2024.01.29 SIR Q&As.pdf

SIR 693KA9-24-R-00005 ATEPSII SIR Questions and Answers Matrix

# Question SIR Section Section Name Section Number Page Number FAA Response

229 During our review of the Final SIR attachments, we noticed that in Attachment J-10, Column F, titled “Substitutions” is minimized. Please confirm that Offerors are allowed to use these criteria to substitute for the related labor category. We request the FAA consider the following as justification to allow for these substitutions.

• Recent FAA procurements, Systems Engineering & Technical Innovative Solutions (SETIS) and Program Support Services (PSS), both have similar labor categories to ATEPS II and allowed for degree/experience substitutions.

• In 2020, the President issued Executive Order 13932 on Modernizing and Reforming the Assessment and Hiring of Federal Job Candidates. EO 13932 expands the use of valid, competency-based assessments and narrow the use of educational qualifications in the Federal hiring process. While we recognize that EO 13932 does not apply to Federal contractors, it does state that "Employers adopting skills- and competency-based hiring recognize that an overreliance on college degrees excludes capable candidates and undermines labor-market efficiencies. Degree-based hiring is especially likely to exclude qualified candidates for jobs related to emerging technologies and those with weak connections between educational attainment and the skills or competencies required to perform them."

Allowing for substitutions of experience in lieu of education furthers the goals of EO 13932 and aligns with recent FAA solicitation provisions resulting in a highly qualified pipeline of personnel able to deliver on the requirements of ATEPS II and AJM’s missions.

Attachment J- 10_Labor Categories

(LCAT) and Skills Level Description

Substitutions Column F N/A FAA will accept substitutions. Refer to revised Attachment J-10, Column F in Amendment 0002.

230 The Government States that "Proposed team members may submit cost volumes directly to the CO, following these same instructions. If a team member submits directly to the CO via 9-AFN-ACQ-ATEPSII@faa.gov it must identify the Prime Offeror on the proposal submitted."

However, Section I Clause 3.2.2.3-38 states that the FAA does not require submission of certified cost or pricing data. Additionally, in answers to the draft Q&A the Government states that "the FAA will only evaluate Prime Offeror rates" in response to Draft SIR question #72.

Given that certified cost or pricing data is not applicable to this SIR and the FAA will only evaluate Prime Offeror pricing, please confirm that the FAA does not require cost volumes from subcontractors to be included in the Prime offerors' submission package or to be submitted directly to the Government by the subcontractor. Furthermore, we recommend removing language around such in the SIR to avoid confusion.

Section L Section 1 - Price Proposal Narrative

L.10.7 187 With respect to AMS Clause 3.2.2.3-38, Alternate II, certified cost or pricing data is not required, however, for pricing purposes, data other than certified cost or pricing data is required. Such data may include the identical types of data as certified cost or pricing data, but without the certification. This includes price proposal information required by Section L of the SIR.

See Amendment 0002 for updated language to Section L.10.7.

231 In Section H, AMS 3.8.2-17 Key Personnel and Facilities (July 2019) the Government designates “Task Lead for each Functional Task Area” to be Key Personnel for ATEPS II and states:

(e) All personnel considered to be “Key” must be specifically designated as such in the executed contract with the exception of the Task Order Manager(s). The Task Order Manager(s) and Task Leads may be designated at the TO level and may be used across multiple TOs and tasks.

(f) The responsibilities of each position are summarized in Attachment J-10, Labor Categories (LCAT) and Skills Level Description. All Key Personnel must meet or exceed the minimum qualifications as defined in Attachment J-10.

Also, in Section M.5.3.2.2 Subfactor 2.2 Skill Mix of Key Personnel, the evaluation of Key Personnel will be based on:

(a) The degree to which the proposed Key Personnel possess the skills, knowledge, and relevant experience, as demonstrated by their education, background, domain knowledge, and capability, in each relevant Section C.4 Functional Task Area for which the proposal is submitted.

(b) The degree to which the proposed Key Personnel are available and committed to the ATEPS II program.

(c) The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed Key Personnel are suitably qualified, as demonstrated by their education, background, domain knowledge, capability, and availability, to accomplish the SOW requirements.

To ensure all Offerors are responsive to the Government’s requirements, we request that the Government provide:

(A) In relation to AMS 3.8.2-17 (e) and M.5.3.2.2(b), (c), is it the Government’s expectation that each of the Task Area Leads will be specified by name as Key Personnel in the resultant contract? If yes, given that there is a commitment for the first 12 months of the contract for all personnel submitted with the offer and determined to be acceptable at award, per AMS 3.8.2-22 Substitution or Addition of Personnel 2(a), what are the Government’s requirements for:

(B) - Please define the Government’s requirement for the Task Area Leads commitment to the ATEPS II program?

(C)- Are the Task Area Leads directly billable resources to the contract or are they to be considered Indirect resources per C.2.2.2?

(D)- If they are considered Indirect resources, what allocation of time for each Task Area Lead to the ATEPS II program should offers include?

For AMS 3.8.2-17 (f) and M.5.3.2.2 (c), the responsibilities of the Task Area Leads are not clearly described in Attachment J-10 as there is no LCAT titled “Task Area Lead”.

(E) Would the Government please specify which LCAT is to be used for the Task Area Lead positions.

(F)- If the Government requires each offeror to select their own LCAT for the positions, please provide the expectations / requirements for the Task Area Lead positions to allow the offerors to select an appropriate LCAT, as the roles / responsibilities are not defined in the SIR.

Section H

Section M

Key Personnel and Facilities (July 2019)

Subfactor 2.2 Skill Mix of Key Personnel

AMS 3.8.2-17

M.5.3.2.2

(A) Task Area Leads will be specified by name as Key Personnel in the resultant contract.

