Vendor Proposal Questions and FAA Responses.pdf

Vendor Proposal Questions and FAA Responses SIR No. 693KA9-24-R-00009 FAA Workforce Scheduling System

Ref. # SIR Section Question FAA Response

1. L.18

Under the current Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, an Offeror is required to present three relevant past proposals, with two as a prime contractor. However, it's not explicitly stated whether the prime contractor must independently meet this criterion. In this context, would the government consider the relevant prime past performance of a subcontractor, affiliated with the Offeror, as fulfilling part of these requirements?

2. L.18

Specifically, if an Offeror submits one example of their relevant past performance as a prime and another as a subcontractor, along with an example of their subcontractor’s relevant past performance as a prime, would this combination be deemed to satisfy the past performance criteria outlined in section L.18?

3. L.18

Additionally, is there any consideration for revising these requirements to allow small businesses with only one prime contract to qualify as equivalent to those with two, if they have extensive subcontracting experience, thereby acknowledging the expertise and value derived from subcontracting roles and expanding government contract opportunities for small businesses?

No, the past performance experience is for the Offeror, not a subcontractor. Section L.18 Factor 2: Relevant and Recent Experience states that "Offerors must demonstrate its recent and relevant experience in performing the Statement of Work Task requirements," Section L.18 Past Performance includes "Offerors must demonstrate its recent and relevant experience in performing the Statement of Work Task requirements," and "The Offeror must select three (3) contracts/subcontracts identified in its Technical Proposal as having recent and relevant experience.

The Offeror must request one customer reference for each selected contract/subcontract to complete the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment L001)," and "(b) At least two (2) of the Past Performances must be for prime contract work."

No, the past performance experience is for the Offeror not a subcontractor.

No

4.

How does new requirement compare/contrast with current contract?

The requirements of this effort are similar to the incumbent contract.

5.

Is FAA seeking an enterprise solution to implement consistently at all FAA site? If yes, what has prevented realization of this goal to date?

An enterprise solution would apply to all FAA users, at all locations, and may be provided at some point under this procurement. This will depend on the system's acceptance and suitability across the FAA's various user communities. Section B includes pricing for an enterprise solution under “Software Licenses – Enterprise wide” and SOW Section C.5.6 Capacity Requirements define “expansion capability to 40,000 users” which represents the enterprise capacity.

6.

How many sites does the incumbent contract support? How many sites is the new contract expected to support? How many sites are expected if FAA expands to 40K employees? The SIR acquires software licenses for individual users not site locations. Refer to question 5 above.

7.

Does the FAA have an ideal roll-out/implementation plan and schedule for this effort? If so, could you please share? Not available at this time.

8.

What is the anticipated contract award size/budget for this effort?

Section L.16 ACQUISITION MILESTONES projects an award by May 28, 2024. Size/budget data is internal to the FAA and not releasable.

9.

Is the incumbent system operating in a GovCloud environment? Yes

10.

Will the new system need to be FedRamp eligible and operate in GovCloud? Yes

11.

Is there FAA policy related to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the scheduling software? No, there is no such final policy at this time on AI.

12.

Would the use of non-generative AI optimization and automation help achieve FAA's workforce goals?

The FAA would invite any approach/method that would help us to efficiently schedule the workforce, including non-generative

AI.

13. L.18

Do all past performances need to be similar size, or can offerors use the combination of past performances to demonstrate relevance and recency?

Examples of past performance can vary but per Section L.18, past performance examples must meet be relevant - "Relevant is defined as present or past contracts that involved essentially the same scope, complexity, and magnitude of effort as what will be required under the Statement of Work for this SIR."

14. L.18 Will FAA accept and evaluate Subcontractor Past Perfomance? No

15. B.4

Section B labor requirement includes System Design, Test & Evaluation (CLINS 0001AA) and Engineering Services (CLIN 0001AB) for the base period and then shifts to 5 SubCLINs for the option periods. It is unclear whether FAA is requesting 10 FTEs in the base and only 5 in the option periods. Please clarify.

Sub-CLIN 0001AA, System Design, Test & Evaluation is for performance of SOW tasks C.4, C.5 C.6 and C.7.1-3 that are only applicable to the Base Period and not the Option Periods.

Note - the proposal requires hourly billing rates and total hours per L002. They are not FTEs.

