supporting existing and modernized components of the National Airspace System. Interested vendors were invited to submit clarifying questions by January 17, 2020, with the FAA responding by January 31, 2020. Proposals must be submitted by February 18, 2020 to provide program management, engineering, and technical support services. The industry comments covered clarifications on labor categories and rates, functional and management work hours, reporting requirements, and transition planning assumptions. The FAA's responses addressed these comments to clarify contract requirements and terms for the NISC IV competition.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Business Declaration Form.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
Industry Comments
| ITEM | SECTION | SUB-SECTION | PAGE NUMBER | NISC IV FINAL SIR INDUSTRY COMMENTS | FAA RESPONSE |
| 1 | Section L | Attach L-2, Mgt Labor | Instructions Sheet | An employee's annual salary includes payment recieved for paid absences, including holidays and vacation, which equates to 2,080 annual hours per Full Time Equivalent (FTE). The instructions, however, direct offerors to divide annual salaries by 1920 direct (i.e. billable) annual hours for each FTE. Please clarify if the correct calculation would be to divide the employee's annual salary by 2,080 to derive the direct hourly rate. | This format is designed to simplify the comparison of FTE availability between Volume II and Volume IV (Management and Cost). As long as column I provides the appropriate availability, the proposed cost will be correct, no matter what FTE hours are used. |
| 2 | Section L | Table L-4 | The table appears to contain an error for the Level 3 hours in Option Period 1 and Option Period 2. Exhibit A appears to be correct. Please confirm that the hours for level 3 for Option Periods 1 and 2 should be 814,894 as stated in Exhibit A. | Exhibit A is correct. Please note that Table L.4 is in error. Option Period 1 & 2 for Level 3 should read 814,894 as stated in Exhibit A. This will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to the SIR. | |
| 3 | Section L | L.20.3.1.6 | Paragraph L.20.3.1.6 states that all IT costs are to be proposed unless included elsewhere (e.g. management labor, facilities, and supplies). The term "supplies" does not appear elsewhere in the SIR, and could be assumed to refer to the Government provided plug value for miscellaneous support costs (table L.6; pg. 39). Please confirm that offerors may not assume any IT related costs are included in the plug value. | Confirmed. Misc. Support costs are Functional costs. IT costs are Management. | |
| 4 | Section L | L.20 | Paragraph L.20 states that the provided assumptions are mandatory. However, the apparent penalty for failure to comply is only a "potential" increase in the risk rating. Please confirm that all offerors are to use all mandatory assumptions. | Confirmed. Please refer to L.20.2. | |
| 5 | Section L | L.20.3.3 | Paragraph L.20.3.3 requires offerors to provide their proposed split of functional hours by company while matching the prescribed hours provided by the FAA in Cost Volume Exhibit A. Paragraph L.20 states that the mandatory assumptions such as hours by entity type are "not intended to constrain an Offeror’s responses", However, paragraph L.20.3.3 requires offerors provide their rationale for the split and the benefit to the FAA for using the specific entity,Since the FAA will perform a qualitative review of the proposed split, and consider it during the risk evaluation, it seems reasonable to use the offeror's anticipated split even if that differs from the mandatory pricing assumptions. Please clarify how the allocation of hours provided in Cost Exhibit C should match the values in Exhibit A. Are the values to be the same for the total hours provided? For the allocation between prime and sub? Or for all entity levels? | If (a) for Functional Work Areas, there is more than one company proposed within any Entity Level, and (b) for Management Work Areas, there is more than one company proposed, Ex. C must show the split of hours among such companies. The total hours shown in Ex. C for all companies proposed within Functional Work Area Entity Levels and the total hours shown in Ex. C for for all companies proposed within Management Work Areas must match the respective hour totals proposed in Ex. A. | |