(B) Commitment would be for the first 12 months of the contract as specified in AMS 3.8.2-17.

(C) This is a business decision of the Offerors and at the Offerors discretion to determine how to handle its resources to meet FAA requirements.

(D) The amount of time allocated to key personnel labor categories is up to the discretion of the Offeror.

(E) This is up to the Offeror based on their proposed approach.

(F) This is up to the Offeror based on their proposed approach.

232 The referenced 1/22/24 Q&A release date is only 12 working days from the 2/8/24 proposal due date. Will the FAA consider an earlier response to Q&A to allow offerors a minimum of 3 weeks to make proposal revisions from clarified or changed SIR requirements?

L, Instructions Questions from Offerors

L.4.1 (a) 170 The FAA has revised the proposal due date from February 8, 2024 to February 15, 2024 to allow offerors additional time to make revisions to their proposal submissions; Refer to Amendment 0002.

Subject: SIR No. 693KA9-24-R-00005

Subject: SIR No. 693KA9-24-R-00005

233 Section L.10.4.2 Subfactor 2.2 specifies that Offerors are limited to a total of 25 key personnel resumes while Section H, Page 76 Section AMS 3.8.2-17 Part D indicates the following key personnel must be designated in the proposal: PM, DPM, Business/Finance Manager, and Task Lead for each Functional Task Area being proposed by the respective offeror. Is the SB and SDB resume limit less than 25 given the fewer number of functional task areas being proposed (i.e., SB offerors are limited to 5 key personnel resumes (3 managers + 2 functional task area leads))?

L, Staffing Approach H Key Personnel

Skill Mix of Key Personnel; Key

Personnel and Facilities

L.10.4.2, Subfactor

2.2; H AMS 3.8.2-

17, Part D

The resume limit for Small Businesses and SDBs is 25. See Amendment 0002 for a revised Table L.9.

234 SIR language in L.10.6.1 states: ”The proposal must cite and describe a minimum of three (3) for functional task areas C.4.1 to C.4.20 and up to three (3) for each functional task areas C.4.21 to C.4.25, previous or on-going contracts (Government or non-Government) that are:…” The wording is unclear since SB offeror proposals must address two functional task areas (C.4.21 and C.4.22) while SDB offeror proposals address only one functional task area.

Additionally, a conflict exists with the L 10.6.1 statement: “Prime and subcontractor past performance descriptions total must not exceed five (5) submissions in total” Is it the FAA’s intent that SB offerors provide up to three Past Performance contract references for C.4.21 and up to three Past Performance contract references for C.4.22 or up to three Past Performance contract references for the two functional task areas combined (i.e., a maximum of three past performance contract references for the SB proposal submission)? Does the statement regarding not exceeding five (5) submissions apply to SB and SDB offerors?

L, Past Performance Past Performance Narrative

L.10.6.1 186 There is a minimum of three and a maximimum of five past performance submissions for all offerors. See Amendment 0002 which updates Section L.10.6.1 to clarify the maximum number of Past Performance submissions required for task areas functional task areas.

235 The following SIR language limits Past Performance references to Prime only: “Volume 6 Past Performance submission requires the Offeror’s (i.e., Prime) experience only…” This language appears to conflict with the last statement of L.10.6.1 page 186 “Prime and subcontractor past performance descriptions total must not exceed five (5) submissions in total” which allows subcontractor past performance to be included.

Will the FAA delete this reference to Prime only experience and amend the SIR?

L, Past Performance Past Performance L.10.6;

L.10.6.1

Section L.10.6 refers to an Offerors past performance as a subcontractor,; See Amendment 0002 for updated language.

Section L.10.6.1 refers to submission of past performance for major subcontractors that will be working with the Offeror/Prime.

236 The following SIR statement creates inconsistencies in the value of Past Performance references allowed for submission. “… or major subcontractor in relation to the specific functional task area(s) in Section C.4 under which they are proposing. For purposes of this SIR, a major subcontractor is defined as performing at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the contract total labor dollars.” Using this % threshold may retain small dollar past performance references that meet the % threshold while arbitrarily eliminating references that are larger in size but do not meet the % threshold (e.g., $5M subcontract on a $20M prime contract qualifies but a $15M subcontract on a $100M prime contract does not). This condition is prevalent on FAA’s numerous large IDIQ SETA contracts. Additionally, subcontractors and, in turn, FAA may not have contract visibility to calculate and confirm subcontract values relative to the prime contract’s total labor dollars. We request that the reference to a “Major Subcontractor as defined by % of contract total labor dollars” be removed.

L, Past Performance Past Performance L.10.6 186 The definition of Major Subcontractor remains unchanged.

237 SIR L.10.6.1 requires: “The narrative to describe the objectives achieved and detail how the effort demonstrates breadth and depth of NAS-relevant experience in each of the Core Capabilities”, however M.5.4.1 does not include Core Capabilities in the evaluation. Will the FAA amend Section M evaluation language to include the Core Capabilities required in Section L?

L, M Past Performance Evaluation

Past Performance Narrative

L.10.6.1 Subfactor

4.1 & M.5.4.1

186; 205 See Amendment 0002 for updated language at L.10.6.1 and M.5.4.1.

238 SIR M.5.4.2. part (a) appears to be in conflict with Section L.10.6.1 instructions as Section L instructs offerors to include the Core Capabilities in the Past Performance Narrative while the Evaluation is to occur on the Past Performance Surveys/CPARs. Is it correct to assume that the Core Capabilities are to be addressed in the past performance narrative and that Core Capabilities will be part of the Subfactor 4.1 evaluation?

