Questions for SIR 6739GH-21-R-00127 Human Factors Research in support of Air Traffic Control Tasks Traffic Management Simulation 8.11.2021JCTS.docx

FAA SIR/RFP 6973GH-21-R-00127

Human Factors Research in support of Air Traffic Control Tasks Traffic Management Simulation Questions:

1. Period of Performance: Page 2 of the Solicitation, Offer and Award states a Period of Performance: 09/28/2021 to 09/27/2023 while page 18 paragraph 7.9 of the ATCSCC SOW Revised 6.10.2021 doc states a Perion of Performance as 27 August 2021 – 28 August, 2022.

We corrected the statement of work to reflect the date on the SIR 09/28/2021 to 09/27/2022.

2. What is the Period of Performance for CLIN 00001 (labor, materials and equipment for the FSM/TSD interactive simulation platform)? See SOW 2.2 Task Schedule page 11

· What is the Period of Performance for CLIN 00002 (Training for minimum of 16 ATCSCC, CAMI, and TMU personnel)? 09/28/2021 to 09/27/2022

· What is the correct overall Period of Performance for this proposal? 09/28/2021 to 09/27/2022

3. Training Requirement: Page 2 of the Solicitation, Offer and Award, under CLIN 00002 Training, states “The vendor must provide training to a minimum of 10 ATCSCC, CAMI, and TMU Personnel…” while SOW Section 1.3.3 Support (Training) states “The vendor must provide training to as many as 16 ATCSCC, CAMI and TMU personnel,…”

· Is the correct number 10 or 16? 16

· As the training is to cover 3 entities (ATCSCC, CAMI, TMU) is the minimum number of trainees applicable to each entity for a total number of 30 (3x10) or 48 (3x16)? No, a total of 16.

4. The RFP states: The vendor must provide training to a minimum of 10 ATCSCC, CAMI, and TMU Personnel in the following areas:

· Is there an expectation for training greater than the minimum? The total is 16.

· Will training only occur once, to address 16 people, or is there expected additional training? Training may occur multiple times up to four classes to meet the total of 16 people.

· Will the Government be requiring vendors to travel to Government site locations for personnel training? Yes

5. Tables for Technical Proposal: Section L states “The technical proposal shall include two (2) tables (1 for each Phase) that highlights where in the Offeror's proposal it addresses Attachment 1: SOW Musts and the types of supporting information and where it is located in the proposal.”

· Please clarify: The table for Phase One references the SOW Musts, is this to be repeated for Phase Two or is the table for Phase Two to address the items in the evaluation criteria table under M.2 starting on page 58 of the Solicitation? The Table for Phase Two should address the table under M.3 Factor 2 starting on page 58 of the solicitation.

· If both Phases refer to the same table (SOW Musts), will one table suffice with 2 columns, one for Phase One and one for Phase Two, or does the table need to be repeated in the Proposal? (the table alone is 11.5 pages long). Both phases do not refer to the same table.

6. Page limitation: Section L of the Solicitation, Offer and Award does not contain a page limit for the Proposal. Is there a page limit? In addition, are the two required tables included in the page limit? There is no page limit.

7. Invoicing: Since the anticipated contract type is FFP, can we assume that the total amount proposed for CLIN 00002 will be divided into 12 equal monthly invoices and payments?

Yes, we can divide into 12 equal monthly invoices and payments

8. Server requirements: SOW Section 1.3 states “The simulation platform is to be cloud-based, available from inside the FAA network, such that trainees can access the simulation without specialized hardware. The server for the cloud-based platform must reside at ATCSCC facilities in Warrenton, Virginia or an approved vendor data center and must be able to hold at least 500 scenarios.

· Does the government expect to have redundant servers for the cloud-based platform to ensure continuous operability of the platform in case of server interruptions due to failure by natural causes or electrical outages? The government expects the vendor to provide redundant servers.

· Does the government expect the server(s) operations to be protected by Back-Up Power Supplies and generators? Yes

9. Cloud-Based Access: Ref 1.3.2 page 7 states “The vendor provided simulations must be cloud-based, available from inside the FAA network, such that trainees can access the simulation without specialized hardware.”

· Please clarify Cloud-Based Access for front-end user interfaces can be thin-client browser based accessing back-end processes on-prem at the ATCSCC or an approved FAA Data Center.