| 6 | Section L | L.24.3 Requirement Compliance | Page 47 | Instructions indicate we should "Send the Past Performance Survey to a maximum of eight (8) individuals requesting their response." Is it the government's intent for the Offeror to send a survey to one individual per contract being submitted for Volume V Past Performance? | Yes - one individual (Point of Contact) per contract. |
| 7 | Section L | L.19.1 General Instructions | Page 33 | Instructions state, "While the Offeror may submit contracts performed by proposed subcontractors, the Offeror must still demonstrate direct relevant experience in a minimum of three (3) of the four (4) areas requested." Volume III allows for 12 contracts to be submitted (three (3) contracts per area, totaling a possible 12). If an Offeror submits more contracts from subcontractors than from the Prime Offeror, could that be scored as a risk? For example, if a prime Offeror submits only one contract in each of three areas (the minimum number to satisfy the stated requirement) with subcontractors submitting up to nine (9) contracts, will the government score this as a risk? | No. |
| 8 | Section L | Attach L-1, Cost Exhibit A | The Fee percentage on the summary tab (F45) is calculated using the total cost (G43) divided by the fee amount (G45). This also applies to the formulas on the base period, Option period 1, and Option period 2 tabs. Please confirm the formulas are correct? | The formulas are correct. | |
| 9 | Section L | Sections L.2.3.2 Exhibit B -Award Fee Information Exhibit D -Indirect Expense Schedules | Page 43 | Please provide Exhibit B and Exhibit D as they were not included with the Draft or Final SIR. | The only prescribed format is Cost Exhibit A. |
| 10 | Section L | Sections L.2.3.2 Exhibit C -Distribution by Entity | Page 43 | Will the Government provide an Exhibit C or will the Offeror's format be acceptable? | The only prescribed format is Cost Exhibit A. |
| 11 | Section L | Section L.16.2Section L.20.6 Electronic Media vs. Table L.4 | Page 18 & 46 | L.16.2 states "All spreadsheets must be prepared in MS Excel 2017.L.20.6 states that "all cost exhibits must be submitted in spreadsheets created with MS Excel version 2016 compatible version and in adobe Acrobat DC. Whereas table L.4 Proposal Volumes, states (on page 18) that Volume IV Exhibt D should be "Searchable PDF". Should Exhibit D be both MS Excel 2016 and Searchable PDF? Please confirm. | Yes, confirmed. Both documents are required. The reference to MS Excel 2017 was a mistake...there is no 2017 version of Excel. MS Excel 2016 should be its compatable version. Searchable PDF is also required. This will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to the SIR. |
| 12 | Section L.2.2 | Clause 3.2.2.3-28 | Page 7 | This clause states that the offeror must submit either a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data (CCCPD) or request an exception to this requirement. Since the FAA stated in response to Question # 50 from the Draft Sir responses that the FAA anticipates that adequate price competition will exist, would an offeror be compliant to reference this as the basis for its exception and not submit CCCPD? Otherwise, would the FAA consider changing the language to request "other than certified cost or pricing data, however, FAA reserves the right to come back later and ask for certified cost or pricing data, if adequate competition does not exist?" Please clarify. | The Clause applies…language of the Clause cannot be changed. Per the Clause, submit CCCPD or request an exception. We anticipate granting exception based on adequate price competition. |
| 13 | Section L.20.3.1.3 | L.20.3.1.3-4 (Bullet #4) | Page 42 | Section L.20.3.1.3 directs offerors to identify teammate staff positions, provide teammate individuals by name, and “price the position using an existing corporate labor category the Offeror considers appropriate for the position”. This appears to be directing the Prime to price subcontractor efforts using prime labor category and prime rates. Please clarify how prime offerors are to price subcontractor (teammate) positions in management labor. If subcontractors are to price their positions on a cost reimbursable basis, will the FAA require "Sealed Packages" with their complete buildup of their fully burdened rates? | Subcontractors are not required to price either functional or management positions. These positions, however, must be identified and priced by the Prime Contractor following the instructions in L.20.3.1.3. Please note that each company participating in the CPAF provisions must provide Cost Exhibit D. |
