The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
6973GH-21-R-00052-0001 CWO QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
| Reference |
| Question |
| Answer |
| Q1 |
| Section B, Supplies or Services/Prices, B.2 (p. 2) |
| This paragraph refers to “Schedule B attached to this solicitation.” There is no Schedule B attached. Please clarify. |
| The schedule B is attached to the solicitation as part of the CWO_AREA_PRICE MODEL_6973GH-21-R-00052_20210504 workbook, Table A. When you pick the area you are proposing it automatically populates. Prior to any contract award this will be put in another format as the Schedule B. |
| Q2 |
| Section C, SOW 2.3 Level of Certified Weather Observation Service Required (p. 6) |
| States “see Section C, paragraph 1.5, Service Standards Definitions….” There is no paragraph 1.5 in Section C. Please clarify. |
| See amendment 0001, Provision Second to the solicitation. The wording in paragraph 2.3 is changed to state, 1.4 instead of 1.5 |
| Q3 |
| Section C, SOW 2.7 Performance Monitoring (p. 6); F.6 Deliverables (p. 21) |
| SOW 2.7 calls for delivery by the 15th of the month but F.6 specifies the 5th of the month. Please clarify. |
| See amendment 0001, Provision Third to the solicitation. F.6 deliverables has been changed to the 15th of the month. |
| Q4 |
| Section C, SOW 2.7.2 PMSR (p. 7); F.6 Deliverable (p.21) |
| SOW 2.7.2 calls for monthly PMSR delivery but F.6 calls for quarterly delivery. Please clarify. |
| See amendment 0001, Provision Third to the solicitation. F.6 deliverables has been changed to the 15th of the month. |
| Q5 |
| L.7 Instructions for Preparation of Proposals, L.7.A (p. 63), L.7.B (p. 63) |
| Table L.7.A.1 shows a Table of Contents only in Volume II, but L.7.B states, “Proposal Volumes must include: 3. Table of contents and Evaluation Factor Matrix.” Are Tables of Content required for each volume or only for Volume II? |
| A table of contents and evaluation factor matrix is not needed for Volume I, Contract Documentation. A table of contents and evaluation matrix for Volume III, Cost/Price Proposal is optional. |
| Q6 |
| L.7C Contract Documentation, Item 3 (p. 64) |
| Refers to clause 3.8.2-17 in Section H and states “Add name of Key Personnel.” Clause 3.8.2-17 identifies Senior Weather Observers (SWO) as key personnel. Please confirm Offerors are to add the name of the SWO for each site proposed in the filled-out 3.8.2-17 included in Volume I. |
| Offerors are to add SWOs after award, during Phase In, for each site proposed indicating the site the SWO will be assigned to. This will not be required at submission of proposal. |
Plan (p. 66), SOW 4.3 Refresher Training (p. 9), F.6 Deliverables (p. 21)
| The SIR calls for a discussion of refresher training within Sub-factor 1.1 Personnel Plan. However, both SOW 4.3 and clause F.6 indicate annual refresher training program is to be part of the QAMP, but there is no provision for refresher training in either the QAMP template (Attachment J-10) or the L.8A1.3 QAMP requirements. Please confirm (a) that there is no requirement to address refresher training in the QAMP Offerors submit to comply with SIR technical sub-factor 1.3 requirements and (b) Offerors who address/describe their refresher training program only in their technical sub-factor 1.1 response will be deemed responsive and compliant with respect to the SOW 4.3 requirement. |
| See amendment 0001, Provision Fourth to the solicitation. A section for Annual Refresher Training has been added to the QAMP Template, therefore it must be discussed in Technical evaluation sub-factor 1.3. Refresher Training must also be discussed in the Personnel Plan |
| Q8 |
| L.8A1.2 Staffing Plans and Schedules (p. 66), Attachment J-8 |
| L.8A1.2 requires that Offerors discuss Staffing and Site-by-Site Facility Schedules, but also states, “For ease of evaluation, format must be consistent for each prospective site, the template provided in attachment J.8.” Will Offerors comply with requirements if they follow precisely attachment J-8? |
| Yes |
| Q9 |
| L.8A1.2 Staffing Plans and Schedules (p. 66-67), Attachment J-8 |
| L.8A1.2 requires a facility shift schedule for each site. Attachment J-8 includes four templates for weekly schedules. Please clarify if the proposal is to include filled-in schedules for all four “weeks” shown in Attachment J-8. Specifically, are Offerors to include hypothetical schedules for Week 3 “Week Including Leave Coverage” and Week 4 “Regular Scheduled Admin Week w/Leave & Sick Coverage”? |
| Yes |
| Q10 |
| L.8A1.3 Quality Assurance Management Plan (p. 67), Attachment J-10, SOW 6.1 (p. 13) |
| L.8A1.3 states that the template in Attachment J-10 must be used and the response must contain sections labeled Quality Management Team and Quality Assurance. However, the template does not explicitly contain the required L.8A “sections.” While the template segment titled “Quality Assurance Management Personnel” can reasonably be assumed to match L.8A requirement “Quality Management Team,” there is no 1-to-1 match for L.8A requirement “Quality Assurance” and the several specific requirements therein. Please clarify where in the template Offerors are to address the L.8A Quality Assurance requirements. |
| Template J-10 must be used for technical sub factor 1.3. Contractors should use their best judgement to utilize the format of J-10 while addressing all the technical evaluation criteria for sub factor 1.3. |
| Q11 |
| L.8A.1.3 Quality Assurance Management Plan (p. 67), Attachment J-10 |
| Should Offerors incorporate the outline found in Attachment J-10 into their own proposal formats? |
| Template J-10 must be used for technical sub factor 1.3, but you do not have to retain the FAA seal. It must be incorporated in your proposal under Volume II, Tab A. You may include it with all of Volume II or you may have it as an attachment, either way the page count will go towards that section. |
| Q12 |
| L.8B Factor 4 – Cost/Price Proposal Content, Item 7 (p. 70) |