16.

Can you clarify whether the document named SIR should be considered as an RFP, with a firm idea of making an award, or is it for refining screening information already gathered a year ago? It is considered an RFP.

17. B.4

CLIN 002 & CLIN 003 does not indicate the effort needed to advance/progress the technical scenario/prototype developed a year ago when the draft SIR requested that such be done, to a real-world ATC Scheduling model or any other FAA worker scheduling situation. Please clarify how a vendor who needs a period of time such as 12 months to advance the prototype to a real-world solution, represents the effort of such a development period?

The Draft SIR did not request any such prototype deliverable.

The SIR's two-year Base Period can accommodate any required System Design, Test & Evaluation.

18.

Our thought reflected in the prior question is further reinforced reading the FAA technology plan/literature from FAA Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan 2023-2032, wherein FAA says it intends to continue improving upon the current situation. This is understandable, and we appreciate that direction. However, we believe an incumbent awardee needs to apply certain mathematical Optimization capabilities to automatically address break structures and several other necessary aspects that appear to be missing in the OPAS/ATOM schedules. Is there an opportunity to involve a subcontractor with clearly demonstrated optimization capabilities in the context of complex staff scheduling?

Any such opportunities would need to be pursued by Care Systems and the selected contractor.

19.

Following up the above question, we wish to state that we have clearly proven ability to drive massive efficiency increases and savings by applying our automated optimization techniques to allocating over a 50,000 staff community at the highly Unionized US Postal Service by using optimization technology in staff scheduling, and we would like to offer subcontracting services to the incumbent or winning vendor. The then Postmaster General will attest to our success. Is it possible for the FAA, if it is deemed appropriate, to facilitate supplementing the capabilities of the awardee with demonstrated optimization capability, so some dimensions of success that has evaded OPAS/ATOM schedules so far, can be achieved? A pre-proposal conference seems like a valid tool FAA might consider facilitating such collaboration? No, neither a demo nor pre-proposal conference are planned.

20.

In the context of a full and open competition, why is the Small Business Size Standard specified? This is a requirement for inclusion in FAA SIRs.

21.

Are there any specific considerations or advantages for Small Businesses in this procurement? No.

22.

Since the contracting officer / contract manager needs to approve resumes for inclusion in or substitution during the project, where should we include the resumes in the response to this SIR?

These would be submitted by the selected Offeror following award.

23. M.5.3 In respect of the M.5.3, where should an offeror include the total estimated price?

Offerors must complete L002, as noted in M.5.3. A Total Estimated Price (TEP) is prepared internally by the FAA as part of the evaluation.

24.

A related question is where the total hours of effort for each labor category over all five years be included? They are not provided, refer to M.5.3.

25.

The role of Technical Specialist (e.g. Optimization Specialist) is not included in the labor classification/rate document. Where should the rate for Technical Specialist, such as an optimization modelling specialist, be included, considering its significance in our view towards creating a successful product.

The FAA cannot accommodate vendor specific labor categories requests in the proposal submittal. Please use one of the included technical categories for this staff.

26.

Attachment L003

For the purpose of this technical scenario, please provide a definition on how a shift is classified as day, evening or midnight shift.

Scenario is as written. Offeror may make reasonable assumptions as needed

27.

Attachment L003

Is there a limitation on the number of start times and possible start times (like every 15 minutes, 30 minutes, hour) for the optimal set of shifts?

Scenario is as written. Offeror may make reasonable assumptions as needed

28.

Attachment L003

Is there a requirement on when the lunch break should take place?

Scenario is as written. Offeror may make reasonable assumptions as needed

29.

Attachment L003

When providing optimal set of shifts start times, should we provide the break(s) for each shift identified? Yes

30.

Attachment L003

Given the schedules on first day and last day of the two-week pay period are likely to be different from the other days in the pay period, does the required optimal set of shifts start times cover for all 14 days or the days excluding the first and last day?

Scenario is as written. Offeror may make reasonable assumptions as needed

31.

Attachment L003

Please confirm that midnight shifts don't require any breaks (including lunch break). What is the latest start time of a mid-night shift?

Confirmed. Scenario is as written. Offeror may make reasonable assumptions as needed

32.

Attachment L003

Please confirm if the 2 days off in each week need to be consecutive. Confirmed.

