Phase I Questions and Answers - 03.01.2024 FINAL.pdf

SIR/RFP 6973GH-24-R-00005 Information Technology Support Services (ITSS) at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, OK March 1, 2024

Questions and Answers

1. QUESTION: Is this a Recompete to an existing contract with an incumbent service provider, or a New Requirement? If there is an incumbent, can you please let me know which company that is?

GOV’T ANSWER: Yes, this is a recompete to an existing contract. The incumbent is Science Applications International Corporation.

2. QUESTION: Are you excepting submissions for certain portions of the RFP or would one company be required to bid all aspects of the RFP?

GOV’T ANSWER: One company is required to bid all aspects of the RFP. In accordance with L.1 Business Size Restrictions and Competition Consideration; “only one (1) proposal per offeror will be accepted”.

3. QUESTION: Is there an incumbent?

GOV’T ANSWER: Yes, there is an incumbent. Reference question 1.

4. QUESTION: Was there a similar contract previously awarded? If so, please provide the contract number and solicitation.

GOV’T ANSWER: Yes, there was a previously awarded contract. The contract number is 6973GH-19-D-00031 and the solicitation number is 6973GH-18-R-00092.

5. QUESTION: If there is/was an incumbent or previously successful offeror, please advise who the incumbent is?

GOV’T ANSWER: The incumbent is Science Applications International Corporation.

6. QUESTION: If there is/was an incumbent, what was the previous contract number or solicitation?

GOV’T ANSWER: The previous contract number is 6973GH-19-D-00031 and the previous solicitation number is 6973GH-18-R-00092.

7. QUESTION: If there is/was an incumbent, what was the previous contract award dollar value?

GOV’T ANSWER: The previous contract award dollar value is $187,991,040.58.

8. QUESTION: If there is/was an incumbent, what type of contract was awarded: Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA), Best Value et cetera?

GOV’T ANSWER: An indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract was awarded. The previous solicitation used a two phased approach. Phase I consisted of “Acceptable/Not Acceptable.” All companies found to be Acceptable, moved on to Phase II, which was Best Value.

9. QUESTION: If there was/is an incumbent, what was the previous NAICS code for the contract issued?

ANSWER: The previous NAICS code for the contract issued was 541512 Computer Systems Design Services.

10. QUESTION: If there is/was an incumbent, was the contract a set-aside?

GOV’T ANSWER: No, it was competed as Unrestricted.

11. QUESTION: If a previous contract was awarded, was it a set-aside? What was the size standard?

GOV’T ANSWER: No, it was competed as Unrestricted. The NAICS size standard for 541512 was $27.5M.

12. QUESTION: Are potential conflict of interest mitigation plans required?

GOV’T ANSWER: Yes, AMS clause 3.1.7-4 Organizational Conflict of Interest – Mitigation Plan Required (OCT 2019) is applicable.

13. QUESTION: Will the government ensure all responses are posted before release for the final solicitation?

GOV’T ANSWER: The final solicitation was posted on February 13, 2024 to SAM.GOV. If necessary, items may be amended.

14. QUESTION: Will there be an industry day?

GOV’T ANSWER: No

15. QUESTION: Will down-selected offerors be able to visit the FAA’s facilities?

GOV’T ANSWER: No

16. QUESTION: Is DoD work considered relevant to past performance?

GOV’T ANSWER: In accordance with M.5.1.3 Past Performance Evaluation and Performance Risk Assessment and M.5.2.4 Past Performance Evaluation, “Past Performance information will be submitted in Phase II. Details regarding Past Performance Evaluation will be provided to all Phase II participating offerors”. Phase II Answers will not be provided at this time.

17. QUESTION: Is DHS work considered relevant to past performance?

be submitted in Phase II. Details regarding Past Performance Evaluation will be provided to all Phase II participating offerors”. Phase II Answers will not be provided at this time.

18. QUESTION: Is funding in place for an award this FY, and how much?

GOV’T ANSWER: At the time of award, funding will be available on individual task orders.

19. QUESTION: As this is a Best Value award and scoring, do technical factors have a greater value than past performance, and does cost price have a greater value in scoring than any of those, as mentioned earlier?

be submitted in Phase II. Details regarding Past Performance Evaluation will be provided to all Phase II participating offerors”. In accordance with M.5.1.2 Cost/Price Assessment and Evaluation, “Pricing information will be submitted in Phase II. Details regarding Price Evaluation will be provided to all Phase II participating offerors”. Phase II Answers will not be provided at this time.