| L.8B States, “Offeror’s must provide contract line item pricing based on the unit and total price for each line item they are proposing. For instance, you may only provide the line items you are proposing based on the areas you are proposing, this will all be contained in the worksheet provided at solicitation.” Please confirm Excel file CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL is the worksheet referred to here. |
| Yes |
| Q13 |
| L.8B Factor 4 – Cost/Price Proposal Content, Item 13 (p. 70) |
| States, “For each CLIN listed in Section B, Offeror must propose fully burdened labor rates, by labor category. Offeror must provide CLIN pricing based on the unit price and the total price for each line item.” The requirement to provide fully burdened labor rates appears to be inconsistent with bid pricing and evaluation based on fixed monthly prices per site. Please confirm it is the FAA’s intent that Offerors propose a fully burdened rate for each labor category, Senior Weather Observer and Weather Observer, for each site and, if this is a requirement, please specify where and how these rates are to be computed and displayed within the proposal. |
| See Provision FIFTH of amendment 0001 to the solicitation. Fully burdened rates are not required, the contractor must utilize the pricing spreadsheet. This section is changed to read, “For each CLIN listed in Section B, Offeror must propose CLIN pricing based on the unit price and the total price for each line item.” |
| Q14 |
| L.8B Factor 4 – Cost/Price Proposal Content, Item 16 (p. 70) |
| L.8B States, “For evaluation purposes, Offeror must sum the proposed Total Prices by area and contract year, provide a total overall price of the proposal per area using supplied quantities, and submit a complete Section B. The Schedule B Total Price is equal to the proposed unit price multiplied by the Section B quantity for that CLIN.” Is it the FAA’s intent to provide a Schedule B? |
| See answer for Q1. The Summary tab and Table A fulfill this requirement if completely filled out properly. |
| Q15 |
| L.8B Factor 4 – Cost/Price Proposal Content, Item 18 (p. 70) |
| L.8B States, “Cost/price information must provide the composition of the fringe benefit rates applicable to each labor category.” Please clarify if a narrative response is adequate or if a computation within CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL is also required. If a computation is required, please specify where and how this to be done within CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL given that Offerors are limited to entering a dollar-value Additional Fringe Hourly Rate in Table C. |
| The narrative response must be used to tie back to amounts such as the composition of the fringe benefit rates for each labor category. It is not required, nor wanted in the CWO_AREA_PRICE MODEL attachment |
| Q16 |
| L.8B Factor 4 – Cost/Price Proposal Content, Item 19 (p. 71), L.8B Factor 4 – Cost/Price Proposal Content, Item 20b (p. 71) |
| Paragraph L.8.B Item19 requires documentation showing the ability to cover payroll and other expenses. Paragraph L.8B Item 20b requires proof of existing Line(s) of Credit of $XM. Please confirm that proof of a Line of Credit (20b) in an amount sufficient to meet the Item 19 requirement will satisfy the documentation required in Item 19. |
| A line of credit in the amount as described in item 19 will be sufficient. |
| Q17 |
| CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL |
| Is Section B in the Summary Tab the same as Schedule B or will the FAA be sending a Schedule B? |
| See answer for Q1. |
| Q18 |
| CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL |
| When values for Overhead, G&A rate, and Fee percentage in Table A and the additional Fringe rate in Table C are entered for any Area, these values are automatically applied/populated in all other Areas. Offerors may want to apply different rate and fee values to different Areas. In such cases, does the FAA intend for a CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL to be done separately for each Area being proposed? Example: If the Offeror is bidding on Areas 1, 2, 3 and 4, does the FAA expect to receive four (4) CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL files, a separate model for each area? |
| Yes. Please see the revised spreadsheet as described on Provision SIXTH of amendment 0001 of the solicitation. The instructions on the pricing spreadsheet have been updated to reflect this direction. |
| Q19 |
| CWO_AREA_PRICE_MODEL |
| In Area 2, Table A, Option Year 2: The Direct Labor amount for Adams Field in cell W79 is incorrect. This results in incorrect values computed in cells W102 and D104. Please correct. |
| The reference is corrected in the updated spreadsheet as described in Provision Sixth of amendment 0001 of the solicitation. |
| Q20 |
| Attachment J-10 (pp. J45-J46) |
| The SIR contains several references to Contracting Officer, Contracting Officer’s Representative, and Program Implementation Manager. So that we may address the Attachment J-10 requirement to “Describe how/when the Company will interact with the CWO Program Office,” please indicate which of these positions, if any, reside in the CWO Program Office and identify other functions/positions in the CWO Program Office that are relevant to contractor operations and reporting. |
| Program Implementation Managers (PIM’s) work in the Planning and Requirements section of the FAA Service Centers and are the initial Point-of-Contact for site/vendor issues. (i.e. Real Estate, Security, Office Furniture, Equipment etc.) |
Eastern Service Area PIM, College Park, GA Central Service Area PIM, Fort Worth, TX Western Service Area PIM, Des Moines, WA
All Contracting issues are handled by the designated Contracting Officer, currently this is Stacey Stanley as indicated in the SIR. The Contracting Officer Representative (COR) manages the CWO Program Office in FAA HQ Washington D.C, awardees will receive a COR designation letter at time of award.