| 14 | Section L | L.20.3.1.2 | Page 40 | Reference refers to the effort to “manage the NISC IV work effort” and identifies this as the lower portion of Cost Volume Exhibit A (attachment L‐1). SIR paragraph L.20.3.1.3 refers to “program management labor” and identifies that attachment L‐2 has been provided for these costs. Please confirm that these two paragraphs refer to the same scope of work and the management labor costs proposed in attachment L-2 should match the management labor costs in Exhibit A? | L.20.3.1.2 refers to all Management costs. L.20.3.1.3 refers to just Management Labor costs. For the Base and Option Periods, Management Labor Cost on Attachment L-2 should match Management Labor cost in Exhibit A. |
| 15 | L | L.17.5 | 19 | The Final SIR requires offerors to include information regarding OCIs as prescribed in AMS 3.1.7-4, Organizational Conflicts of Interest - Mitigation Plan Required (April 2012). Should Offerors reference the April 2012 version of AMS clause 3.1.4-4, or the more recent (October 2019) version? | The Offeror should use the most recent version of AMS 3.1.7-4, Organizational Conflcts of Interest - Mitigation Plan Required (October 2019). Please note that the correct cite appears in Section I. This will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to the SIR. |
| 16 | J | Attachment J-7 | 6 | Reference to insurance as per Attachment J-13 and in Section J, Attachment 13, page 3, J-13.1.5 refers to obtaining necessary insurance coverage for designated Contractor personnel working at airport facilities per Task Order requirement. In Section H – page 32, H.50 Work Performed at Airports references insurance requirements, “See Section I, FAA AMS Clause No. 3.2.2.3-67, Special Precautions for Work at Operating Airports (July 2004)” and when reviewing the AMS Clause there are no insurance requirements listed. Please provide insurance requirements. | H.50 does not reference the noted AMS Clause for insurance requirements. With respect to insurance, H.50 states: "no work will be performed at an airport location until all insurance required by airport authorities has been obtained". Accordingly, on a case-by-case basis, Contractor must determine an airport authority's insurance requirements. |
| 17 | L | Attachment L-1 Cost Exhibit A | Instruction # 21 | The CLINS in Section B appear to include only labor and award fee costs. There is no place in the CLINS to capture/bill the direct ODC costs from the Program Management Office (PMO) nor from the SIR-provided ODC values. Will the Government be providing a separate CLIN for all ODCs in a future amendment? Section L Attachment L-1 Cost Exhibit A.xlsx instruction # 21 states that “Section B must be derived from this exhibit (transfer data from Purple cells on Purple tabs to Section B)”. However, the Purple Cells referenced include ODCs and there is no place in Section B for these costs. | There will be no separate CLIN for ODCs. Cells G31 and G40 include them. Cells G28 contain the ODCs for Functional Work Areas and Cells G36, G37, G38, and G39 contain non-labor costs for Management Work Areas. |
| 18 | J | J-7.1.13.2.4 | 8 | Section J-7, page 8, J-7.1.13.2.4 states, "that the FAA will let approximately one-hundred-eight (we believe this should be “eighty”) (180) to two-hundred-fifty (250) Task Order SOOs for the Contractor to process and execute during the initial six-month period"; and Section J-13, page 8, J-13.3.5 states, "that the FAA will have approximately two-hundred-fifty (250) to three-hundred (300) Task Order SOOs for the Contractor to process and execute during the initial six-month period." Will the FAA please clarify the number of Task Order SOOs that the Contractor is required to process during the initial six-month period? | The correct estimated range is |
180 to 250. This will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to the SIR.