33.

Attachment L003

Please confirm that the anticipated breaks should be taken out of the coverage when assessing coverage to the demand. Confirmed.

34.

Attachment L003

Could the contractor add additional labor categories to the pricing spreadsheet based on the answer to 12?

The FAA cannot accommodate vendor-specific labor categories requests. Please use one of the included technical categories for this staff.

35. C.4.2.20 Please provide instruction to receive the current Technical Reference Model (TRM).

This will be released to the selected Offeror. A link to the latest TRM will be made available within the FAA network.

36. C.5.6

Is the expected end user to be at 20,000 level, and expand up to 40,000 end users? How many administrators should the system is expected to handle?

The expected level of use will vary from inception and depend upon FAA requirements.

37. C.5.3

To function in the event of WAN outages, should the contractor assume, that FAA will provide necessary LAN infrastructure resources required to enable such functionality without the cost to the contractor? Yes. The FAA will provide the LAN infrastructure resources.

38.

L002 Pricing

The tab provides entries for CLINs 0001 to 0003. However, CLINs 0004 to 0005 do not appear to be represented. Are vendors supposed to submit pricing for these CLINs or will those be negotiated at a later date?

CLINs 0004 (Travel) and 0005 (ODCs) will be negotiated at a later date. Travel will be determined on an as needed basis.

ODCs are expected to be minimal.

39.

L002 Pricing

Noting the absence of specific CLINs for either hardware, hosting, cloud and as-a-Service (XaaS) components, including Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) and Managed Services, does FAA anticipating providing such items as government furnished items meeting the specifications of vendor solutions? Yes

40. B.4, B.5

Both sections seem to address traditional solution pricing and delivery models, for example as driven by n-tier solutions hosted in government or contractor facilities. Does FAA consider solution and services delivery model that incorporate hybrid approaches that also make use of shared services/labor offered as rated services for fees and subscription charges, such as for public, community or private cloud offerings?

The FAA may consider the use of hybrid approaches as long as they comply with the contract requirements.

41. I.2.16

This section has requirements for FAA or the contractor to install FAA-provided iSCM servers, security tools servers, and forensics servers in the target system. Installation of physical servers in a cloud such as AWS or Azure is not feasible. Will FAA allow for provisioning of the software for these servers on virtual servers within the cloud? If so, can it also be assumed that the FAA will provide the requisite software to be installed on these virtual machines?

Yes, it can be assumed that the FAA will provide the requisite software to be installed in the cloud on vitural machines. No physical servers are required.

42. I.2.16

Please clarify FAA's requirements with respect to the requirement to install FAA physical servers and associated constraints for patching and scanning servers in the light of possible cloud-based and SaaS solutions. For example, SaaS solutions typically offer subscription to the functionality of the offering, but do not provide access to the underlying virtual and physical assets.

There is no requirement to install FAA physical servers. The expectation is the installation of virtual/cloud servers.

43. I.2.16

Will FAA consider the use of alternative cloud services that provide comparable or better capabilities as the ISCM, security tools, and forensic software mentioned as being provided by FAA in the ISCM and Forensics on Contractor Systems section?

The FAA may consider the use of hybrid approaches as long as they comply with the SOW requirements.

44. L.8

Considering, the return to work of folks from annual vacations and the MLK holiday, we respectfully request the current deadline for submittal of questions be extended by an additional two (2) weeks through to January 31, 2024. Amendment 0001 will specify a revised proposal due date.

45. B.6

Are proposals limited to the LCATS they provided in their CLIN structure and Pricing Exhibit? In section B.6 it mentioned addition of labor sections can be negotiated at any point of the contract, does this mean we can propose within our first proposal submission? If we propose additional labor categories, are we allowed to add rows to incorporate these addition LCATs?

The FAA cannot accommodate vendor-specific labor categories requests in the proposal submittal. Please use one of the included technical categories for this staff. Additional labor categories may be incorporated post award as per B.6.

46.

L002 Pricing

Where within the exhibit would the government like for contractors to provide hourly rates and annual hours for each LCAT? Are we allowed to add columns/rows to the provided Pricing Worksheet? Amendment 0001 will require Base Period hours for 0001AB

47.