The CWO Program Office also consists of aviation weather subject matters experts, management and program analyst and budget personnel to handle contract issues and to assist the Service Center PIM’s
| Q21 |
| Reference: SOW 2.2, Attachment J-1 |
| SOW 2.2 states, "For all of the facilities listed in Section J, Attachment J-1, the weather observer must provide certified aviation weather observations equal to that which is described by the applicable ASOS Service Level “A” Standards." However, Attachment J-1 shows that many sites have/require Service Level B. Please confirm the SOW requirement is correct or clarify this apparent inconsistency. |
| The SOW is correct and has been updated to clarify the required service level. Some sites in J-1 are rated as Service “B” level airports, but the contract requires the CWO’s to perform at Service Level “A” standards for all sites. |
| Q22 |
| 5.4 NONDISPLACEMENT OF QUALIFIED WORKERS , page 11 |
| Clarification on Section 5.4 NONDISPLACEMENT OF QUALIFIED WORKERS , page 11 – This question references Executive order 13495, which was rescinded by President Trump on October 31, 2019 and has not to our knowledge been reinstated. If this is the case that reference needs to be removed. |
| This section has been removed. See Provision Second of Amendment 0001 of the solicitation. |
| Q23 |
| L.7 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS, (Table L.7.A.1) and L.8A Technical Proposal Content – Volume II See Section M.4A and M.5 page 63 |
| Our current Quality Control Management Plan for the current contract, consists of over 100 pages. This section requires the offeror to provide: “The offeror must describe in depth the types of training such as: annual refresher training, certification training, Mike-In-Hand training (if applicable), proficiency training; training to introduce improved methods and technology; training on changes in software, equipment policy, procedures, and regulations and training as part of the quality control program described in the Quality Assurance Management Plan. The training section must discuss frequency of training and identify who will be charged with the management and training of personnel.” |
It is almost an impossible task to consolidate 100 pages down to 5 pages and describe in depth everything required in this section to operate this contract. To support this request for an increase to the page limitation, Section H.2 ADHERENCE TO PLANS, page 26. This section requires the Quality Assurance Management Plan submitted in our proposal to be incorporated into the contract, without an adequate page allowance, the Quality Assurance Management Plan cannot cover all the subjects required in detail.
See Provision Tenth and Eleventh of Amendment 0001 of this solicitation. The maximum number of pages on the last SIR was entirely too extensive and allowed for unnecessarily long proposals. Submissions can and need to be succinct in order to facilitate a reasonable procurement lead time between proposal and award.
| Q24 |
| Section L.7C Contract Documentation KEY PERSONNEL AND FACILITIES (JUL 2019) – |
| Clarification to Section L.7C Contract Documentation KEY PERSONNEL AND FACILITIES (JUL 2019) – Add name of Key Personnel, Senior Weather Observers are identified as Key Personnel, in what section are they supposed to be identified? |
| See Q6. AMS Clause 3.8.2-17 KEY PERSONNEL AND FACILITIES (JUL 2019) starts on page 27 of the solicitation. |
| Q25 |
| Section L.8B Factor 4 - Cost/Price Proposal Content – Volume III See M.4.C and M.6.(20), page number 71 |
| This section states that Offerors must submit the following: a. A current Dun and Bradstreet Comprehensive Insight Report, no more than six months old at time of proposal submission; Dun and Bradstreet does not provide a report called “Dun and Bradstreet Comprehensive Insight Report”, it has been replaced with a report called Premier Gold Service at a cost of $599.00. Please clarify if this is the report that you are requiring. |
| The requirement for a Dun and Bradstreet Comprehensive Insight Report has been removed. See Provision Eighth of Amendment 0001 of the solicitation. |
| Q26 |
| CWO_AREA_PRICE_MODEL |
| There are no holiday, vacation, or sick hours identified on the spread sheet. The total hours for Health and Welfare are also not a fixed number as shown, they will be affected by the number of people that take vacation and holidays. Section I – Contract Clauses, page 3, references clause 3.6.2-46 Paid Sick Leave (Oct 2020), therefore this must be added to the spreadsheets. |
| See Provision Sixth of Amendment 0001 of this solicitation, the pricing model has been updated accordingly. The spreadsheet has been changed to allow vendors to add these hours. Table C – Fringe has been revised to separate leave hours. |
| Q27 |
| Collective Bargaining Agreements |
| There are missing CBA’s for many stations in Area’s 3, 5, 6 and 8. Also some CBA’s are for FY20, they should be FY 21at a minimum. |
| The CBAs given are the most recent versions to date and the only CBAs that have been identified as applying to this work. If another CBA exists for this work and/or contractors it has not been identified on the current contracts. If there is not a CBA listed for a site then a wage determination applies. |
Q28
| Health and Welfare rates are different between Observers and Senior Weather Observer at Allen Army Field Alaska (BIG). The SWO rate is $9.26. Health and Welfare and is included on every hour compensated to include sick days, holidays and vacation leading to an amount higher than what is in the spreadsheet. |
| See Provision Sixth of Amendment 0001 of this solicitation, the pricing model has been updated accordingly. Table C – Fringe has been revised to correct Area 11. |
Q29
| The drop down menu to choose the area in Table A does not work, one must write in the area number for this to change. |
| There is an extra box with the arrow in it. If you move slightly to the left, the appropriate dropdown box is accessible. Make sure you have clicked on cell B8 to start. |
Q30
The hours at Deadhorse, AK (SCC) are incorrect. The station operates 8.5 hours a day. Total hours should be 3102.5. The Price Model shows 3119 with no night differential which is paid on all hours as the station operates from 9:30 PM to 6:00AM. Also with one person operating the station there is 19.5 hours of overtime every week.
We would like to see a description of Deadhorse, AK in site specific requirements J-6 so bidders realize that Deadhorse is a very remote station with no housing. This station has been run for years by one employ as the SWO working 8.5 hours a day, seven days a week. Currently there are three employees that rotate in once a month. The only place to stay is the motel and flights from wherever they live can be expensive. A car must be bought and provided for transportation from the airport to the weather office.
See Provision Sixth of Amendment 0001 of the solicitation. Hours have been removed from cost model for vendors to populate. Instructions have been revised to allow required overtime in the ‘additional pay’ line.