| 19 | J | J-7.1.13.2.4 | 8 | In the Draft SIR CTR Questions and FAA Response documents, the question was asked in regards to Section J-7, page 8, J-7.1.13.2.4 and "250-300 SOOs" being released during the 6-month Transition period, specifically, "Can the FAA clarify if a notable amount of additional TO SOOs will be let by the FAA during the first Contract Year (CY) of execution of NISC IV (excluding any notable amount of TO SOOs let at the end of the first CY that are intended to be performed in the second CY)?" The Govt replied with "The FAA anticipates that the 250-300 TO SOO's provided with the Final SIR will constitute substantially all of the work to be performed under the Contract during the first year. Additional TO's could be issued during the first year if needs arise, although it is not possible to project at this time whether such additional TO's will be issued nor the quantity thereof."For the Final SIR, the FAA states in Section J-7, page 8, J-7.1.13.2.4 that "180-250 TO SOOs will be released during the 6-month Transition period." Can the Govt reconfirm (similar to the Draft SIR response provided by the FAA) that the 180-250 TO SOOs will constitute substantially all of the work to be performed under the Contract during the first year? | Yes. Approximately 180 - 250 TO SOOs will constitute substantially all of the work to be performed under the contract during the first year. However, additional TO's could be issued if the need arises. This will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to the SIR. |
| 20 | L | L.17.2 | 19 | L.17 Volume I, Section B: Solicitation/Contract Form requires Offerors to submit Standard Form 33, "Solicitation, Offer, and Award," with blocks 13 through 18 completed. The Standard Form 33 is missing from the documents provided in the FAACO Final SIR solicitation documents, and was not provided in the Huddle Site document library. Can the Govt please provide the FAA Standard Form 33 for NISC IV? | Yes…as soon as possible. System issues are currently preventing such form from printng properly. |
| 21 | L | L.17.6 | 19-20 | L.17 Volume I, Section F: Business Declaration Form requires Offerors to provide a completed Business Declaration Form. The Business Declaration Form is missing from the documents provided in the FAACO Final SIR solicitation documents, and was not provided in the Huddle Site document library .Can the Govt please provide the Business Declaration Form? | Yes…provided with these responses. |
| 22 | J-3 | J-3.1.2 | 4 | Reference: The paragraph reads, in part: "The FAA regularly evaluates the contractor's performance against established criteria to determine an appropriate award fee payable under the contract."Question: Can the Government provide examples of "established criteria," previously used on NISC? | The Offeror's Huddle Document Library has the Performance Evaluation Plan that provides examples of criteria. The factors used to evaluate current contract are in Attachment J-3, Sample Performance Evaluation Plan, Section J-3.4. |
| 23 | J-3 | J-3.2.2 | 5 | Reference: "Each task order is assigned a Performance Monitor (the ETO) who is responsible for submitting a semiannual report to the Performance Evaluation Board (PEB). This report evaluates the contractor's performance towards meeting the objectives in each task order."Question: Would the FAA please provide some example objectives from task orders? | The objectives will vary by SOO. |
SOO # 14 (page 27) in Attachment J-11, Potential Statement of Objectives, provides an example.
| 24 | J-3 | J-3.2.3 | 6 | Reference: "The Performance Monitor may determine that a Customer Satisfaction Survey (CSS) is the appropriate measure of contract performance at the GTI level."Question: Would the FAA please provide an example of a customer satisfaction survey? | No. The CSS may be developed in conjunction with the Prime Contractor based primarliy upon factors in the Performance Evaluation Plan and may vary from period to period depending upon FAA requirements. |
| 25 | J-3 | J-3.3.2 | 10 | Reference: "Responsibilities of the PEB Chairperson are to:• Assign weights to performance evaluation categories."Question: Are the performance evaluation categories the same as the "Five Factors" listed in J-3.4.1? If not, would the FAA please provide performance evaluation categories and the weight assigned to each? | Yes. |
| 26 | J-3 | J-3.4.1 | 14 | Reference: "Task orders may include performance metric(s) that relate specifically to the work under that task order. Such metrics can be used to provide quantifiable measurement and assist the Performance Monitor determine factor scores."Question: Would the FAA please provide a list of or examples of task order metrics? | The metrics will vary by SOO. |
SOO # 14 (page 27) in Attachment J-11, Potential Statement of Objectives, provides an example.