L002 Pricing

What number of annual hours does the government consider, or is that allowed to be determined by the contractors? There is no place for annual hours amount within the T&M CLIN of the pricing exhibit. Amendment 0001 will require Base Period hours for 0001AB

48.

L002 Pricing

Will FAA consider alternative software license and maintenance structures for CLIN 2 and CLIN 3 in the Workforce Scheduling L002 Pricing Worksheet 01 10 2024 pricing worksheet?

The FAA may consider alternative software license and maintenance structures if they comply with the contract requirements.

49. L.16

To permit time for responses to all questions to be received by vendors and be properly factored into impacted aspects of solutions and responses, and the resolution of critical information for solutions and optimal pricing, as well as for supporting material from prior clients, we respectfully request the current deadline for submittal of response to the solicitation be extended by an additional four (4) weeks. Amendment 0001 will specify a revised proposal due date.

50.

Can you please compare/contrast the new requirement with the incumbent contract? The requirements of this effort are like the incumbent contract

51.

Would the FAA categorize this new effort as an enterprise solution which will eventually be implemented across all FAA sites?

The expected level of use will vary from inception and depend upon FAA requirements.

52.

How many sites does the incumbent contract support to date (the SIR says 20 but alludes to further expansion, other documents say 34)? The procurement is for software licenses not sites.

53. How many sites can the new contract be expected to support? The procurement is for software licenses not sites.

54.

Should the FAA expand implementation from 20K employees to 40K, how much of the expansion would be due to additional sites versus additional scheduling units at the same sites? The procurement is for software licenses not sites.

55.

Does the FAA have ideal pilot sites identified for initial testing and roll-out of the new solution? If so, can you please share?

Will be determined after contract award.

56.

Does the FAA have an ideal roll-out/implementation plan and schedule in mind for this effort? If so, can you please share? Not available at this time

57.

What is the anticipated contract size for this effort including both initial and option years? This is not available to industry at this time.

58.

Is the incumbent solution operating in a GovCloud environment? Yes.

59.

Will the new solution be expected to operate in a GovCloud and/or FEDRAMP location (if cloud-based)? Yes.

60.

How many, if any, locations would be anticipated to require on-premises installation of software, versus cloud? None. This requirement is for cloud-based, centralized services.

61.

As current "shift bidding" techniques vary between bargaining units, is the intent to also standardize this process across facilities since the feature will be incorporated in the solution;

or will that determination be left to the individual bargaining units? The tool should be adaptable to manage different shift bidding

62.

Is there publicly available FAA policy related to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the scheduling software? No.

63.

Would a scheduling solution that uses non-generative AI optimization and automation techniques help achieve the FAA's workforce goals?

The FAA would invite any approach/method that would help us to efficiently schedule the workforce, including non-generative

AI.

64.

Do all past performances need to be similar size, or can offerors use a combination of past performances to demonstrate relevance and recency?

Each example must meet the relevancy definition in L.18 - Relevant is defined as present or past contracts that involved essentially the same scope, complexity, and magnitude of effort as what will be required under the Statement of Work for this

SIR.

65.

Will the FAA accept and evaluate Subcontractor Past Performance?

No, the requirements are in L.18 - (a The Offeror must select three (3) contracts/subcontracts identified in its Technical Proposal as having recent and relevant experience. And At least two (2) of the Past Performances must be for prime contract work.

66.

Can you please clarify if the FAA is requesting labor of 10 FTEs in the 2-year base period (5 each for Design/Test/Eval as well as Engineering Services) and then 5 FTEs in each option period (Engineering Services solely), or some other configuration?

The proposal requires hourly billing rates and total hours per L002. They are not FTEs.

67.

Can the FAA please review and make necessary revisions to ensure consistency across Section B.4, Attachment L002, and Attachment J001, as applicable? B.4 outlines the Pricing/CLIN structure, but it appears not to align with the provided Attachment L002. Specifically, the T&M sub-CLINs for the base period are presented differently from those of the option periods. There is an annotation for Engineering Services (SOW C.7.7) in the base period with estimated labor hours to be provided by the FAA, but these estimates are not provided.

There is a discrepancy in the quantity range in the first two rows for Software Licenses (FFP) CLINs, deviating by 1 from Attachment L002. Additionally, a sixth labor category, "Technical Specialist," is listed in Attachment J001 but not included in both B.4 of the SIR and Attachment L002.