M, Past Performance Eval Factor

Past Performance Customer Surveys

Subfactor M.5.4.2 205 Core capablilities are to be addressed in the past performance narrative and are part of Subfactor 4.1 Evaluation Factor. See SIR revisions at L.10.6.1, M.5.4.1 and M.5.4.2.

239 There is an inconsistency in the SIR regarding the Quality Management Plan (QMP). Section C.2.10.1 instructs offerors to submit the QMP with the proposal.

The CDRL list has C-0008 – Quality Management Plan due 15 days after contract award. The QMP is not mentioned in Section L or M. Is the QMP to be submitted only post award?

C, SOW Quality Assurance/Quality

Control

C.2.10.1 21 The QMP is due within 45 days after contract award as outlined in Table F.4.4;. See Amendment 0002 which revises Section C.2.10.1.

240 Amendment 1 was issued updating the NAICS from 541330 to 541330 (Exception) Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons. What Military and/or Aerospace Equipment and/or Military Weapons does FAA anticipate procuring through the ATEPS II SB contract with scope limited to two functional task areas?

L.2, AMS Provisions AMS 3.6.1-17 North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS)

Code (October 2022)

164 NAICS Code 541330 (Exception 1) refers to Engineering Services for Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons. NAICS Code 541330 (Exception 1) represents the predominant portion of the overall requirement.

241 Amendment 1 was issued updating the NAICS from 541330 to 541330 (Exception) Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons and increased the sized standard to $47M. ATEPS I SB was originally issued at $17M size standard. Changing to a significantly larger size standard is inconsistent with the very narrow scope of the SB functional task areas and unduly favors the incumbent contractor. We request FAA reverse this NAICS code change, broaden the scope of SB functional task areas to include technical PWS elements commensurate with the size standard, or make the SB track multiple award with adequate time for offerors to reevaluate bid decisions after Q&A has been released.

L.2, AMS Provisions AMS 3.6.1-17 North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS)

Code (October 2022)

164 Industry was notified via draft SIR documents that NAICS Code 541330 (Exception 1) represented the predominant portion of the overall requirement. This was inadvertently changed in the posted final SIR.

Amendment 0001 was issued to correct the NAICS Code to 541330 (Exception 1) as originally intended.

Subject: SIR No. 693KA9-24-R-00005

242 Are all listed labor categories and levels required to perform the tasks listed in functional areas C.4.21 Strategic Planning Support and C.4.22 Management Development and Integration (and therefore required to be priced)? Or just the ones with estimated hours? There are no hours in the “Contractor Site Program Hours” for any Strategic Planner level. What is the estimated level of effort for each level for each year? There are estimated hours for Management Development/Leadership Consultant for Levels II and III. What is the estimated level of effort for Levels I, IV, and V for each year?

Pricing Bid Model Attachment L -2B Small Business

Proposal Bid Model (20231115).xlsm

Contractor Site Program Hour Tab

Offerors must include proposed labor rate for all labor categories, including those without hours. Labor categories identified without hours may be needed to meet future needs within the contract scope of work. As stated in Section M.5.5.1, "Labor rates for labor categories without hours, to include non-Contractor site rates, will be evaluated for reasonableness but not included in the TEP calculation." The hours provided are the Government's anticipated LOE.

243 The Minimum Degree Requirements for the Management Development/Leadership Consultant include ICF certification (ACC or higher) or equivalent as a required element for all levels. The majority of the work listed in C.4.22 Management Development and Integration does not require facilitation services.

Would the government consider removing that requirement?

Attachment J-10 Labor Categories (LCAT) and Skills Level Description

(1123).xlsx

Min. Degree Requirements

Column D Amendment 0002 revises Attachment J-10 to state for this category:

"Candidate certification must be obtained within 6 months of award, or in the case of new employees, from the date of onboarding."

244 Amendment #1 updates the NAICS identified from 541330 to 541330 (Exception) Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons. As a result of this change, the small business size standard for this procurement is updated from $25.5 to $47M. Can the government please clarify why this change has been implemented post SIR release given the fact that there are several capable small businesses under the $25m threshold?

Amendment 1 Industry was notified via draft SIR documents that NAICS Code 541330 (Exception 1) represented the predominant portion of the overall requirement. This was inadvertently changed in the posted final SIR.

Amendment 0001 was issued to correct the NAICS Code to 541330 (Exception 1) as originally intended.

245 Would the government please consider removing Amendment #1 especially given the emphasis by DOT and FAA on the utilization of emerging small businesses?

Amendment 1 The requirement will remain as stated.

246 Table L.9 Proposal Submission Requirements, Volume 7 - Proposal Proposal Row, Content/Format column includes "Section 3 – Financial Capability."

L.10.1.8, Section 8 - Information Regarding Financial Capability instructs Offerors to provide financial information in Volume 1 - Other Proposal Documentation. However, Table L.9, Volume 1 Other Proposal Documentation Row, Content/Format column does not reference Section 8.

Recommend updating Table L.9 by adding "Section 8 - Information Regarding Financial Capability" to Volume 1 and removing "Section 3 – Financial Capability" Volume 7.

L Section 8 - Information Regarding Financial

Capability

L.10.1.8 Information Regarding Financial Capability

See Amendment 0002 which clarifies the submission requirements for Volumes 1 and 7. As a result, Table L.9 and L.10.1; L.10.7; M.4; and M.5.1. are also revised in Amendment 0002.

247 L.10.7.2(d)(4) states, “Each Offeror must assume a contract start date as identified in Section L.3.2, Projected Acquisition Schedule.”

Section L.3.2, Table L.3.2 references award dates and does not provide a contract start date.

Will the Government provide a projected start date for Offerors to assume in proposals?