Students and instructors can access the simulator using FAA standard issue desktop or laptop computers (that use windows operating systems). Yes, specialized software with a low foot print or browser software is expected for use to access back end processes on the server where all of the heavy lifting will occur.

· Please clarify which FAA network the simulation capability needs to be available on. Some options are FAA Mission Support, FAA Ops, FAA ATCSCC.

This is still TBD. It may be FAA Mission Support, it may be on FAA Ops but the part of FAA ops that is the training network or testing string and not the operational part for critical safety reasons. It is not clear what is being referred to as FAA ATCSCC. In phase one, a minimally acceptable solution would be that this capability only work locally at the ATCSCC. Although in this case we also require a copy that works locally at CAMI as well and thus in this case the vendor proposal should include estimates for servers at both locations. A preferred solution would be over the FAA network such that the servers can be accessed by ATCSCC, CAMI researchers and by students and instructors at FAA facilities across the NAS.

10. Location: Ref SOW 1.3.2 page 7 states “The simulation capability must reside on servers at the ATCSCC in Warrenton, VA or at an approved FAA data center.”

· Please clarify if rack space and power will be provided as GFE to host back-end servers supporting our simulation capability. Rack space and power will be GFE.

11. Labor Requirements: SOW Section 1.3.1 Support (Labor) states “Vendors are required to have at least one (1) SME on staff with TMC experience at the ATCSCC.

Unknown what is being asked here. Will clarify however that the requirements is for SME to have had prior experience on staff as a TMC at the ATCSCC.

12. Does the Government expect training to be accomplished only during Monday-Friday normal working hours (8:00 AM – 5:00 PM) or will training be scheduled during different working shifts requiring additional SMEs to be available to support training and server support? Monday-Friday, 8am to 5pm

13. Pricing Requirements:

· Does the Government want a single FFP for the entire content of CLIN 00001?

· Does the Government want offerors to submit a breakout of CLIN 00001 subcategories (i.e: Labor, Materials, and Equipment)? Yes a single FFP for CLIN 0001 and CLIN 0002 supported with a breakout for each CLIN

14. Proposal Submission: Ref Section L.11 – please clarify if a hard copy of the proposal is required for submission or if electronic only submission is acceptable. Electronic copies only.

15. Font and font size: Please clarify what font is required and what size font for the body of the document as well as the font in the tables Georgia, Font 12

16. Will we have access to the current FSM/TSD/TCF displays (screen images) and software? Yes.

17. Will we have access to the SVRWX "Playbook"? We can provide access.

18. The key question for us is does the FAA own the source code for the FSM and TSD and can that be provided to us to evaluate during the proposal phase?

The FAA owns the code but it will only be provided to the contractor that wins the award and not during the proposal phase. Additionally, the SOW was previously changed to require the solution to hook to current FSM/TSD GUI so as to be more flexible if a new traffic management system is implemented in the future. We have now decided to remove this requirement and return the option for vendors to propose to create a close simulation of the FSM/TSD GUI of their own instead. The SOW has been changed accordingly. Preference may be given to proposals that include solutions that facilitate responding to changes to the real world GUI in the future.

19. The solicitation document came out on 07/14/21. Was there an industry day associated with this solicitation release? I do not see any information on solicitation site regarding an industry day chart package.

A Market Survey was released and open for 30 Days. After the market survey the interested vendors were contacted and provided time to do demonstrations.

20. Do you know if there will be an interested parties list posted in the public domain capturing the companies that submitted questions/comments/interst for teaming opportunities and collaboration? No, we will not be listing interested parties.

21. The FAA now requires that the simulator system must be able to integrate with, display, and take input from, the GUI of the system in use. Due to this change in requirement from the Market Survey, will the FAA provide interface control documents (ICDs) for FSM and TSD?

After further discussion, the FAA has removed the integration requirement as a hard requirement and returned to having two options: the integrate with current FSM/TSD GUI option and the create your own very close simulation of the FSM/TSD option instead. The SOW has been updated accordingly. Preference may be given to proposals that include solutions that facilitate responding to changes to the real world GUI in the future. In either case, the only additional documents we can provide prior to award can be found by the vendors at cdm.fly.faa.gov/?page_id=237

22. Once the ICDs for FSM and TSD are provided, we request additional time beyond August 19 to be able to respond properly. There will be an extension.