Q31
| The price model has no place for payroll taxes, FICA, SUTA and FUTA. How does a contractor get reimbursed for these expenses when the cost of wages goes up? |
| See Provision Sixth of Amendment 0001 of this solicitation, the pricing model has been updated accordingly. Table C – Fringe has been revised to separate these costs. |
| Q32 |
| Section 3, 3.1.2 |
| Clarification to Section 3, 3.1.2. Where will the CWO Program Review be held? |
The Program Review is usually held via Teleconference.
| Q33 |
| Due Date |
| The notice below on Betasam.gov conflicts with the due date of June 3rd listed in the solicitation. |
The due date is June 4th, 2021, 1700 EST.
| Q34 |
| Vol II, Technical Proposal |
| Are offerors allowed to include an Executive Summary within Vol II? |
| An Executive Summary is not needed and would count towards the page count if included. |
| Q35 |
| Vol II, Technical Proposal |
| If an Executive Summary is allowed, is it included in the page count? |
| See Q34 |
| Q36 |
| Section L, P. 63, L.7B, #3 |
| Can the government please confirm offerors should include a Table of Contents and Evaluation Factor Matrix in all volumes? Or, is the Table of Contents and Evaluation Matrix only required for Volume II Technical Proposal? |
| See Q5 |
| Q37 |
| Section L, P.61, L.1D |
| “The offer must make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation that the proposal is valid until a specific future date.” Is there a particular location for the required statement within Section A (e.g., technical approach cover page)? |
| L.1D states, “The proposal acceptance period is specified in Section A of the solicitation. The offer must make a clear statement in Section A of the proposal documentation that the proposal is valid until a specific future date.” See item 11 of Section A. |
| Q38 |
| Section L, P. 63, L7B #5 |
| What is the size limitation for email submission? |
| Section L.14 states, “Contractors are to keep each e-mail submission below 10MB.” Multiple e-mails are permitted, please number your emails X of X (i.e. 1 of 3 or 2 of 3, etc…) so the CO can confirm all emails have been received. |
| Q39 |
| Section L, P.63, Table L.7.A.1 |
| Can government please confirm that Cost/Price Proposal is FACTOR 4? |
| Yes as referenced in the following: L.7E, L.8B, M.4A, and M.4C |
| Q40 |
| Section L, P.64, L.7C #2 |
| Can the government please confirm reference should be Section “B.5”, Proposed Areas as required fill-in instead of “B.4?” |
| L.7C, number 2 should reference B.5, see Provision Seventh of amendment 0001 of the solicitation. |
| Q41 |
| Section L, P. 64, L.7C Contract #3 |
| Can the Government confirm that the Name of the Key Personnel per facility should be entered within 3.8.2-17 per the Contract Documentation #3 Requirement? |
| See Q6. |
| Q42 |
| Section L, P.66, L.8A |
| Are tabs required for each sub factor or just at the Factor level? Table L.7.A.1 indicates Factor 1 and its associated sub factors are included under Tab A. |
| The contractor must use the table to identify each section of their proposal for ease of evaluation. There is no need to Tab the sub factors for Factor 1. |
| Q43 |
| Section L, P.66, L.8A |
| Since offerors are submitting proposals electronically, is it the government’s intent to include Tabs for Factors and/or Sub Factors? Instead, would the government like bookmarks included in a PDF submission? |
| See Q42. The government doesn’t have an issue with bookmarks used to identify the Tabs if the submission is clear and sections are easy to find. |
| Q44 |
| Section M, P.80, M.5F and M.5G |
| Are there any recency requirements as it relates to relevant experience and past performance (e.g., in the past 3 years)? |
| There are no recency requirements. |
| Q45 |
| Section M, P.80, M.5F and M.5G |
| With a Prime/Subcontractor arrangement, is the Prime required to have at least 1 Relevant Experience and Past Performance or is the Prime/Subcontractor arrangement evaluated together as “Offeror?” |
| The offer’s is the Prime Contractor. The offeror’s response to relevant experience may include major subcontractor’s experience. |
| Q46 |
| Section M, P. 80, M.5F, Offeror |
| Is the "offeror" inclusive of the Prime and Subcontractor? |
| The offer’s is the Prime Contractor. The offeror’s response to relevant experience may include major subcontractor’s experience. |
| Q47 |
| Section C, P.6, 2.4 |
| Clarity: It appears Attachment J reference needs to be updated from J-9 to J-7. |
| See Provision Second of Amendment 0001 of the solicitation, Section C, 2.4 has been revised. |
| Q48 |
| Section C, P.7, 2.7 |
| Clarity: It appears Section F reference needs to be updated from F.7 to F.6. |
| See Provision Second of Amendment 0001 of the solicitation, Section C, 2.7 has been revised. |
| Q49 |
| Section C, P.7, 2.7 Performance Monitoring & P.21, F.6 Deliverables |
| Can the government please provide performance monitoring requirements as 2.7 currently only addresses Staffing Report and PMSR? |
| The monthly PMSR and Staffing reports are the Performance Monitoring Requirements. |
| Q50 |
| Section C, P.7, 2.7 Performance Monitoring & P.21, F.6 Deliverables |
| 2.7 states PMSR must be submitted monthly, by the 15th each month however F.6 states PMSR is due every quarter. Can the government please clarify if the PMSR is due monthly or quarterly? |
| See Q4. |
| Q51 |
| Section C, P.7 2.7 Performance Monitoring & P.21, F.6 Deliverables |
| Can the government please provide the required template for Performance Monitoring as part of Attachment J? |
| There is no template for Performance Monitoring. The monthly PMSR and Staffing Reports are the requirements. |
| Q52 |
| Section C, P.7, 3.1.3 Telephone Line Requirement |
| Will the government allow cell phones in place of landlines? |
| No. |
| Q53 |
| Section C, P.16, 9.0 Enforcement Actions “See Section H, Paragraph H.22 ‘Enforcement Actions’ for additional details relating to Enforcement Actions.” |
| Can government please provide Section H.22 “Enforcement Actions” |
| See provision Second of Amendment 0001 of this solicitation. This has been removed. |
| Q54 |
| Section C, DRUG Testing |
| Confirm 25% of workforce shall be randomly drug tested for 2021, and per FAA set percentage each year (25% or 50%)? |
| Yes |
| Q55 |
| DRUG Testing |
| Confirm all offerors should price drug testing in Table D in "other direct costs." |
| Yes |
| Q56 |
| Section C, Alcohol Testing |
| Confirm 10% may be tested for Alcohol? |