20. QUESTION: Will the FAA consider amending the Oracle CPSE certification required for the solicitation? The certification is extremely new to industry and has not been utilized in major federal transformations at this point.

GOV’T ANSWER: Reference Amendment #00001

21. QUESTION: Will the FAA consider substituting the Oracle CPSE certification for other Oracle certifications? For example; Authorized Reseller, Solution Integrator, ERP certified, EPM certified, SCM certified, and HCM certified? Again, the CPSE certification is mostly held by non-US based companies and commercial groups that do not perform in the federal markets.

22. QUESTION: Does the Buy American Act (BAA) apply, and if so, please specify what portions, products, or software are within the SOW?

GOV’T ANSWER: The Buy American Act does not apply. The Government provides all hardware and software used.

23. QUESTION: Please clarify what an “established partnered team” means to FAA – does the established team require Teaming Agreements? Exclusive or non-exclusive? What parameters is the FAA trying to achieve here?

GOV’T ANSWER: Reference L.6.3.1.b. An established partnered team is defined as two or more businesses that have performed TOGETHER on a contract for a minimum of one year. Offerors are encouraged to submit whatever documentation they feel fulfills the requested information.

Note: The Government will not alter the definition of established partnered team. The Government has determined that continuity of service is of the upmost importance and there is too much risk in allowing a teaming arrangement that does not have previous, proven experience as a team. The rational basis for this decision is based on market research.

24. QUESTION: Does the FAA intend Phase 1 past performance to be written to the criteria of the Statements of Work provided in the various tasks? Or simply broad experience?

GOV’T ANSWER: Past Performance is not required for Phase I. In accordance with M.5.1.3 Past Performance Evaluation and Performance Risk Assessment and M.5.2.4 Past Performance Evaluation, “Past Performance information will be submitted in Phase II. Details regarding Past Performance Evaluation will be provided to all Phase II participating offerors”. In accordance with M.5.1.2 Cost/Price Assessment and Evaluation, “Pricing information will be submitted in Phase II. Details regarding Price Evaluation will be provided to all Phase II participating offerors”. Phase II Answers will not be provided at this time.

25. QUESTION: Will the FAA please provide a price range of realism in Phase 2 to ensure that companies do not underbid the contract, therefore introducing program risk?

GOV’T ANSWER: In accordance with M.5.1.2 Cost/Price Assessment and Evaluation, “Pricing information will be submitted in Phase II. Details regarding Price Evaluation will be provided to all Phase II participating offerors”. Phase II Answers will not be provided at this time.

26. QUESTION: Does the FAA Mentor-Protégé Program apply to this solicitation?

GOV’T ANSWER: 3.6.1-11 Mentor-Protégé Requirements and Evaluation (JAN 2024) applies to this solicitation.

27. QUESTION: Could the FAA please comment on any OCI concerns that are present with other large enterprise DOT programs?

GOV’T ANSWER: At this time, no OCI concerns have been identified. AMS Clause 3.1.7-1,2, 4, 5, and 6 apply to this solicitation. Should future concerns arise, they will be identified and addressed by the Contracting Officer.

28. QUESTION: Will the FAA be adding the following language to the solicitation 6.1-10

EVALUATION OF CONTRACTOR PARTICIPATION IN THE FAA MENTOR-PROTÉGÉ

PROGRAM as prescribed in 1.17 (b), insert the following provision: Evaluation of Prime Contractor participation in the FAA Mentor-Protégé Program. FAA will evaluate the proposed participation and extent of developmental assistance to be provided by mentor firms to protégé firms as an approved mentor firm in the FAA Mentor-Protégé Program.

GOV’T ANSWER: AMS Clause 3.6.1-10 Evaluation of Contractor Participation in the FAA Mentor-Protégé Program no longer exists.

29. QUESTION: Will the FAA recognize and support the Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Verification & Evaluation program for verifying SDVOSB contract evaluation concerns?