23. Are all components of the technical solution expected to be cloud-based? In other words, will the existing FSM and TSD applications be hosted on the cloud server or will they be running native onsite? What technical issues might arise with hosting the existing FSM and TSD on a cloud server? Integration with the existing FSM and TSD is now one option for meeting our requirements. However, with a solution that uses this option, we expect that most components would be cloud based. We do expect technical issues that would need to be worked through regardless of the solution.

24. Based on the significance of questions/clarifications, would the government consider at least a one-week extension to the due date? There will be an extension.

25. In the document ARTSCC SOW Revised 6.10.2021 Section 6.1 COMPUTER PROGRAM DELIVERABLES contains the following statements:

• Deliverables associated with computer programs developed by the contractor must be provided as specified in each individual task order. Since this is stated as a fixed priced contract, what task orders are you refereeing to? Also, can you provide more specifics on these deliverables? This verbiage has been removed to accurately reflect the requirements.

• For some software applications, the deliverables must include source code and any necessary libraries or object files used in the construction of the software. For other software applications, the FAA must acquire the rights to use the product via software licensing.

Can you provide specifics regarding these applications and their deliverables as this has a bearing on price? The SOW has been revised to remove verbiage that does not accurately reflect this requirement.

• The deliverables for these tasks must not include the source code unless specifically stated in the delivery/task order and must generally consist of installation of the software by the contractor on designated computers and acquisition of appropriate licenses from the contractor.

26. Can you provide specifics on “task” and “task order”? The SOW has been revised to remove verbiage that does not accurately reflect this requirement.

• Unless specifically stated in the delivery/task order otherwise, all software must be developed to operate in a 64-bit Microsoft Windows environment

27. Can you provide specifics on the “task order”? How does this relate to the fixed price CLIN as specified? The SOW has been revised to remove verbiage that does not accurately reflect this requirement.

• The 2nd to last paragraph in this section is “Future enhancements of the software applications and any future software developed that may interface with previously purchased software, enhance the capabilities of current software or provide applications for future simulator/simulation/analysis needs.”

28. This sentence appears incomplete – is there a must statement or directive associated with this sentence? How would any future enhancements be requested or costed since both CLIN 1 and CLIN 2 are stated a fixed price? The SOW has been revised to remove verbiage that does not accurately reflect this requirement.

29. Section 6.5 HARDWARE states; “Task orders may be used to provide detailed information on additional hardware requirements.” What task orders are you referring to? The SOW has been revised to remove verbiage that does not accurately reflect this.

30. Section 6.8 TRAVEL states; “Travel, both domestic and international, may be required for various members of the contract team as determined on a task by task basis and as dictated by the COR for purposes of meeting the tasks stipulated in the SOW.” As this SIR indicates the contract will be a fixed price, can the Government indicate the number of domestic and international trips expected with this contract in order to accurately price the proposal? Travel may be required to train the 16 personnel. A total of 4 Trips may be needed to complete training 16 personnel. Training will occur at the ATCSCC, at the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute in Oklahoma City, and at one other facility to be determined. Training will occur prior to the acceptance of the simulator and then between delivery of the simulator and the end of the period of performance.

31. Section 7.8 Quality Assurance states; “The Government will monitor the contractor’s performance under this contract. Performance will be considered acceptable when it meets requirements contained in the contract and SOW.” Can you provide definition and measurements for “meets requirements”? The requirements are described throughout the SOW but here especially referring to: Provides the labor requirements described in 1.3.1, delivers the functionality described in the technical requirements in 1.3.2 (and further described in the appendices C and D), and provides the training described in 1.3.3, and the documentation described in 1.3.4.

32. The SOW Musts Checklist provides line-item numbering in the left-hand column through number 32, but this only accounts for about 1/3rd of the overall Must statements listed. Additionally, number 26 is used twice, representing two different Must statements. Can the Government provide a SOW Must Checklist with a complete and correct line-item numbering scheme in order to properly reference each requirement in the document? The Table of Musts has been updated.

33. The ATCSCC SOW Revised 6.10.2021 document, paragraph 1.3.3 SUPPORT (TRAINING) states; “The vendor must provide training to as many as 16 ATCSCC, CAMI and TMU personnel, during the contract period of performance...”