| Yes |
| Q57 |
| Federal Aviation Administration Mentor-Protégé Program Guidance, As of December 2019, P. 1, Para. 2 |
| Please confirm, per your written guidance document, that Small Business Administration approved Mentor-Protégé Program joint ventures are acceptable. |
| In accordance with AMS Policy T3.6.1.A.1.8.b, FAA approved Mentor-Protégé Program joint ventures are acceptable and/or Small Business Administration approved Mentor-Protégé Program joint ventures are acceptable. |
| Q58 |
| H.5 FAA Approved Mentor Protégé Joint Venture, P. 26-27 |
| Does the FAA Mentor Protégé Joint Venture need to be approved by the time of submission or by the time of award? |
| The Joint Venture will need to be approved prior to source selection. If a Joint Venture is not approved by the time of submission information must be provided as an attachment (not counted in the page count) showing that the Joint Venture application has been submitted along with an estimated time for acceptance. If proof of the Joint Venture is not received prior to the time of source selection then the JV may not be considered for award. |
| Q59 |
| Attachment J-2, Wage Determinations |
| If CBAs are not listed or included in the "Wage Determination # Column", can the Government confirm there is no CBA in place? |
| See Q27. |
| Q60 |
| Attachment J-2, Wage Determinations |
| In Area 2, should the #6 location be Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers Int'l Arpt., not Jackson Int'l Arpt.? Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers Int'l Arpt. matches Site ID JAN, but is not listed in #6 for the Aprt Location column. |
| See provision Fourth of Amendment 0001 of the solicitation. Appendix J had been updated accordingly. |
| Q61 |
| Attachment J-2, Wage Determinations, Seniority |
| Would the government provide anniversary dates for current SWOs and CWOs? |
| The Government cannot provide information on contractor employees. |
| Q62 |
| CWO Area Price Model Worksheet, Table B, Note 4 |
| Can you confirm it should be cells D25-28 instead of cells D22-25? |
| See Provision Sixth of Amendment 0001 of this solicitation, the pricing model has been updated accordingly. |
| Q63 |
| CWO Area Price Model Worksheet |
| Did the government account for PTO/Vacation in the worksheet? If not, how should offerors include this cost? |
| See Q26. |
| Q64 |
| CWO Area Price Model Worksheet |
| How do offerors account for payroll taxes, vacation, PTO, and holidays? Offerors cannot edit the hours on the worksheet. |
| See Q31. |
| Q65 |
| Reference: General Process Information M.1B p75 |
| FAA procurement policy frowns on bundling contracts to eliminated small business competition yet, during a pandemic that has significantly impacted small businesses, this SIR intends to bundle contract awards reducing the awards from the current 18 to 11 contract award areas. This limits small business competition and reduces the number of small business contractors, what was the rationale for bundling the CWO contract awards on this SIR? |
| The CWO areas were realigned to match the new FAA Service Area alignment. The CWO Program Office has been reduced in size and the reduction in CWO contract award areas will help the FAA administratively manage the contract and contract performance better. |
| Q66 |
| Attachment J.1 Facility Data J.3 - J.29 |
| Many of the CWO Areas in the SIR straddle multiple FAA regions and are not geographically contiguous for example BUF/ROC in far northern New York are bundled together with CRW in West Virginia and MOB in Alabama is bundled with PHX in Arizona, is there a rationale for this geographical alignment? |
| See Q65. |
| Q67 |
| Section C, Paragraph 5.4, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers, Page 11/ 3.8.2-17 Section H KEY PERSONNEL AND FACILITIES (JUL 2019) p 27, 28 |
| Although the Executive Order for Non Displacement of Qualified Personal has been rescinded and is no longer valid for federal contracts, the requirement to hire existing contract personnel remains part of the SIR. This requirement compels all vendors to hire current staff and for the offering Vendor to identify all senior weather observers (SWOs). Since the information on existing SWOs is proprietary to the current Vendors they work for, will the FAA provide a list of all current SWOs to vendors, to ensure all have access to the same information and no vendor is disadvantaged which could result later in a contract dispute? |
| See Q22. The FAA cannot provide information for any contractor’s employees. |
| Q68 |
| Section C, Paragraph 5.4, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers, Page 11 |
Section L.8B, Factor 4 Cost/Price Proposal Content, Paragraph 22, Page 71 / CWO Area Price Model, Tables A-C, and Section J-2 Wage Determinations, CBAs
| By SIR requirement all current staff must be hired by the contract awardee who will assume vacation liability for paying the current staff the amount of vacation that is owed to them based upon years of service at the CWO. Since that employment information is proprietary to the current Vendors who hold their contract now, will the FAA provide a list of all CWO contract employees along with their vacation anniversary dates so that all Vendors who offer on this SIR have the same pricing information and none disadvantaged for pricing the necessary cost required to perform the contract? |
| See Q22 and Q67. |
| Q69 |
| G.6 MODIFICATIONS TO PRICING IN ACCORDANCE WITH FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) p 23 |
| If the FAA does not intend to provide a list of current CWO employees and their anniversary dates for Vendors to accurately figure out vacation payroll cost, will the FAA allow the Vendors to adjust their vacation cost to meet actual requirements for vacation payroll during the annual fair market adjustment process for option years? |
| See Q22 and Q67. It is the contractor’s responsibility to account for these potential costs in their proposal. Adjustments for vacation costs will not be allowed. |
| Q70 |
| CWO Area Price Model, Table C |
| Executive Order 13706 was signed on September 7, 2015, and requires parties that enter into covered contracts with the federal government to provide covered employees with up to seven days of paid sick leave annually, yet that requirement is nowhere to be found in the current SIR, why? |