L Section 2 - Price Proposal Bid Model

L.10.7.2(d)(4) 190 See Amendment 2 for updated information.

248 M.3.5 Responsibility Determination references Section L.10 but does not provide clear guidance to a specific section.

M.5.1 Volume 1 – Other Proposal Documentation does not include evaluation criteria specific to L.10.1.8 Volume 1 - Section 8 - Information Regarding Financial Capability.

Volume 2 – Go/No-Go Documentation, M.5.2.1, Section 1, Size, item (b) states, "Whether or not the Offeror has a reservation of funds in their financial management system to sustain up to 90 calendar days of an average monthly burn rate." This information is to be provided in Volume 1 - Section 8 according to L.10.1.8

Please clarify how Volume 1 - Section 8 [L.10.1.8] will be evaluated in relation to M.3.5 and M.5.2.1.

L

M

Volume 1 - Section 8 - Information Regarding

Financial Capability

Responsibility Determination

Volume 1 – Other Proposal

Documentation

M.5.2.1, Section 1, Size

L.10.1.8

M.3.5

M.5.1

M.5.2.1(b)

See Amendment 0002 which clarifies the submission requirements for Volumes 1 and 7. As a result, Table L.9 and L.10.1; L.10.7; M.4; and M.5.1. are also revised in Amendment 0002.

Volume 1 - Section 9 [L.10.1.9], Financial Capability, will be evaluated as detailed in Section M.3.5, Responsibility Determination.

Offerors proposing on Unrestricted Functional Areas must respond and submit Volume 2, Attachment L-3 Go/No-Go Documentation, and include reference to proposal section which addresses the question. As stated in Section M.5.2, Offerors will receive a "Go" if the response is "Yes" to each factor of Volume 2 and the required documentation and/or supporting information is submitted.

249 L.10.6.2 states, "...The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that its past performance customer surveys and/or CPARS performance assessments are submitted in a timely fashion."

Table L.9, content/format column references, “- Subfactor 4.2 – Past Performance Customer Surveys and/or CPARS Performance Assessments”

Section L.10.6.2 and Table L.9 both state "and/or" when referencing customer surveys and CPARS performance assessments.

Please confirm that Offerors are only required to provide Attachment L-1, Past Performance Customer Surveys for non-Government contract references or when a CPARS performance assessment is not available in the CPARS system.

L

Table L.9

Subfactor 4.2 - Past Performance Customer

Surveys and CPARS Performance Assessments

Proposal Submission Requirements

L.10.6.2 187

Offeror's are required to submit either an Attachment L-1, Past Performance Customer Survey, or a CPARS performance assessment, or a combination of Attachment L-1/CPARS. See revised L.10.6.2 in Amendment 0002.

250 The Government specifies 11x14 as a page size for charts, graphs, tables, figures and pictures. 11 x 14 is not a standard page size.

Was the government meaning to specify 11x17 as the page size?

L Proposal Formatting L.9.1(a) 176 The correct page size is 8.5 x 14 inches, see Amendment 0002 which corrects the requirement.

Subject: SIR No. 693KA9-24-R-00005

251 In M.5.3.1.1, the Government's evaluation criteria states:

"(a) The degree to which the Offeror demonstrates their breadth and depth of knowledge in the proposed ATEPS II Functional Task Areas, and their detailed sub-elements, as described in Section C.4.

(b) The effectiveness and efficiency to which the Offeror demonstrates their familiarity with, and ability to apply, Core Capabilities (Section C.3) to the proposed ATEPS II Functional Task Areas scope of work required under Section C.4."

In Section L.10.3.1 Subfactor 1.1 Functional Task Areas, the Governments instructions state:

"Breadth refers to the extent that the Offeror or members of its team exhibit knowledge or experience with the range of functional task areas for which they are bidding as Prime. Depth refers to the amount of knowledge or experience the Offeror or members of its team exhibit within an individual functional task area."

As noted in Section L.9.1(k), "Offer" refers to the entity submitting the proposal and "team" refers to the Offeror and it's proposed subcontractor(s).

Will the Government please clarify if their intent is to evaluate just the Offeror in M.5.3.1.1 or if the evaluation will be based on the "team".

M Subfactor 1.1 Functional Task Areas

M.5.3.1.1 201 See Amendment 0002 for updated language at L.10.1.6, M.4, and M.5.1.6.

252 Table L.1: Provisions Incorporated by Reference, last row, "Pre-Award On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Review (July 2023)" includes an incorrect number.

Please confirm this should change from "3.2.6-7" to "3.6.2-7"

L AMS 3.1-1 Clauses and Provisions Incorporated by Reference (July 2019)

L.1 162 The correct citation is 3.6.2-7 Pre-Award On-Site Equal Opportunity Compliance Review (July 2023); see Amendment 0002 for corrected citation.

253 The FAA included AMS 3.6.1-7 Limitations on Subcontracting. Please confirm this clause applies only to offerors submitting a response to the set aside portions of this SIR.

I AMS 3.1-1 Clauses and Provisions Incorporated

By Reference

I.1 AMS 3.6.1-7 93 This clause is only applicable to the set-aside portions of the SIR.

254 For the "Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Specialist" LCAT, the Government provides a description of "Provides expertise in the operation of unmanned aircraft. Technical knowledge and experience with UAS operations to facilitate their integration safely and efficiently into the NAS - without reducing existing capacity, decreasing safety, negatively impacting current operators, or increasing the risk to airspace users or persons and property on the ground any more than the integration of comparable new and novel technologies."

This description in combination with the Functional Area Task description in C.4.11 appear to be of a somewhat technical nature, but also involves a high degree of UAS operations and policy, rulemaking, standards, communications, and other non-technical efforts.