Will the training occur at the ATCSCC, at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City, at FAA field facilities or a combination there of? Is the training to be conducted at one time or over several periods of time? When must this training be completed? What is the contractual number of personnel that must receive the training, 10 or 16? Travel may be required to train the 16 personnel. A total of 4 Trips may be needed to complete training 16 personnel. Training will occur at the ATCSCC, at the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute in Oklahoma City, and at one other facility to be determined. Training will occur prior to the acceptance of the simulator and then between delivery of the simulator and the end of the period of performance.

34. Can the Government provide an anticipated date when they will post the answers to questions? If you are reading this, then the answers are posted.

35. Please clarify FAA’s intention regarding the simulation platform and capability being “cloud-based” versus residing in servers at the ATCSCC or at an approved FAA data center.

FAA expects the simulation platform to reside on awarded provided servers inside the FAA network and be accessible by instructors and students using standard issue FAA desktop and laptop computers (that are windows based). Access to the FAA network will require instructors and students to perform security validation (provide a pin or password). As the desktop and laptops used by instructors and students do not include specialized hardware, it is necessary for most of the smarts and data of the simulator to be provided over the network from other sources. Where the servers are located is TBD by the FAA but if this is to be made available across the NAS it will likely be at server locations that are not located at the ATCSCC or CAMI. In phase one, a minimally acceptable solution would be that this capability only work locally at the ATCSCC. Although in this case we also require a copy that works locally at CAMI as well and thus in this case the vendor proposal should include estimates for servers at both locations. A preferred solution would be over the FAA network such that the servers can be accessed by ATCSCC, CAMI researchers and by students and instructors at FAA facilities across the NAS.

36. Can we consider FAA Cloud Services (FCS) as an approved vendor data center? If yes, how does our cost proposal represent FCS costs?

Yes, FCS is an approved data center offering. FCS would be a separate contract purchase by the FAA. FCS costs would be completely independent.

37. Please clarify FAA’s intent for running scenarios with trainees concurrently. Is the intent to have multiple trainees participate in a common scenario (perhaps as different roles/facilities) or to have multiple trainees participate each in their own scenario independently of other trainees? Or is the intent to have a single trainee per instructor? If single trainee, is there intent to having multiple instructors perform scenario training concurrently and how many must the TFM simulator support.

It is the FAA’s intent that all of the training situations listed above would be supported by the training simulation platform. These include: Multiple trainees/instructors participating in a common scenario, single trainee per instructor for up to 100 users simultaneously.

38. The RFP specifies the simulator training to be provided to a minimum of 10 (per CLIN 0002 in Solicitation Cover Sheet) (16 in SOW 1.3.3) personnel for operation of the simulator and scenario development (CLIN 0002), but does not specify the number of concurrent trainees of ATM training using the simulator. Can the FAA provide a ceiling on concurrent trainees, especially as it pertains to the previous question of trainee independence? The total is 16.

39. I just want to confirm that you expect to receive proposals from industry for the below request by email, and not through a government software/web app. Is that correct? Yes

40. Factor 3(a) in section L and M require all cited past performance projects to have a value of $800,000 or more. While it makes sense that the offeror must demonstrate experience in projects of similar size and scope as the current requirement, the FAA is missing critical information about contributing experience that provides significant and valuable experience by setting the threshold at this (unusual) level. Will the FAA reduce the threshold of cited projects to $500,000? The value has been updated to reflect $500k.

41. Factor 1 in sections L and M requires 10 years of experience directly realted to the requirements over the last 15 years. Due to industry standard turnover rates, it is likely that the employees that worked on a project that was conducted 15 years ago are no longer employeed by the offeror. This significantly reduces the value that can be provided by the offeror to the Government to address the requirements. We recommend that the FAA require the offeror to provide evidence that they still employ at least 50% of the employees that worked on any cited project experience. Will the FAA consider this change which would increase the value that the offeror provides to the Government? The verbiage has been updated and it now states “Experience with high fidelity simulation offered must have a minimal depth of ten (10) years of experience within the last fifteen (15) years related to high fidelity simulation.”

42. The time period between the expected answers to questions and the due date for proposals is extremely short. If any changes are made to the solicitation, significant additional time will be required to address the changes. We request that the final due date for proposals be no earlier than 30 days after any amendments are made to the solicitation as a result of questions submitted. There will be an extension.