| 27 | L-18 | L.18.3.4.1.2 | 26 | Reference: "Timely prepare, provide, and submit all periodic (monthly, quarterly, and/or annual) National Program Management Office, Task Order, and sub-Task Order contracts and subcontracts reports on a continuing basis …"Question: To enable all Offerors to provide a sound and effective Management approach, would the FAA please identify which reports will be required? | Various reports are required under the Contract and others may be required under individual Task Orders. For the Contract, the reports specified in Section F.4 Data Deliverables are the primary ones. |
| 28 | M.5.2 | M.5.2.4.1.2 | 10 | Reference: "The degree to which the proposed approach clearly demonstrates the ability to providing timely reports for all associated requirements (e.g., Task Orders, Sub-Task Orders, etc.), resulting in effective management of NISC IV per Section L.18.3.4.1.2."Question: Would the FAA please identify which reports will be required? | Various reports are required under the Contract and others may be required under individual Task Orders. For the Contract, the reports specified in Section F.4 Data Deliverables are the primary ones. |
| 29 | C.4 | C.4.4.1.4 | 32 | Reference: "Timely preparation, provision, and submission of all periodic (monthly, quarterly, and/or annual) National Program Management Office, Task Order, and subtask contracts and subcontracts reportson a continuing basis."Question: To enable all Offerors to provide a sound and effective Management approach, would the FAA please identify which reports will be required? | Various reports are required under the Contract and others may be required under individual Task Orders. For the Contract, the reports specified in Section F.4 Data Deliverables are the primary ones. |
| 30 | J | J-7.1 | 3 | Will an Offeror have the ability to set up a Transition office(s) while the Government is reviewing and dispositioning the post-award Transition Plan? | If the Offeror feels this is required as a cost effective way to facilitate the transition, Offeror can do so, but not prior to contract award. |
| 31 | J | J-7.1.3 | 4 | The potential Statements of Objectives, provided in Attachment J-11, do not provide a sufficient basis for non-incumbent Offerors to |
reasonably understand and develop a comprehensive Transition Plan Scope, nor do the potential SOOs provided by the FAA allow non-incumbent Offerors sufficient information to exercise insight, experience, and judgement to arrive at a complete and fully integrated Transition Plan.
In order to promote a fair and consistent evaluation of each Offeror's Transition Plan, will the FAA consider providing additional information or assumptions (i.e., a table similar to L.20.2.4 Labor Assumptions)? For example, we recommend that the FAA provide common assumptions (in lieu of or in addition to the already-provided potential SOOs which are missing critical pieces of information such as inception date and location) such as "the number of Functional Work TOs by location for the dispersed geographic areas of NISC IV" to ensure fair and consistence ability for all Offerors to develop an appropriate Transition Plan and execution approach (i.e.,
| a more effective Management approach)? | No. Please use the data in Table J-13.2. | ||||
| 32 | L | L.18.4.1.4 | 31 | The Draft SIR required a National Contract and Subcontract Administration Manager as a Key Personnel position. Following the Draft |
Q&As, the FAA split the position into two KP positions (i.e., a Contract Mgr and a Subcontracts Mgr) in the Final SIR. We note three points relating to this KP requirement: (1) Most other FAA procurements and nearly all other Govt agency procurements/contracts do NOT require a "Subcontracts Mgr" as a Key Personnel position; (2) For NISC IV, the FAA noted that their expectation (per the Final SIR) is that there will not be a significant amount of procurements under the NISC IV Contract, thus having the Subcontracts Mgr as a KP would seem to be unnecessary; (3) To provide the FAA with the most cost-effective and innovative solution for the NISC IV Contract management approach, the requirement to provide a Subcontracts Mgr appears to be over-prescriptive and can impede an Offeror from providing the most effective Management approach (certainly an Offeror may consider having a Subcontracts Mgr, but to require the position as a KP appears over-prescriptive).
We recommend that the FAA remove the requirement for a "National Procurement and Subcontracts Administration Manager" KP
| position from the Final SIR. | Based on the scope set forth in Section C.4.4 National Contract and Subcontracts Administration Management, the FAA requires both referenced Key Personnel positions. | ||||
| 33 | J | Attachment J-13, J-13.1, J-13.2 | All | J-13.2 Work Site Locations and each location's number of employees are critical to developing an Offeror's Management approach |
and PMO size/structure/geographic distribution that provide the best-value to the FAA. The information provided in Table J-13.2 Work Site Locations is extremely critical for providing a sound and viable Transition Plan and Management Approach. However, the Table (J-13.2) provides several complications for non-incumbent Offerors. Specifically, (1) the Table appears to provide data that is notably inconsistent with recent historical staff quantities (e.g., the Table states that 8 NISC personnel work at the Govt-provided facility/telework in Atlanta, GA), (2) the Table states that "the information is strictly intended to be used for Transition purposes only", and (3) the Table excludes T&M and 1099 NISC employees.