| See Q26. The solicitation contains AMS 3.6.2-46, Paid Sick Leave. Sick leave should be included in the fringe benefits and must be identified in the price narrative. |
| Q71 |
| CWO Area Price Model, Table C & M.6 p 81 |
| The SIR states the cost pricing sheets cannot be changed, but the provided cost pricing sheet does not include any place to price in indirect cost such as sick leave, personal leave, employment taxes, workers compensation, and other related cost, where are those items to be priced? |
| See Q26 and Q31 |
| Q72 |
| CWO Area Price Model, Table C & M.6 p 81 |
| The cost sheet provided in the SIR limits the number of health & welfare hours that can be offered on even though that limited number does not meet the provisions of the CBAs or DOL wage determinations, why is that? And how can it be changed to meet CBA or DOL requirements? |
| See Q26. |
| Q73 |
| Reference Section L Factor 3 Past Performance Evaluation p 69 / M.5G p 80 |
| What experience will be considered sufficient to meet past performance requirements on the contract? What will the look back period be for such experience? |
| See section M.5G (b). Experience is not classified the same as past performance see section L.8A, Factor 3, last paragraph. The CO will determine how recent the past performance information shall be in order to determine if past performance information is acceptable for award. |
| Q74 |
| Reference Section L Factor 3 Past Performance Evaluation p 69 / M.5G p 80 |
| If a vendor has successfully performed CWO contracts for multiple CWO contract areas in the past or holds existing CWO contracts for multiple areas and has an acceptable performance rating will their past performance be considered to meet SIR requirements? |
| Past performance will be reviewed for all contractors that submit a proposal in order maintain a fair evaluation of all offerors. |
| Q75 |
| Reference Section L Factor 3 Past Performance Evaluation p 69 / M.5G p 80 |
| Is past performance information for subcontractors required? |
| In accordance with L.8A, Factor 3 and M.5G: The offerer should provide only the following information for their company and for any major subcontractors, affiliates, divisions, etc. |
COMPANY DUNS NUMBER COMPANY CAGE CODE
COMPANY SIZE STANDARD FOR NAICS COMPANY NAME
COMPANY ADDRESS
COMPANY POINT OF CONTACT (POC) POC E-MAIL
POC PHONE NUMBER
| Q76 |
| Section L.8B, Factor 4 Cost/Price Proposal Content, Paragraph 22, Page 71 & CWO Area Price Model |
| Many of the wages provided in the cost data sheet are outdated and do not reflect current fy 20 wages nor fy 21 wages, will updated wage information be provided? |
| The rates in the cost data sheet are the most recent wage determinations and CBAs. See Q27 and Q86. |
| Q77 |
| Section L.7, Table L.7.A.1, Page 63 |
| The length for the technical proposal is too short and unrealistic to cover all the items that need to be addressed as such we request that the technical proposal page requirement by lengthened, so can you adopt the page limits that were requested in the previous CWO SIR? |
| The maximum number of pages on the last SIR was entirely too extensive and allowed for unnecessarily long proposals. Submissions can and need to be succinct in order to facilitate a reasonable procurement lead time between proposal and award. The page length will not be amended. |
| Q78 |
| L.8B Factor 4 - Cost/Price Proposal Content #11) p 70 |
| How should subcontractor pricing information be provided, should it be separated from Prime Contractor or can they be combined in the pricing tables if they are clearly marked? |
| We would not have privity of contract with a subcontractor, all pricing would be prime contractor pricing. The prime would include the subcontractor’s cost on the appropriate line in the cost model. It is the responsibility of the Prime contractors to provide pricing to include any subcontractor pricing. |
| Q79 |
| 3.2.1.5-4 CONTINUITY OF SERVICES - MISSION CRITICAL CONTRACTS (JAN 2008) p 34 |
| There is a current CWO contract requirement for COVID-19 Wellness Checks and Case Reporting that is not in the current SIR, will it be added? |
| After award there may be further direction in regards to COVID-19. There is no way to provide this information at this juncture since this information has started changing more rapidly over the last few weeks. |
| Q80 |
| COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TELEPHONE LINE, p 7 |
| The requirement to have to obtain a commercial business telephone through an LEC that is hardwired in the office is extremely outdated and does not facilitate CWO operations during an evacuation of the facility or for the times observers are outside observing weather phenomena, can the use of cell phones be added to meet this requirement? |
| See Q52 |
| Q81 |
| Paragraph L.6 and Previous SIR |
| In a previous FAA solicitation (693KA7-19-R-00003) for CWO Services there was a clause that was nearly identical to paragraph L.6 in the subject solicitation. There was a Question and Answer on the previous solicitation which reads as follows: |
Q35. As in Prior CWO Solicitations does the current basis for award allow for a Vendor to be awarded 2 groups as a prime contractor and still be part of another Offeror team in the role as a subcontractor that is awarded two groups? B. Can a Mentor only team with one Protégé Company? C. Can a Vendor only be part of one subcontracting team?
A35. A single business concern will receive no more than two contract awards under this SIR. This restriction applies if the single business concern is any of the following as it relates to a contract award: (1) a potential prime contractor, by itself, (2) a potential prime contractor, as part of a joint venture (as defined by AMS Clause 3.2.2.7-8), or (3) a subcontractor in a single subcontracting arrangement with an awardee under this SIR, or (4) a mentor, whether as part of a joint venture, or in a single subcontracting arrangement with an awardee under this SIR.
Example #1: Vendor A has received a contract award for Group 12 as the prime contractor, and is also in a subcontracting arrangement with the awardee of the contract for Group 9. Vendor A may not receive another contract award under this SIR, regardless of whether Vendor A’s involvement on the third contract award is in the capacity as a prime contractor (whether as a single business concern, or as part of a joint venture), a subcontractor to the awardee of that contract award, or as a mentor, whether as part of a joint venture or a subcontractor).