Based on the broader set of requirements and tasks for this role, the Electronic Engineering degree requirement seems overly restrictive and significantly limits the candidate pool for these roles. We request that the Government review the education requirements for this LCAT and revise to a more generic (e.g., Bachelors in any field with relevant years of experience) or expand on the acceptable engineering degrees for this

LCAT.

J

C

Attachment J-10_Labor Categories (LCAT) and

Skills Level Description (1123)

Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and

Emerging Technologies Support

J-10

C.4.11

N/A

Refer to Column F for Substitution requirements. Also, per Attachment J-10 it is anticipated that multiple LCATS will be used to fulfill all Functional Task Areas. See Amendment 0002 which incorporates updated Attachment J-10.

255 Section L.10.6 Factor 4 Past Performance – Volume 6, 2nd paragraph states “Volume 6 Past Performance submission requires the Offeror’s (i.e., Prime) experience only and not any of its team members’ experience. Subcontractor past performance submissions may be submitted to show the maximum relevance to the applicable Section C.4, Functional Task Areas.” However in section L.10.6.1 at the top of page 187 it states “At least one past performance reference must be from the Prime and at least one must be from a major subcontractor, if applicable.” Page 185 says subcontractor past performance “may be” submitted and page 187 states one for a subcontractor “must be” submitted. Will the FAA clarify whether or not a subcontractor past performance must be submitted or may be submitted?

L Instructions, Conditions, and

Notices to Offerors

L.10.6 185 and 187 An Offeror "may" submit past performance information for work they performed as a subcontractor; and "must" submit past performance information for major subcontractors that will be working with them. See Amendment 0002 for updated language in Section L.10.6.

256 Section L.10.6.2 Subfactor 4.2 – Past Performance Customer Surveys and CPARS Performance states “The Offeror must complete Part A of Attachment L- 1, Past Performance Customer Surveys for each cited contract in accordance with the instructions included therein. For the purposes of past performance customer surveys, a customer is defined as the CO, COR, or PM of the referenced contract. The Offeror must provide Attachment L-1, with the completed Part A, to their selected customer point of contact (POC), who will complete Parts B and C. The customer POC must return the completed survey via e-mail to 9-AFN-ACQ-ATEPSII@faa.gov no later than the date and time established in this SIR for receipt of proposals. The subject line must read "Past Performance Offeror’s Name for SIR # 693KA9-24-R-00005 " to be included in the Offeror’s response. The email submission must be sent from the corporate e-mail address of the point-of-contact. The Offeror must submit applicable recent and relevant CPARS performance assessments printed from the CPARS system as part of its proposal submission.” Question 63 of the Q&As the FAA provided on 13 July 2023 states “The FAA will adjust the final SIR to allow for the submission of Past Performance Customer Surveys and/or CPARS Performance Assessments. As written, both Past Performance Customer Surveys and CPARS Performance Assessment are required to be submitted. Will the FAA please clarify?

L Instructions, Conditions, and

Notices to Offerors

L.10.6.2 187 See Amendment 0002 for updated language at L.10.6.2.

Subject: SIR No. 693KA9-24-R-00005

257 Section M.5.4.2 states that customer surveys/CPARS assessments will be assessed a confidence rating based on “(a) The degree to which the Prime Offeror demonstrates their experience only (i.e., not any of its team members’ experience) in leading and managing a team to provide solutions similar to the proposed Functional Task Area(s) (C.4) and relevant Core Capabilities (C.3).

(b) If submitted, the degree to which subcontractor past performance demonstrates the team’s maximum relevance of experience in the proposed Section C.4 Functional Task Area(s).

As Attachment L-1, “Past Performance Customer Survey” provides very little room for detailing such experience, and CPARS does not necessarily allow offerors to provide experience descriptions tailored to ATEPS II Functional Task Areas and Core Capabilities, we recommend moving evaluation criteria a and b up to M.5.4.1 Subfactor 4.1 Past Performance Narrative, where the offerors can more appropriately address these evaluation criteria. Additionally, we recommend changing Subfactor 4.2 to evaluate service quality, schedule, cost control, and sound management as required by Attachment L-1 Past Performance Customer Survey and the CPARS Performance Assessment.

Section M Subfactor 4.2 Past Performance Customer Surveys and/or CPARS

Performance Assessments

M.5.4.2 205 This requirement remains unchanged.

258 Section B.1 states that requirements will be “incrementally requested and authorized in the form of individually issued task orders”.

M.5.3.3.2, item (a) requires offerors to provide a schedule that will result “in a single day cutover of support services from the existing ATEPS I contract.”

As these two sections seem to be in conflict, as Section B indicates TOs will be transitioned incrementally, while Section M indicates all TOs will transition at once, can the government please clarify whether transition will be incremental or a one-day cutover.

Section B

Section M

General

Subfactor 3.2 Transition Approach

B.1

M.5.3.3.2

Section B.1 is not linked to Section M.5.3.3.2. See Amendment 0002 which updates language in Section M.5.3.3.2 to remove the conflict for the single day cutover.

259 M.5.3.2.2 (a) states that key personnel will be evaluated on the degree to which they “possess the skills, knowledge, and relevant experience… in each relevant Section C.4 Functional Task Area”.

Section H.2 states that key personnel are the Contract Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, Task Order Manager, Business or Financial Manager, and Task Lead for each Functional Area.

What Key Personnel are required if an offeror is only bidding one Functional Area (e.g. BAM).

Section M

Section H

Subfactor 2.2 Skill Mix of Key Personnel

AMS 3.8.2-17 Key Personnel and Facilities

M.5.3.2.2

H.2

Key Personnel need to be identified for all roles; however, its at the Offerors discretion as to how it proposes to meet FAA requirements.