There is an inherent risk for non-incumbent Offerors using the J-13.2 table information for the following reasons: (1) if staff quantities at certain locations are notably inaccurate and Offerors use this data to build a commensurate Organization Structure, then the proposed Org Structure would be notably improper for transitioning and managing the NISC workforce at the effected location(s), and (2) if the data in the Table is only valid for the 6-month Transition period, then the ability to accurately estimate PMO size and cost (and associated TOMs quantity/cost) for the 9.5 years following the 6-month Transition is substantively hampered for non-incumbent Offerors. Since the Table is noted as "strictly intended to be used for Transition purposes only", then in the absence of post-Transition quantities for NISC employees by location , non-incumbent Offerors are likely to incur risks with their proposed Management approach and with the respective bid cost required to execute the approach.
(1) We respectfully ask that the FAA confirm that the numbers provided in Table J-13.2 are accurate.
(2) We respectfully ask that the FAA provide one of the following: (a) lift that restriction that the data in the Table is only to be used for Transition; or (b) release an additional Table that provides the number of NISC staff by location, thus allowing Offerors to bid an accurate and effective NISC IV Management approach and structure for the 9.5 years following the 6-month Transition; or (c) provide an assumption of "NISC IV staff by location" that can be used by all Offerors for the 10-year contract to ensure a fair and equitable bid and evaluation process. [For (b) and (c), we acknowledge that the numbers would be "assumptions" and that actual quantities would be impossible to guarantee for the life of the contract.] (1) The numbers are accurate for proposal purposes.
(2) With respect to (a), (b) and (c), the FAA declines such requests.
34 J J-7.1.1.2 3 J-7.1.1.2 states, " The Contractor must identify all work areas that will require transitional planning and support."
Two items arise from the requirement to provide "Transition Plan Contract Assumptions (J-7.1.1)": (1) Can the Government confirm that "work areas" do not apply to "C.3 Functional/Technical work areas (SOW areas)"; and (2) Can the Government provide clarity on the types of "work areas" that are intended here (i.e., Management work areas? PMO work areas? etc.?) (1) Not so confirmed.
(2) Works areas may include both Functional and Program Management Work Areas. The types of work areas are in direct relation to the SOOs referenced in J-11. The contractor must identify all work areas in relation to the SOOs in attachment J-11 that will require transitional planning and support.
35 L L.18 21 "The Government strongly prefers that contracts used to demonstrate an Offeror’s relevant experience reflect the experiences of the actual operating entity, as defined by the entity’s DUNS Number, that is proposed to manage and will perform the NISC IV work."
Defining an operating entity by its DUNS Number creates a procurement risk if it would allow an entity business unit to submit experience where an internal entity firewall would prevent that business unit from performing NISC IV work. Offerors should not be allowed to submit experiences from entity business units that have been firewalled off from performing NISC III work, especially if the entity business unit is to remain firewalled off from supporting future NISC IV work. Recommend the government add "except where
| internal company firewalls would prevent the entity or associated entity business unit from performing NISC IV work." | The recommended change will not be made. | ||||
| 36 | L | L.18.2 | 22 | "Offeror must describe its organization down to the front-line management positions along with FTE counts, locations, percentage of |
time worked, skill categories and whether they are prime or subcontractors personnel."
In Section L.20.2.4 (pg. 38) the FAA states, "Specific labor categories and the number of labor hours that will be used during the period of performance of NISC IV are impossible to predict because they are dependent on the distribution, complexity, and magnitude of work ordered under the various Functional Work Areas identified in the Statement of Work." If "the FTE count" noted in the requirement refers to the NISC IV functional/technical workforce (i.e., nonmanagement workforce), then given that the FAA recognizes the impossible nature of predicting labor hours (and thus FTEs) for the dispersed NISC IV workforce, we request that the FAA remove the same burden from Offerors (where non-incumbent Offerors are notably disadvantaged). Furthermore, without the quantity and distribution of non-management FTEs, the ability to bid an accurate quantity of front-line managers to supervise the non-management FTEs at each location is also nearly impossible (this relates to the Table J-13.2 question above). We recommend that the FAA remove the requirement to "describe its organization down to the frontline management positions along with FTE counts, locations, percentage of time worked, skill categories and whether they are prime
| or subcontractors personnel." | The recommended change will not be made. L.20.2.4 refers to Functional Work Areas and J-13.2 is for Transition purposes only. The referenced sentence in L.18.2 refers only to Management Work Areas. | |||||
| 37 | H | Table H-1 | 8 | Will the Govt confirm that "8(a) SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS" includes both 8(a) and SDB designated firms? | No, the subject business type includes only 8(a) certified SDBs. | |
| 38 | M | M.10.1 | 18 | "In addition to submittal with the Offeror’s proposal, prior to actual award, the contractor must submit an updated acceptable |
“Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Plan” (per Section L.17.5)…" Given the potential for OCI on the NISC IV contract, recommend the Govt request and evaluate each Offerors OCI Plan as part of the NISC IV evaluation under the Management Section
| as part of the FAA's Best Value determination. | No. | ||||
| 39 | C.4 | C.4.4.1.2 | 32 | Reference: "Manage and direct the submission of all Contract deliverables |
and/or other Contract requirements."