Example #2: Vendor B has received a contract award for both Groups 2 and 3. Vendor B has also been proposed to serve as a subcontractor to a potential awardee for Group 5. Vendor B cannot engage in a single subcontracting arrangement with the contract awardee of Group 5.
Can we rely on this answer as being valid for the subject solicitation (6973GH-21-R-00052). If not, what is the answer to Q35 for the subject solicitation?
As a result of this solicitation, a contractor may only participate in two awards in any capacity.
Question 35 for Amendment 0001 of solicitation 6973GH-21-R-00052 is not the same as on the previous solicitation which was canceled.
| Q82 |
| CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL Table A |
| It appears that cells D:136 and W:79 on all AREAS have incorrect cell references which will create pricing errors. Will these discrepancies be corrected? |
| See Provision Sixth of Amendment 0001 of this solicitation, the pricing model has been updated accordingly. |
| Q83 |
| CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL, Table D |
| Under Element of Cost for Base Year and all Option Years, there are only six lines available to include other Elements of Cost. If a contractor were to add additional lines, it would risk changing the formulas and would potentially violate the prohibition against changing the format of the template. Will the FAA add additional lines under Element of Cost? |
| There are nine rows available – the Phone/Internet/Badges lines are examples, not required ODCs, and may be overwritten. |
The Offeror may combine costs if additional rows are needed, but the written narrative must detail what is combined and the costs of each item.
| Q84 |
| CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL; All Tables |
| With the multitude of pre-populated cells and formulas, it is possible that a contractor could inadvertently change a cell value that is not in one of the blue shaded areas. Would the FAA consider locking all the pre-populated cells so that no changes could be made which would preclude such an inadvertent error? |
| Hours have been removed from cost model for vendors to populate. Once the model is finalized (all questioned considered and answered), the model will be locked. Contractors should be careful not to change any prepopulated cells. |
| Q85 |
| CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL, Table B |
| What was the methodology by which the FAA arrived at the number of Labor Hours (1900) for the CWO Senior? |
| Hours have been removed from cost model. |
| Q86 |
| CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL |
| There are later WDG's than those used in Attachment J. Are we still to use those supplied? |
| Yes. Only two have been revised, and the rates have not changed. Therefore they will not be updated at this time. |
| Q87 |
| CWO_AREA_PRICE+MODEL |
| Where on the pre-filled pricing sheets are we to included Holiday, Vacation and Sick Leave and employer taxes and worker's compensation expense? |
| Please see the response to Q26 and Q31 |
Q88
| Is Avast.com an FAA approved cyber security program? |
| No, according to FAA IT. |
Q89
| Can we have internet service in IT managed space? |
| In FAA managed IT space, FAA provides the internet connection. |
| Q90 |
| J-1, (pages J-3 through J-29). |
| Please explain the rationale for reorganizing the Areas and Sites from previous solicitations, specifically 1) the reduction in the numbers of areas, 2) the combination and regrouping of sites within those new areas, and 3) excepting Alaska sites from this reorganization. Given the FAA’s goals of helping and promoting small business, this reduction in groups would seem to have the opposite effect.) |
| See Q65. |
| Q91 |
| L.8A.1.3, Quality Assurance Management Plan, (pages 67 & 68). |
| The requirement references SOW C.6.2 (page 13) which states, in part, “The QAMP must identify and describe how the contractor intends to maintain full compliance with all requirements of this contract.” While we recognize that the QAMP submitted with this proposal is a draft (in accordance with F-6, page 21) there are myriad different factors that can affect the performance of weather observers. We suggest that limiting this draft to five pages will not provide the Government with sufficient insight into a contractor’s approach to quality, leaving too much room for contractor interpretation. We appreciate the desirability of brevity to the evaluation process, but we suggest that a limit of 15 pages would provide comprehensive insight into a contractor’s approach to providing quality service and thus better serve the Government evaluation process. Please consider amending the SIR page limitation to allow for a meaningful draft QAMP. |
| See Q77. |
| Q92 |
| M.4C (page 79) |
| M.4C (page 79) states that, “The Government will confirm the accuracy of each offeror’s total price calculation and assess reasonableness of the proposed costs for the unit prices in addition to assessing the total evaluated price for performing services.” Will a bidder’s proposed profit be considered in the evaluation process? Specifically, will an unreasonably low profit be considered as an indication the bidder does not either fully understand the requirements of managing multiple sites, or have the financial resources to successfully manage the inherent uncertainties of the contract? That is, will an unrealistically low proposed profit impact the assessment of technical acceptability in the assessment of “the overall lowest price technically acceptable offer” within the context of M.6D? |
| Profit will be noted, but a low profit percentage is not indicative of a lack of understanding of the requirements. Profit is not a discriminator other than as part of the overall price. Profit does not affect technical capability. |
| Q93 |
| L.8A.1.4, Transition Plan (page 68) |
| L.8A.1.4, Transition Plan (page 68) states that, “Evaluation of this sub-factor will consider the Offeror’s approach to providing a comprehensive transition plan.” Our understanding of transition challenges shows us that two pages are insufficient to a comprehensive transition plan. Given the importance of continuous accurate contract performance during any transition, we believe that a minimum of 5 pages is required to provide the confidence the Government needs to ensure continuous error-free coverage at any given site. Please consider revising the page limit for the Transition Plan. |
| See Q77. |
| Q94 |
| L.7B.9 (page 64) |
| The SIR has little guidance as to the digital packaging of the volume of information required for bidding multiple areas, other than the L.7B.9 (page 64) reference to “more than one document for the volume.” Since the proposal is electronic may we submit separate files for each Area’s staffing plans and schedules? |
| It would be preferred that you try to consolidate as many files as possible within each Volume and/or Tab while staying under 10MB per electronic submission. |