260 Will the Government clarify whether “Volume” should be spelled out in the name structure? For example:

Offeror Name-ATEPS II-Vol #-Vol Name Offeror Name-ATEPS II-Volume #-Vol Name

Section L Proposal Submission and Delivery

Requirements and Proposal Formatting

L.9 L.9.g

Either is acceptable.

261 Will the Government clarify why the page count differs by the size of the company even though the Volume requirements are the same regardless of company size for the Management Approach? Specifically, an unrestricted bidder has 30 pages to write to the five subfactors, while a small business or small disadvantaged business only has 10.

Section L Proposal Submission and Delivery

Requirements\

L.9 175 Page limits reflect the number of functional task areas that must be addressed under Unrestricted, SDB and Small Business.

262 In the final RFP, the Financial Capability requirements were moved to Volume 1 (L.10.1.8). However in Proposal Submission (L.9) and Evaluation Criteria (M.4), the Financial Capability is still also listed in Volume 7 (Pricing).

Will the government please clarify where this information should be provided?

Section L Proposal Submission and Delivery Requirements

L.9, L.10.1.8 176

See Amendment 0002 which clarifies the submission requirements for Volumes 1 and 7. As a result, Table L.9 and L.10.1; L.10.7; M.4; and M.5.1. are also revised in Amendment 0002.

263 The Task Lead for each Functional Task Area is listed as key personnel. However, the Labor Category is not listed in J-1 or J-10.

Is it the governments intent for the offeror to determine the LCAT for the Task Lead based on their staffing solution?

Section H AMS 3.8.2-17 Key Personnel and Facilities

(d) and (e) 77 It is the Governments intent for the Offeror to determine the appropriate LCAT for the Task Lead based on its staffing solution.

264 The Contractor must provide a Quality Management Plan (QMP) pursuant to Section C.10.1.

Will the Government revise the Section reference to C.2.10.1?

Section F Finalized Quality Management Plan

F.4.4.9 60 See Amendment 0002 which corrects Table F.4.4 and Section F.4.4.9, Finalized Quality Management Plan (QMP), to reference "Section C.2.10.1."

265 Factor 4 Past Performance – Volume 6 Volume 6 Past Performance submission requires the Offeror’s (i.e., Prime) experience only and not any of its team members’ experience. Subcontractor past performance submissions may be submitted to show the maximum relevance to the applicable Section C.4, Functional Task Areas.

Will the government confirm that offerors can use past performances from subcontractors to show maximum relevance to the applicable Section C.4, Functional Task Areas?

Section L Factor 4 Past Performance – Volume

Subfactor 4.1 - Past Performance Narrative

L.10.6

L.10.6.1

185 - 187 Section L.10.6 refers to an Offerors past performance as a subcontractor, see Amendment 0002 for updated language.

Section L.10.6.1 refers to submission of past performance for major subcontractors that will be working with the Offeror/Prime.

Subject: SIR No. 693KA9-24-R-00005

266 The RFP in L.10.6.1 defines relevance as scope and complexity. Section M.5.4 defines relevance as, “Having similar scope, size (magnitude of effort) and complexity to the requirements of this SIR.”

Will the government please clarify if size is a factor of relevance?

If so, is there a minimum size required for a project to be used as a past performance reference?

Section L

Section M

Subfactor 4.1 - Past Performance Narrative

Factor 4 Past Performance

L.10.6.1

M.5.4

186-187

Size is a factor of relevance. See Amendment 0002 for updated language at L.10.6.1 and M.5.4.

267 In L.10.6.1 Subfactor 4.1, the RFP states, “The narrative must describe the objectives achieved and detail how the effort demonstrates breadth and depth of NAS-relevant experience in each of the Core Capabilities.”

Is it the government's intent that this should read, “…depth of NAS-relevant experience in Functional Area relevant Core Capabilities.

Section L Subfactor 4.1 - Past Performance Narrative

L.10.6.1 186-187 See Amendment 0002 for updated language at L.10.6.1.

268 In L.10.6.2 Subfactor 4.2 - Past Performance Customer Surveys and CPARS Performance Assessments, it states, " The Offeror must complete Part A of Attachment L-1, Past Performance Customer Surveys foreach cited contract in accordance with the instructions included therein.” Additionally, it states, “The Offeror must submit applicable recent and relevant CPARS performance assessments printed from the CPARS system as part of its proposal submission.” Lastly, it states, “The Offeror is responsible for ensuring that its past performance customer surveys and/or CPARS performance assessments are submitted in a timely fashion.”

Will the government please clarify if both Attachment L-1 and CPARS are required for cited contracts?

Section L Subfactor 4.2 - Past Performance Customer

Surveys and CPARS Performance Assessments

L.10.6.2 187 Offeror's are required to submit either an Attachment L-1, Past Performance Customer Survey, or a CPARS performance assessment, or a combination of Attachment L-1/CPARS. See Amendment 0002 for updated Section L.10.6.2.

269 Please clarify which LCATs in Attachment J-10 should be used for “Business or Financial Manager” and “Task Lead” (Key Personnel)? H AMS 3.8.2-17 Key Personnel and Facilities

H.2 77 The Offeror must determine the appropriate LCAT for the Business or Financial Manager and Task Lead based on their proposed staffing solution. See Amendment 0002 for revisions to AMS 3.8.2-17.

270 Are both the Title and LCAT required under “Professional Experience” in the resume template? J Attachment J-11 N/A N/A See Amendment 0002 with revised Attachment J-11, Resume Template.

271 What is the cut-off date for being able to qualify as an SDB? Does SDB status need to be active by the RFP release date, proposal due date, or the contract award date?