| Question: Will the Govt provide a list of all known/prescribed contract deliverables for NISC IV, along with respective due dates? | Various deliverables are required under the Contract and others may be required under individual Task Orders. For the Contract, the reports specified in Section F.4 Data Deliverables are the primary ones. | ||||
| 40 | H.25 | H.25 | 21 | Reference: "The Contractor must prepare a report, initially six (6) months after Contract Award and then annually as of July 31st |
thereafter, listing all Government property (under the purview of this Contract) in its possession and in the possession of all subcontractors during the previous twelve (12) months. The Contractor must submit the report to the Contracting Officer no later than September 15th of each year."
| Question: Will the Govt clarify the differences between the July 31 and Sept 15 dates required to submit the Govt Property report? | The subject list is prepared to be effective as of July 31st. September 15th is the due date for the report. | ||||
| 41 | H.7, H.32.2 | H.7, H.32.2 | 9,23 | References: Liaison Agreements, Company-to-Company Confidentiality | |
| Question: What are the distinctions of the Liaison Agreements and the Company-to-Company Confidentiality agreements? | The referenced agreements, required under Section H.7 and H.32.2, respectively, are required under different circumstances and are subject to different requirements. See such Sections. In any given instance, one, the other, or both may be required. A Liaison Agreement may or may not involve confidential information…a Company-to-Company Confidentiality Agreement by definition does. | ||||
| 42 | H.40 | H.40 | 28 | Reference: "An FAA NISC Program Management Guide with appropriate duties, responsibilities, policies and procedures covering |
NISC operations will be prepared and utilized by all FAA Stakeholders. This guide will be used as a basis for conducting business under the NISC IV Contract."
| Question: Who will prepare the Program Management Guide? Is this a contractor deliverable? | This will be a Contractor deliverable with FAA PMO input. | ||||
| 43 | Attachement J-13 | Table J-13.1, Table J-13.2 | 4,6 | Reference: Table J-13.1 lists Los Angeles as a Regional Office whereas Table J-13.2 does not. | |
| Question/Comment: Please confirm that Los Angeles is a Regional Office that may require NISC IV support. | Yes. | ||||
| 44 | C.4 | 4.7.1.1 | 38 | C.4.7.1.1 NISC Development Environment states Refer to Section J.13 for minimum performance specification for said equipment. J.13, |
as stated above, does not provide minimum performance specification, rather it defines the hardware configuration of the current NDE. C.4.7.1.2 Internal IT Infrastructure provides reference to NDE availability requirements of >95% during business hours. Will the FAA clarify if these are the only minimum performance specifications available to Offerors, or are there additional NDE minimum performance specifications (which are not currently provided) in J.13? To provide accurate contract management costs it is critical
| for Offerors to understand the minimum performance specifications required to maintain, operate, and house the NDE. | The requirement is a virtual server / storage area network environment that can support up to 300 virtual servers at any given time, with an availability of 95% or greater during business hours. It is up to the Offeror to design the solution that meets or exceeds those basic requirements. As mentioned in C.4.7.1.1, the FAA will fund the NISC Development Environment. The current NDE architecture in Section J.13.3.7 is provided as a basis for reference, however it is not the only way the NDE could be designed to meet the requirment. | ||||
| 45 | H | H.52 | 32 | Access to FAA Order 1600.1 and 1600.75 are restricted to FAA Network Only. FAA Order 1370.82, while available, was cancelled in | |
| 2006. Can the Govt provide access to the latest active versions of these Orders? | First two referenced Orders will be uploaded to the Offeror's Huddle Document Library. The third was cancelled and has not been replaced. This will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to the SIR. | ||||
| 46 | L | L.18.2 | 22 | The Final SIR states, "Offeror must describe its organization down to the front-line management positions along with FTE counts, |
locations, percentage of time worked, skill categories and whether they are prime or subcontractors personnel."