GOV’T ANSWER: In accordance with clause 3.3.1-33 System for Award Management (JAN 2024); “If registered in SAM as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), by submission of an offer, the offeror acknowledges that they are certified as an SDVOSB under the Small Business Administration’s Veteran Small Business Certification Program (VetCert). In accordance with Provision 3.2.2.7-7 Certification Regarding Responsibility Matters (JAN 2024);

“If the Offeror represents itself as an SDVOSB, the Offeror certifies it is certified as an SDVOSB under the Small Business Administration’s Veteran Small Business Certification Program (VetCert) at the time of offer”.

30. QUESTION: If the FAA decides not to support the Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Verification & Evaluation program for verified SDVOSB concerns in this solicitation, please explain why.

GOV’T ANSWER: Please see the answer to question 29.

31. QUESTION: When does the FAA expect to issue an award?

GOV’T ANSWER: The 30-day phase in period will be September 01, 2024 through September 30, 2024. The government anticipates an award prior to September 01, 2024.

32. QUESTION: If there’s a Continuing Resolution, will this contract still be awarded in 2024?

GOV’T ANSWER: Yes

33. QUESTION: If an award can still be made under a continuing resolution, can a CLIN/Task Order still be issued?

GOV’T ANSWER: Yes

34. QUESTION: Are hyperlinks authorized in the RFP response?

GOV’T ANSWER: No.

35. QUESTION: Reference page 86, Criteria 3.2: When the Government references “managing & developing 40 or more customer applications demonstrating multiple (more than three) development approaches simultaneously”, are the provided examples of “Application Implementation Services, Application Management Services, waterfall application development, Agile/Dev Ops software development” intended to represent development approaches?

GOV’T ANSWER: Yes.

36. QUESTION: Reference page 88, Criteria 6: Could the Government provide clarification on the activities or sequence of activities that meet the definition of “migration”?

GOV’T ANSWER: In this context, “migrating” means that the installed software is replaced by a newer or changed version with similar or extended functionality.

37. QUESTION: Reference page 72, L.4.3: Does the Government wish to receive signed Standard Form and any amendments with the Phase I submission?

GOV’T ANSWER: Section L.4.3 has been amended in Amendment 0001.

38. QUESTION: Reference Factor 1, page 74: Is “an established partnered team” member referring to a Teaming Partner (Subcontractor) on the Prime’s Team bidding for the FAA MMAC ITSS?

GOV’T ANSWER: Reference L.6.3.1.b. An established partnered team is defined as two or more businesses that have performed TOGETHER on a contract for a minimum of one year. The Government will not alter the definition of established partnered team. The Government has determined that continuity of service is of the upmost importance and there is too much risk in allowing a teaming arrangement that does not have previous, proven experience as a team. The rational basis for this decision is based on market research.

39. QUESTION: Reference Factor 6, page 75: Does “migration” refer to “cloud migration”, migration from a Waterfall to an Agile SDLC, or Migration from one technology platform to another? Does “on and annual basis” mean in 1 year of a multi-year contract or in every year of a multi-year contract?

GOV’T ANSWER: Reference question #36. “on an annual basis” refers to every year.

40. QUESTION: Reference Factor 7, page 75: Does “Financial system” mean a “Federal Financials application eg. Oracle Federal Financials or any system that provides Financials functionality?

GOV’T ANSWER: Correct. Oracle Federal Financials or any other system that provides Financials functionality.

41. QUESTION: Reference Factor 7, page 75: Can the Financials system used in Factor 8 be the same as the Financials system used in Factor 7? Can these Factors be combined together into 1 Factor in the RFP?

GOV’T ANSWER: No, responses and factors are independent and should remain separated as requested.

42. QUESTION: Reference Factor 10, page 77: We think the Certification stated in Factor 10 (CSPE) is somewhat unusual, mostly held by overseas firms, and therefore restricts competition. Will FAA consider also accepting any of the following certifications to address Factor 10? Solution integrator of Oracle solutions, Reseller of Oracle Cloud ERP, EPM SCM or HCM?

43. QUESTION: Reference L.6, pages 73-74: Can the Government please confirm that including a title page, table of contents/tables/figures, and a cover sheet (L.6.1.4(b)) is permissible, and that these supplementary pages would not be counted against the specified 20-page limit for the Phase I Technical Proposal (L.6.3.1(c))?

GOV’T ANSWER: All of the items listed above (i.e. title page, table of contents, etc) will be considered part of the 20-page limitation.