L Number of Awards L.7.c 171 In accordance with Section L.10.1.3 of the SIR, all Small Businesses and Small Disadvantaged Businesses submitting proposal responses to the respective set aside requirements must ensure that representations and certifications are complete in SAM.gov prior to proposal submission reflecting the Offeror current self-certified size status. Assessment of a small business’s eligibility for the set aside requirements will be made at the time of proposal submission; therefore, all certifications must be complete at that time to be considered eligible for award.

272 Table L.9, Volume 4 – Is there a minimum number of resumes for the Small and SDB set-asides? L Proposal Submission and Delivery Requirements

L.9 175 Key Personnel resumes do not have a minimum limit, however, there is a maximum limit of no more than 25 resumes. See revised Table L.9 in Amendment 0002.

273 Section L.9.1(g) states, “Volume 7 must include files in Excel compatible format.” Can Volume 7, Section 1 “Price Proposal Narrative” be delivered as a pdf document?

L Proposal Formatting L.9.1 177 In accordance with Section L.9.1, the price narrative must be submitted as .pdf document. See revised L.9.1(g) in Amendment 0002.

274 Please clarify the following statement: “Volume 6 Past Performance submission requires the Offeror’s (i.e., Prime) experience only and not any of its team members’ experience. Subcontractor past performance submissions may be submitted to show the maximum relevance to the applicable Section C.4, Functional Task Areas.” Does subcontractor refer to the Prime’s previous experience as a sub, or does it refer to a subcontractor for this solicitation?

L Past Performance L.10.6 185 Section L.10.6 refers to an Prime Offeror's past performance as a subcontractor, see Amendment 0002 for updated language.

275 Can you clarify the 25% rule, particularly as it pertains to SDBs submitting a past performance for contracts for which they were a subcontractor? L Past Performance L.10.6 186 As stated in Section L.10.6, "For purposes of this SIR, a major subcontractor is defined as performing at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the contract total labor dollars." This requirement is not changed based on a company's size status.

276 L.10.7.1 (a)(3) states, “If indirect rates are based on a forward pricing rate proposal (FPRP), forward pricing rate recommendation (FPRR), or a forward pricing rate agreement (FPRA), the supporting documentation must be included in the narrative.”

We do not have a FPRP, FPRR, or FPRA, and we do not anticipate receiving one prior to the proposal submission due date.

Would the Government confirm if the Government will require supporting documentation pertaining to our indirect cost rate (handling rate)?

If yes, will a SF1408 completed by DCAA be sufficient?

If an SF1408 is insufficient, would the Government provide examples of other supporting documentation that would satisfy this requirement?

L Price Proposal Narrative

L.10.7.1 (a)(3) 188 The Government requires information or explanation supporting the proposed indirect rates if an Offeror does not have a FPRP, FPRR, or FPRA.

An SF1408 is insufficient, as it does not provide the support to meet the requirements at Section L.10.7.1 Section 1 - Price Proposal Narrative Note (a)(3), which states the offeror must provide an "Explanation of all indirect rates - Identify all proposed indirect rates, to include allocation bases, and describe the company’s accounting practices for application of the rates."

Subject: SIR No. 693KA9-24-R-00005

277 Given that Subfactor 3.1 – Team Structure and Technical Experience was moved from Staffing to Volume 5 Management Approach Factor 3 (L.10.5) and that Subfactor 3.2 Transition Approach requires the submission of a draft Transition in Plan (See C.2.3.1), will the government consider increasing the page count for Volume 5 Management Approach to the 45 pages that was previously specified in the ATEPS II draft SIR? Due to the impact of this question on offerors’ responses, we respectfully request an expedited response.

L Proposal Submission and Delivery Requirements

L.9 175 The requirement remains unchanged.

278 Volume 6 Subfactor 4.2 requests Past Performance Customer Surveys and CPARS Performance Assessments. Will the government please clarify if both are required, or if the Customer Surveys are only required if no CPARS are available? Due to the impact of this question on offerors’ responses, we respectfully request an expedited response.

L Past Performance Customer Surveys and CPARS Performance

Assessments

L.10.6.2 187 Offeror's are required to submit either an Attachment L-1, Past Performance Customer Survey, or a CPARS performance assessment, or a combination of Attachment L-1/CPARS. See Amendment 0002 for updated language in Section L.10.6.2.

279 Will the government please confirm that the paper size of 11x14 identified in Section L.9.1 was meant to be the standard 11x17 page size? L Proposal Formatting L.9.1 176 The correct page size is 8.5 x 14 inches, see Amendment 0002, Section L.9.1 for correction.

280 Will the government also confirm that 11x17 fold out pages count as two pages? L Proposal Formatting L.9.1 176 The correct page size is 8.5 x 14 inches and will count as one (1) page. See Amendment 0002 with corrected language.

281 In order to adhere to SIR Section L instructions: All fields in Attachment L-2 requiring Offeror input are highlighted in the color “green.”, would the government permit the offeror to add notes at the bottom of the Government and Contractor Site build up tabs to explain traceability to corporate indirect rates?

L Price Proposal Bid Model

L.10.7 187 Offerors may include details and calculations in Attachment L-2; however, all pricing info must be included in the Price Proposal Narrative per Section L.10.7.1 Section 1.

282 Volume 6 Past Performance has a page limit of no more than 10 pages total. With instructions requiring at least 3 but no more than 5 contract summaries at 2 pages each, will the government please confirm if offerors do not use the max 5 contracts that the 10-page total still applies?

L Subfactor 4.1 Past Performance Narrative

L.10.6.1 186 Per Section L.10.6.1, Past Performance Narratives must not exceed two (2) pages per each submitted reference.

283 For Volume 6 Past Performance, would the government allow for any additional pages within the 10-page total to be used for an introduction within the volume?