The Base Period includes Sub-CLIN 0001AA System Design, Test & Evaluation (SOW C.4, C.5 C.6 and C.7.1-3) that requires Offeror proposed hours and rates in L002 to support the Offeror's system design requirements per its solution. This is applicable solely to the Base Period. In addition, there is a second set of labor requirements for yearly, recurring Engineering Services (SOW C.7.7). In the award, the FAA will include its estimate of these hours which will be subject to T&M authorizations. The Offerors are required to provide labor billing rates for these Engineering Services positions, but not projected hours. Section B quantities for are corrected in the SIR amendment to 1-49 vs 1-50, where applicable. The Technical Specialist position has been added to L002 and Section B in the amendment.

68.

The SOW states that the ST solution must be compatible with various requirements outlined in the ATO Technical Reference Model (TRM), such as operating systems, hardware, and application servers. However, the TRM is not included in the SIR documents. Could the FAA please provide these documents? Additionally, for the successful modernization of the legacy system and a clear understanding of the underlying technology, can the FAA specify the existing technology of ATOMs and OPS, including details on the technology roadmap and architecture?

This will be released to the selected Offeror. A link to the latest TRM will be made available within the FAA network.

69.

In addition to Scheduling, is Time & Attendance (time capture, time evaluation / processing) in scope? Currently, T&A is not in scope.

70.

Can the FAA provide clarification on whether invoices should be submitted via email, as specified in G.8(c), or through the Delphi einvoicing web portal, as stated in I.2.10, 3.3.1-40 Electronic Submission of Payment Requests (April 2022)?

Section G.8 has been updated in Amendment 0001 to reflect this change.

71.

Throughout Sections F, G, and H, there are references to "Task Order," "TO," "order(s)," and "ordering procedures." Can the FAA please confirm that the SIR is intended to result in a standalone contract, rather than serving as a vehicle or a BPA? These references have been corrected in Amendment 0001.

72.

In order to provide contractors with a reasonable time period to assess whether circumstances may cause a potential delay in performance, can the FAA utilize its standard AMS Clause 3.10.1-24 rather than the special H.8 clause, which requires immediate notification regarding potential delays? No, the FAA prefers an immediate notification.

73.

The SIR incorporates a few fillable clauses and provisions by reference, apart from Section K, such as in H.12 and L.1. Can the FAA please confirm the specific location(s) or a volume where and if these representations need to be included in the proposals?

Offerors need only to fill in Section K requirements for the clauses reproduced in full.

74.

Can the FAA please confirm whether a cover letter, as applicable, is allowed to be included for each volume, in addition to the cover sheet, and if such inclusion will not count against page limitations?

A cover letter may be included and will not be counted in the page limitations nor evaluated.

75.

Since customer references must submit PPQs directly to the FAA CO and CS before the proposal due date, can the FAA clarify whether Offerors are required to include only Section A of the PPQs into their proposals or if they should also obtain completed copies of PPQs from the references, including both Sections A and B of the Attachment L001 in their proposals?

L001 requires that Section A (Part I and Part II) of the PPQs shall be completed by the Offeror (the firm requesting the reference) prior to issuing the questionnaires. The customer will provide the completed L001 directly to the FAA. The Offeror's preparation of Part II will aid the FAA if needed to contact the customer.

76.

L.21(b) states that "For proposal evaluation purposes, the FAA will determine whether or not an Offeror qualifies as a small business based upon the individual business declaration form submitted by the Offeror as part of the proposal." Can the FAA please confirm that large businesses/OTSB Offerors are not required to submit this form?

L.21(b) is revised by Amendment 0001 to delete this reference to submission of a declaration form. The FAA will determine whether or not an Offeror qualifies as a small business for this NAICS code based upon the SBA website.

77.

M.6.2 states that “In order to be considered for award, the Offeror must be assessed a minimum overall rating of ‘Acceptable’ for Volume 1.” However, Acceptable is not one of the listed adjectival ratings identified in M.6.1. Can the FAA please confirm that for the purpose of this provision, Acceptable means any rating other than Marginal or Unsatisfactory consistent with the evaluation instructions found in M.3(c)?

The reference has been corrected to cite "Satisfactory " in Amendment 0001