44. QUESTION: Reference L.6.3, Factors 1-9, pages 74-76: We assume that it is the Government’s intent that the term “contract” should represent a single client program and that it is not acceptable to use a GWAC contract inclusive of multiple Task Orders where different Task Orders support different clients/agencies to meet the requirements of a Factor. Can the Government please confirm this is correct?

GOV’T ANSWER: Offerors are encouraged to submit whatever documentation they feel fulfills the requested information.

45. QUESTION: Reference L.6.3, Factor 2 and M.5.1.1, Factor 2, pages 74 and 85: Factor 2 states that “Offeror must provide a narrative of one (1) contract, as either the Prime or with an established team.” Factors 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 require offerors to provide contracts as a Prime or “an established partnered team”. Can we assume that the Government intended “Prime or with an established partnered team” for Factor 2?

46. QUESTION: Reference M.3.2.1(b), page 83: Can the Government please elaborate on “any additional information and confirm that Offerors are not required to complete and submit in Phase I any representations and certifications in the SIR or signed copies of the SF30 or any amendments?

GOV’T ANSWER: Please review sections L.4, L.5, and L.6.

47. QUESTION: Reference page 76, L.6.3, Factor 10: Please clarify if Oracle Consulting Services (Oracle corporation’s professional consulting services organization) can be offered as a partner that fulfills the requirement and evaluation of Factor 10.

48. QUESTION: Reference page 74 c: “The Phase I Technical Proposal must sufficiently detail demonstrated experience to enable the Government to validate it. Each factor in Phase I requires documentation stating the agency or entity name, contract numbers, contract type (i.e. firm fixed-priced, labor hour) contract value, contract start-completion dates, number of employees, description of work provided, one (1) primary point of contact (POC), and one (1) alternate POC, including e-mail addresses, telephone numbers and their relevancy to this contract”. Please confirm that “description of work provided” is where Offerors should address the requirements for each Factor from Section L and M.

GOV’T ANSWER: Yes.

49. QUESTION: Reference page 57 of 177 of Attachment 03 Task PWSs and SOWs: “After an evaluation team and a study with an operations capability demonstration (OCD) of 25 “super scenarios” which assimilated the Departments most complex business processes as defined by the operating administration and incorporated the DOTs functional evaluation criteria, the results were the high percentage of expected results successfully demonstrated by Oracle financials, the DOT Deputy Chief Financial Officer (DCFO) endorsed the evolutionary migration to Oracle federal financials, which is called the DOT Delphi program”. Please confirm that the government is looking for support for the DOT Delphi program and not a technology or platform called Delphi.

GOV’T ANSWER: The Government can confirm that we utilize Oracle Financials, which we refer to as the DOT Delphi Program.

50. QUESTION: Reference SIR page 75: “Providing application development and maintenance support for financial systems”. Can the government confirm that there is no Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) for current or future FAA procurements as a result of an award on this contract?

GOV’T ANSWER: See Answer #27.

51. QUESTION: Reference PWS page 54: Delphi/Prism Development and Support. Can the government confirm that there is no OCI for other current or future FAA procurements as a result of an award of this contract?

GOV’T ANSWER: See Answer #27

52. QUESTION: Reference page 75, vi. Factor 6 Demonstrate Migration Experience; Regarding “the offeror’s is experienced in maintaining 150 or more migrations in Software Development Lifecycle Management (SDLC) methodology under both Agile and waterfall development on an annual basis”, please explain what “maintaining migrations” means.

GOV’T ANSWER: Reference Answer #36. In this instance, the Government considers the “maintaining migrations” and “migrations” as interchangeable.

53. QUESTION: Reference page 76, iii. Factor 3: Demonstrate Application Experience; Regarding “Application Implementation Services – All projects based activities for Consult, Build, Operate, Optimize applications without the follow up ongoing management responsibilities,” what does “without the follow up ongoing management responsibilities”?

GOV’T ANSWER: In this factor, the Government is the authority for the ongoing management responsibilities.

54. QUESTION: Reference Factor 4, page 75; In the Phase 1 corporate experience factors the FAA is requesting that the experience identify support of Oracle 150 databases on a SINGLE contract.

Was it the intent of the government that this level of support be encompassed by one contract? It is rare that even the largest Oracle Financials/Procurement systems contain that many discrete databases.

GOV’T ANSWER: Yes, on a single contract, although not limited to Oracle Financial/Procurement Systems. See Factor 4.