| Q95 |
| L.7D.2 (page 65) |
| L.7D.2 (page 65) requires the proposal volumes to contain tabs. Since the proposal is to be submitted in electronic format only, do you expect divider pages between sections or would digital bookmarks and/or a hyperlinked table of contents suffice? |
| See Q43. Hyperlinked table of contents would be considered acceptable and likely helpful. |
| Q96 |
| L.8A.1.2 (Staffing Plans & Schedules, page 66) |
| The first paragraph of L.8A.1.2 (Staffing Plans & Schedules, page 66) seems to imply that a separate discussion of a bidder’s overall “approach to ensuring continuous coverage of the sites listed in Attachment J-1” is required, yet the page restrictions would not allow such an introduction. To avoid repetition of common practices in each site’s discussion and thus simplify evaluation, please consider amending the page restrictions for the Staffing Plans and Schedules to allow one or two pages of “general approach” for the Staffing Plans and Schedules sections. |
| The template provided must be used. |
| Q97 |
| C1.4 Service Standards Definitions (pages 5 & 6) |
| C1.4 Service Standards Definitions (pages 5 & 6) – Where can one find a current Service Standards Report? |
| There is no reference to a Service Standards Report in the solicitation. Section 1.4 defines the different service standards. |
| Q98 |
| C2.5 Government Provided Space (page 6) |
| C2.5 Government Provided Space (page 6) – What is the minimum size that meets the governments definition of “adequate”? |
| The standard size for a CWO Office is 100 sq. ft. |
| Q99 |
| C5.4 Nondisplacement Of Qualified Workers (page 11) |
| C5.4 Nondisplacement Of Qualified Workers (page 11) – This Executive Order was rescinded in October 2019 with the Department of Labor, becoming effective at the end of January 3030. The C5.4 requirement no longer applies and should be removed from the SIR. |
| See Q22 |
| Q100 |
| C.5.5.3 Administrative Time (page 12) |
| C.5.5.3 Administrative Time (page 12) – Speaking from experience, we question the need for this requirement. Administrative time is neither necessary nor needed; it adds a tremendous cost to the government that has no value. There are no sites in the country that have so much weather that the SWO needs a second person in the office so that he/she can accomplish their administrative duties. This wouldn’t even be needed at a weather office in the rainforest on Kauai, HI, one of the world’s wettest locations. We believe that it is in the Government’s best interest to remove this requirement. |
| The Administrative Time remains a requirement. |
| Q101 |
| Section I Contract Clauses (page 30) |
| Section I Contract Clauses (page 30) The only mention of paid sick leave is Section I, Page 30 Clause 3.6.2-46, Paid Sick Leave (Oct 2020). This order is due to COVID-19 and temporary. Executive Order 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal Contractors is a permanent law that all government contractors must follow and has not been included as a contractual clause in this SIR. Is this omission intentional and, if so, please explain the rationale. We believe this must be included. In addition to being included, we believe the government should calculate the necessary hours and include them on the pricing template |
| Executive Orders are not contract clauses, executive orders are not put in contracts. Clause 3.6.2-46, Paid Sick Leave was first introduced in July 2019 before Covid-19. The updated version of the clause is included. This clause discusses EO 13706, so the requirement for paid sick leave was not omitted. Additionally, look at Q26. |
| Q102 |
| CWO_Area_Price+Model (Excel Spreadsheet) (Table B) |
| How did the Government arrive at the number of CWO Excluding differential and CWO Senior hours Excluding differential of 7,052 and 1,900 respectively? We suggest these numbers are incorrect. For example, an SWO that works the entire year would work a total of 2,080 hours instead of 1,900. At a 24 hour site, 365 days multiplied by 24 gives us a total of 8,760 hours. Administrative time would then need to be included at 16 hours per week multiplied by 12 months in a year. This gives us the total labor hours of 8,952. Subtracting the SWO’s maximum of 2,080 leaves us with 6,872 CWO hours. |
| See the response to Q26. A fulltime equivalent (FTE) is not 2,080 hours, when you take into account holidays and leave. Hours have been removed from cost model for vendors to populate. |
| Q103 |
| CWO_Area_Price+Model (Excel Spreadsheet) |
| (Table C) There seem to be several categories of cost that are not included in the pricing requirements, notably costs for taxes, sick leave, personal days, and vacation pay. We believe these are appropriate costs and required as part of the bid. How are bidders to include costs for these expenses in our bid? |
| See the response to Q26 and Q31 |
| Q104 |
| CWO_Area_Price+Model (Excel Spreadsheet) |
| (Table C) With respect to sick/personal days, we believe that the number of hours should be the same for every operator. Therefore, we suggest that the Government calculate the hours for each site and include them on the final pricing spreadsheet. |
| See Q26. |
| Q105 |
| CWO_Area_Price+Model (Excel Spreadsheet) |
| (Table C) On the Fringe Benefits we see an H&W rate but nowhere for H&W hours to be populated. |
| See Q31. |
| Q106 |
| CWO_Area_Price+Model (Excel Spreadsheet) |
| (Tables A, B, C, D) In past bids, offerors have been allowed to include notes of their own on the spreadsheets. Are we allowed to add to the notes to include company notes that might help explain why a particular item is the way it is? We believe this would greatly help those evaluating the pricing sheets. |
| Information on how your pricing was formulated should be clarified in the price narrative. |
| Q107 |
| Section L, Number of Awards, (Page 62) |
| Section L, Number of Awards, (Page 62) Traditionally, the Government would state that the awards will be made at least 30 days prior to the start of the new contract. We do not see a milestone included in this SIR. How much time will the government be giving awardees between the notice of award and the start of the new contracts? Given the pandemic, as well as the fact that several of the groups are considerably larger than in previous bids, we request that the Government make every reasonable attempt to allow 60 days between the notice of award and the start date of the new contracts. |
| The current contracts currently expire September 30, 2021. We are looking to award by August 31, 2021. This would allow the awardees 30 days for administrative functions involved in preparing for the beginning of the period of performance. If this plan cannot be attained we will ensure that adequate time for administrative functions is given to awardees, but no more than 30 days. |
| Q108 |
| (Sections J-15 & J-16) |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