Can the Govt clarify the phrase, "along with FTE counts"; specifically, does the phrase refer to the "front-line management position
| FTE count" or to "all the non-management personnel that will be supervised by the front-line management"? | The phrase refers to the front-line management position. | ||||
| 47 | L | L.16.2 | 18 | The section states, "Each section within a volume must be consecutively numbered. Example Volume III, A: 1-5." |
Can the Govt further clarify which of the following is expected:
(a1) Volume III, A: 1-5 … Volume III, B:1-5 … --- or --- (a2) Volume III, A: 1-5 … Volume III, B:6-10 … Further, for Volume II, the Govt expects which of the following (ignore italic words)?
(b1) Volume II, B: 1-6 … Volume II, C:7-25 (PMO) … Volume II, C:26-40 (Biz Office) … --- or ---
| (b2) Volume II, B: 1-6 … Volume II, C:1-19 (PMO) … Volume II, C:20-34 (Biz Office) … | (a1) and (b2) are expected. | |||||
| 48 | L | L.16.2 | 18 | L.16.2 states that "All spreadsheets must be prepared in MS Excel 2017." However, L.20.6 states that "All cost exhibits must be electronically submitted in spreadsheets created with MS Excel version 2016 compatible version and in Adobe Acrobat DC." Will the Government please clarify? | The 2017 reference is in error...there is no 2017 version of Excel. The reference should have been MS Excel 2016 compatible version. With respect to Section L.20.6, the intent is MS Excel 2016 compatible version and Adobe Acrobat DC (Searchable PDF). This will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to the SIR. | |
| 49 | J-13 | J-13.3.7 | 8 | Will the FAA provide general virtual server specs or server workload type (CAD, VDI, web servers, database servers, etc.) so that non-incumbent Offerors can reasonably provide our approach to operate, maintain, and house the NDE, as well as generate accurate cost estimates associated with the NISC IV NDE requirements? | No, this is a development environment, therefore the FAA cannot know what the future workload types will be. The requirement is a virtual server / storage area network environment that can support up to 300 virtual servers at any given time, with an availability of 95% or greater during business hours. It is up to the Offeror to design the solution that meets or exceeds those basic requirements. As mentioned in C.4.7.1.1, the FAA will fund the NISC Development Environment, therefore any costs associated with an extraordinary requirment from a given Task Order will be absorbed by the FAA. | |
| 50 | F | F.5 | 4 | Section F.5.1 states, “At a minimum, the Contractor must establish a Program Management Office at a facility within three quarters (¾) of a mile of FAA Headquarters in Washington, D.C and which is accessible by Metro Rail.” Further, Section H.21.3 states, “Only limited office space may be available for NISC Contractor personnel at FAA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Therefore, the Contractor must secure office space within three-quarters (¾) of a mile of FAA Headquarters and which is readily accessible to the Metro. During execution of the contract, the Contractor must be prepared to supply office space adequate to accommodate all Contractor/subcontractor support personnel designated to support FAA Headquarters.” The required proximity of “within three-quarters (¾) of a mile of FAA Headquarters” seems overly prescriptive when considering: (1) the notable cost for sizeable office space in the prescribed area within ¾ mile of FAA HQ; and (2) the sparseness of available space in close proximity to the FAA HQ. Offerors recognize the value of having an office near FAA HQ, but we recommend that the FAA loosen the tight constraint of “within 3/4” mile of FAA HQ” to a still reasonable distance of “within 1.5 miles of FAA HQ” (this approach would provide relief on both the cost and space constraints incurred under the ¾ mile requirement). | The subject distance will be revised |
to 1.5 miles. This will be updated in a forthcoming amendment to the SIR.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .