Amendment 0001, Questions and Answers.pdf

6973GH-19-R-00002, AMENDMENT 0001

Questions and Answers

Question 1: SIR Provision L.4, Technical Proposals and SIR Provision M.3, Technical Evaluation appear to have conflicting information regarding Sub-Factor 1.1, Contract Experience. Please advise if offerors are required to provide one or two contracts valued at a minimum of $2 million per year OR with a minimum of 40 active contract employees.

Answer 1: The requirement for Sub-Factor 1.1, Contract Experience is for offerors to provide two contracts valued at a minimum of $2 million per year OR with a minimum of 40 active contract employees. SIR Provision L.4, Technical Proposals is corrected in SIR Amendment 0001 to show this information.

Question 2: Please confirm if the teaming partner can submit a qualifying contract in response to Sub-Factor 1.1, Contract Experience.

Answer 2: A Joint Venture Teaming Partner can submit a qualifying contract in response to Sub-Factor 1.1, Contract Experience. Offerors are advised that the experience of a sub-contractor cannot be used to meet the requirements of Sub-Factor 1.1, Contract Experience.

Question 3: Can the government provide clarification regarding whether the team value of a past contract valued over $2 million per year is acceptable, or is the prime’s share of the contract required to be $2 million?

Answer 3: The FAA will consider past performance for the individual companies that comprise a joint venture in response to contract experience and past performance. A prime contractor cannot use a subcontractor’s contract experience and past performance for meeting the contract experience and past performance requirements of this SIR.

Question 4: Are past performances required to be federal experience, or will the government consider commercial experience?

Answer 4: The FAA will consider commercial experience as long as it is similar to that required by the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and is valued at a minimum of $2 million per year *OR* with a minimum of 40 active contract employees.

Question 5: Regarding a JV submittal, will the government accept an individual member’s past performances or just accept experience from the JV itself?

Answer 5: The FAA will consider past performance for the individual companies that comprise a joint venture in response to contract experience and past performance.

Question 6: Please provide the incumbent contractor information.

Answer 6: Agility One of Fairfax VA is the incumbent contractor for Contract DTFAAC- 15-D-00019.

Question 7: We read the following SIR sections which seem to provide different instructions and delivery requirements:

• SIR 3.2.2.3-20 shows that “The offeror (you) must submit responses to this SIR by the following electronic means email” and “Send your offer to cynthia.cooper@faa.gov.”

• SIR L1 shows that “The Contracting Officer (CO) for this acquisition, Cynthia Cooper, is the sole point of contact. All written questions, correspondence, and submittals must be sent to the CO at the address specified on Page 1, Item 8, of the Cover Page (Solicitation, Offer and Award) or via e-mail to cynthia.cooper@faa.gov.”

• SIR Page 1 box 8 shows the requirement to be an original and one copy and no depositary location.

• SIR L1 also mentions “Sealed offers in original format and FOUR (4) COPIES OF VOLUME I TECHNICAL PROPOSAL will be received at the depository located in FAA, Customer Service Desk (AAQ-700) Bldg 14, Academy Headquarters, until 3:00 p.m.

central time, on SIR closing date, as specified on Page 1, Item 8, of the Cover Page (Solicitation, Offer and Award).”

• SIR Table L1 and SIR M.2 show a requirement for an original and up to 4 copies depending of the volume

We would appreciate the government’s guidance on the delivery method (email or hard-copy or both) and the number of copies (if any) required to meet compliance with instructions:

Answer 7: Offerors shall, at a minimum, provide hard copies + CD of their proposal in the quantities specified in Table L.1 of Provision L.3, Instructions for Preparation and Submission of Proposals. Offerors may choose to provide an electronic copy of their proposal; however, this is not required. The FAA acknowledges that Page 1, Item 8 on the cover page (Solicitation, Offer and Award) appears to contain conflicting information and this is corrected in Amendment 0001.

Question 8: SIR L.3 b(5) shows “Pages are to be typewritten, double spaced, on standard 8 1/2” X 11” letter size paper, no smaller than 12 point type with 1” margins and page numbers at the bottom of each page. Font size is allowed to vary for descriptive inserts, tables and/or foldouts”. Can the government provide a specific expectation for the term “vary” as font and lowest size?

Answer 8: Font size is allowed to vary for descriptive inserts, tables and/or foldouts only. The FAA does not have a hard a fast rule on the font sizes for these potential documents but does recommend that the font be legible; otherwise, the evaluators will not be able to read and evaluate the information. Please also note that this font size exception should be used sparingly in offerors proposal.

Question 9: SIR L.4 shows that “The offeror must provide completed Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) demonstrating that the offeror is capable of managing a requirement valued at a minimum of $2 million per year OR with a minimum of 40 active contract employees.” Is it the Government’s intent for offerors to provide past performances and questionnaires from both the prime contractor and subcontracting teammate?

Answer 9: The FAA does not have privity of contract with a subcontractor; therefore, prime contractors must be able to demonstrate through completed PPQs that the prime has successfully performed contracts valued at a minimum of $2 million per year OR with a minimum of 40 active contract employees.

Question 10: PWS 13.0 Over and Above shows that “The acquisition may necessitate additional services deemed necessary to the CAMI mission as outlined in the Flight Plan. The Contracting Officer will request a proposal from the Contractor as the necessity for additional support is required (i.e. EKG Technician, Digital Content Producer other vital Subject Matter Experts (SME's)). These changes shall be incorporated into the Contract through Bilateral modification.” The government also shows the EKG Technician in Section B. Does the government want to address these services post-award as suggested in SOW 13.0 or with this SIR? To provide accurate pricing, can the government provide a description of the position and qualifications required?

Answer 10: There is a possibility that during the life of the contract that it could be necessary to add new labor categories. At this time, the FAA has no way of knowing what these labor categories would be. The point of paragraph 13 to the PWS is just to cover potential contingencies that could happen. You are correct in that the labor category of EKG Technician is already identified in Section B. The PWS in revised in SIR Amendment 0001 to remove this labor category from paragraph 13 of the PWS and add this labor category to paragraph 6 and 7 of the PWS.

Question 11: SIR L.3 d(4) shows that “If any portion of the work is to be performed by a subcontractor, the proposal must provide rationale for subcontracting, how the specific subcontractor was determined (reference AMS 3.10.2-5, Competition in Subcontracting), and the percentage of work to be performed by the subcontractor. The proposal must include supporting documentation describing each subcontractor's technical qualifications and detailed pricing information to support all subcontractor costs.” We were unable to find a corresponding reference in the pricing instructions.

Does the government require that a separate pricing information for sub-contractors be submitted.

Answer 11: The FAA was under the impression that the prime contractor’s cost/price information would address all costs, including subcontractor costs. This is the reason why no separate information regarding subcontractor costs was included in Provision L.3.

Question 12: We would respectfully request to remove or lower the $2 M annual value for past performances for the following reasons:

1) The NAICS code for this project is 541611, which has a $15 million size standard. Most of the 8a companies that fall into this NAICS category will not have a contract valued at $2 million annually. This restriction will eliminate and/or restrict or limit competition and in turn will lead to higher cost to the government. If removal is not possible, then we request to allow the teaming partner company (sub) to cover this restriction for the following reason:

2) We are teaming with a partner company who has extensive experience in this type of work and will be able to provide relevant PPQ with this value.

Answer 12: The FAA does not intend to remove or lower the Contract Experience or Past Performance requirements to provide two contracts valued at a minimum of $2 million per year OR with a minimum of 40 active contract employees

Question 13: Reference: Page 68, M.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION, Sub-Factor 2.2:

Company Payroll Procedure. The Acceptable information references a CDRL A001 but no CDRLs are provided with the solicitation. "The standard is met when the offeror describes their process used to track labor hours, accumulating required documentation, invoicing, and submitting monthly reports that summarize the FAA requests for support according to CDRL A001." Please provide details of what is required to fulfill CDRL A001.

Answer 13: SIR Provision M.3, Technical Evaluation, Sub-Factor 2.2: Company Payroll Procedure should not have referenced CDRL A0001. This issue is corrected in SIR Amendment 0001.

Question 14: Reference Page 61, L.3 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS, (d) Technical Proposal – Volume II.

Question: Please confirm that no actual technical approach to the PWS tasks is required. The bidder must just address L.4 TECHNICAL PROPOSALS Factor 1, Factor 2, and Factor 3 areas.

Answer 14: Your understanding is correct; however, there are elements throughout the factors identified in the SIR that do show the offerors comprehensive approach for performing the subject contract.

Question 15: Reference: Attachment 1 Section B and Attachment 2 Wage Determination. Which positions of the incumbents are currently SCA wage rate?

Having this information will ensure we meet the SCA requirement for staff and positions.

Answer 15: It is my understanding that the only positions not covered by the SCA are project management staff, Educational Toxicologist, Cardiologist/Internal Medicine Physician, and Pathology Coder. Although the General Clerk III is covered by the SCA, there is no labor category for General Clerk III with lead differential.

Question 16: Reference: Page 63, L.4 TECHNICAL PROPOSALS, Subfactor 2.2:

Company Payroll Procedure. In order to ensure that the Prime bidder has sufficient corporate financial capability to support the payroll we suggest that the bidder provide evidence of a Line of Credit of at least $1M within this section.

Answer 16: The FAA does not intent to add this requirement to the SIR.

Question 17: Reference: Page 47, Section K - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Bidders. We request that this be considered outside of page count due to the length of the content to complete. At double line spacing this section will be 14 pages alone.

Answer 17: Section K - Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Bidders is considered to be part of Volume I, Contract Documentation and there is not a page limitation for this volume.

Question 18: Reference Page 64, L.5 Subcontracting and/or Teaming Arrangements.

Our team does include a subcontractor. Since the plan is to be outside of page count, to ensure the evaluation does not accidentally believe our overall submission is over the 100-page limit due to the subcontracting plan, we suggest that this plan be made an Appendix to the Technical Volume. We can put in a reference to the appendix in the section noted in the L.5 guidance: Factor 1 - Contract Experience/Personnel, Sub- Factor 1.3 - Staffing Plan and Supervisory Management Plan. Please confirm that this is acceptable.

Answer 18: The FAA does not believe that it is necessary to make the plan an appendix to the technical volume.

Question 19: Reference: Attachment 3 PWS and L.4 TECHNICAL PROPOSALS, Sub- Factor 1.1 - Contractor Experience. Given the administrative nature of this contract, we suggest that the FAA require the ISO 9001 certification from the prime contractor due to the quality control focus of that certification to ensure that prime contractors have the externally validated rigor of quality control/assurance on services contracts.

Answer 19: Please keep in mind that this acquisition is a competitive set-aside for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns. Adding the ISO 9001 certification requirement could unduly limit competition for this acquisition; therefore, this requirement will not be added to the SIR.