L Subfactor 4.1 Past Performance Narrative

L.10.6.1 186 Per Section L.10.6.1, Past Performance Narratives must not exceed two (2) pages per each submitted reference. An introduction should not be included in the Past Performance Narrative Section.

284 Key Personnel identified include a Task Lead for each Functional Task Area. Additionally, the government states: “The Task Order Manager(s) and Task Leads may be designated at the TO level and may be used across multiple TOs and tasks.” Will the government please clarify if the Task Leads may be used across multiple TOs as well as task areas?

H Key Personnel and Facilities

AMS 3.8.2-17 76 As stated in AMS 3.8.2-17, "The Task Order Manager(s) and Task Leads may be designated at the TO level and may be used across multiple TOs and tasks."

285 The Final SIR instructions show the same requirements in different subfactors and volumes. The instruction language asking to show “breadth and depth of knowledge in the ATEPS II functional task areas…” is found in both Volume 3, Subfactors 1.1 and 1.2, as well as in Volume 5, Subfactor 3.1. The wording in these cases is almost exactly the same. Will the government please remove the repetitive instructions that exist in Volume 5, Subfactor 3.1, specifically the sentence that starts with “The proposal must detail the team’s breadth and depth of NAS-relevant experience in relation to the specific functional task area(s) in Section C.4 under which the Offeror is proposing,” as this will be already addressed in Volume 3, Subfactor 1.1? This will ensure offerors aren’t using crucial page space to address requirements already addressed in another volume.

L Factor 1 – Technical Approach

Factor 3 – Management Approach

L.10.3; L.10.5 182; 184 See Amendment 0002 which provides clarifying language in Section L.10.3.1 and L.10.3.2.

286 In the ATEPS II final SIR, Section L.10.5.2 states, “Offerors must provide a proposed schedule that outlines the sequence of activities and milestones, beginning with contract award, that are necessary to accomplish a smooth transition” without any mention of a single day cutover. (Note: The SOW Section C.2.3.1 Transition-In Plan does not include a requirement for a single day cutover.)

Section M.3.3.2 still includes the requirement for the single day cutover stating, “The degree to which the Offeror proposes a detailed and realistic schedule. . . resulting in a single day cutover of support services from the existing ATEPS I contract after a 90-day transition period.

Will the FAA consider changing the Section M.3.3.2 language to align with Section L.10.5.2 and remove the single day cutover language?

L and M Subfactor 3.2 Transition Approach

Subfactor 3.2 Transition Approach

L.10.5.2

M.5.3.3.2

See Amendment 0002 which updates the language in Section M.5.3.3.2 Subfactor 3.2 Transition Approach to correspond with the language in Section L.10.5.2 Subfactor 3.2 - Transition Approach.

287 Table L.9 identifies Volume 7 Price Proposal as requiring Section 3 – Financial Capability. Section L.10.1.8 places the Information Regarding Financial Capability within Other Proposal Documentation – Volume 1. Section L.10.7 does not include a Section 3 as outlined in Table L.9. Section M.4 provides Section 3 – Information Regarding Financial Capability as belonging in Volume 7. Section M.5.1 does not include a section for Information Regarding Financial Capability as indicated in Section L.10.1.8. Will the customer please clarify which volume Information Regarding Financial Capability is requirement for and provide a corrected Section L and M?

L and M Proposal Documentation

Price Proposal

L.10

L.10.7

M.4

180 See Amendment 0002 which clarifies the submission requirements for Volumes 1 and 7. As a result, Table L.9 and L.10.1; L.10.7; M.4; and M.5.1. are also revised in Amendment 0002.

288 Will the government confirm if the provided resume template, Attachment J-11, is required for offerors to use when submitting the Key Personnel resumes with their proposals? If required, will the government allow offerors to modify Attachment J-11 to ensure candidates’ qualifications are explicitly responsive to Section L requirements?

L Attachment J-11

Skill Mix of Key Personnel

L.10.4.2 183 Attachment J-11, Resume Template, is required. Offerors may modify Attachment J-11 while ensuring that all required data is provided and that resume submissions remain within the page limitations. See the revised Attachment J-11 in Amendment 0002.

289 Will the government please clarify the page limit for each resume? L Skill Mix of Key Personnel

L.10.4.2 183 Resume page limit is five (5) pages per resume, see Table L.9 in Amendment 0002 for clarification.

290 The required Attachment L-3 to be completed for Volume 2 Go/No- Go has tables that go beyond 1-inch margins. Since L.9.1 stipulates 1-inch margins on all sides of the document, will the government clarify if these formatting requirements do not apply when using government provided templates; or is it allowable for offerors to modify government provided templates to be compliant with L.9.1 formatting requirement?

L Attachment L-3

Proposal Formatting L.9.1 176 Government provided documents do not need to be reformatted.

Subject: SIR No. 693KA9-24-R-00005

291 Section C.2.3.1 Transition In Plan states in part, “The Transition In Plan must include a detailed schedule denoting all major transition activities… At a minimum, the schedule must include:” followed by a list of seven items that appear to be related to the Transition In Plan in general and not the schedule per se.

Will the government consider changing the sentence to read, “At a minimum, the Transition In Plan must include:”?

C Transition In Plan C.2.3.1 17 See Amendment 0002 which incorporates the requested language. Section C.2.3.1, Transition In plan, updated the language in the last sentence of paragraph 2 to read, "At a minimum, the TIP and schedule must include:"

292 Section L.10.5.3 states, “(6) Approach to task order quality control to include an overall quality management system” with no reference to Section C.2.10.1.

Section C.2.10.1 states, “The Contractor must prepare and submit a Quality Management Plan (QMP)…