6973GH-25-R-00028 A00001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ.NO.

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

Items 8 and 15, and returning is extended, is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required.)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

(x) A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

1 2

0001 04/04/2025

AAQ-740 TRAINING & AVIATION ACQ

FAA AERONAUTICAL CENTER

PO BOX 25082

BLDG 014-AHQ, ROOM 233A

AAQ740-AFN

OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73125

x

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment number. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By ___________ x x

6973GH-25-R-00028

copies to the issuing office.

04/04/2025

(x)

The purpose of this amendment is outlined below:

I. This amendment to the solicitation is to publish the final SIR which revises Sections

L&M instructions and associated evaluation criteria.

II. The proposal due date is revised to April 25,2025 at 5:00 P.M. CT.

III. Questions and Answers are hereby incorporated.

IV. Attachment J.4 has been updated and replaced.

Continued ...

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. CONTRACT AUTHORITY 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

Cilony Alejandro

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

2 2

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

6973GH-25-R-00028/0001

Reference Question Answer Q1 L.15 Phase I - Volume I (Tabs i, ii, A-

D) (pg. 95); Phase I - Volume II/ Evaluation Factors 1-4 (Tabs i, ii, A- D (pg. 96)

For Volumes I and II, Section L.15 states that charts or graphs may be submitted in Times New Roman with a 10-pitch font. Will the Government allow 10-point font instead of 10 pitch font?

Revised to 10-point font.

Q2 L.15 Phase I - Volume I (Tabs i, ii, A-DFor Volumes I and II, Section L.15 states that charts or graphs may be submitted in Times New Roman with a 10 pitch font. Will the Government allow 10 point font instead of 10 pitch font? Will the Government verify that charts and tables are synonymous, and tables can be submitted in 10 pitch font? Revised to font

See Answer 1.

Q3 L.14 (pg. 95); Section M.2 (pg. 106) L.14 states, "(b) Sources of past performance information for evaluation purposes may include but are not limited to, information provided by the contractor and information retrieved from Government databases such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)...". Section M.2 also states that Past Performance will be evaluated either “acceptable” or “unacceptable.” Acceptability is demonstrated when the offeror is deemed responsible based on the information in SAM.gov, CPARS.gov, Past Performance Questionaries and other sources." Table L.1 - Proposal Organization does not include a Tab for offerors to provide Past Performance information. Section L.15 doesn't include Past Performance Requirements (including Past Performance Questionnaires). Will the Government clarify if past performance information is required, and if so, what are the requirements and where does it fall in Table L.1?

Past performance questionnaires are not required. The past performance information will be used for responsibility determination.

Q4 L.10, Table L.1 - Proposal Organization (pgs. 93-94)

Table L.1 requires Contract Documentation - SIR Sections A-K and Business Declarations. There are no instructions for this requirement. Will the Government verify that Offerors are only required to sign Section A, provide a blank Section B (cost evaluation is not completed during Phase I) and complete any required fill-ins in Section K?

Offerors are required to fill out Section A, leave section B blank, and complete all fill ins in section K. References to Business Declaration has been removed.

Q5 M.4 Evaluation Factors and Criteria

(pg. 107)

M.4.1 Part I/Factors 1-4 provides the evaluation criteria for Part II. What are the evaluation criteria for Part I, specifically Tab B:

Engineering Contract(s) Experience, and Tab D: Qualified Contract Manager?

The must meet the criteria in SOW section 5.1.1.1.

Q6 L.10, Table L.1 - Proposal Organization (pgs. 93-94

Table L.1 - Proposal Organization for Volumes I and II do not match the Tab Numbering in Section L.15. For example, in Part 1 in Section L.15, the Qualified Contract Manager is Tab D (and Tab C in Table L.1). In Section L.15 for Volume II, Factor 1 Organization Management and Staffing starts at Tab B (and is Tab A in Table L.1). Will the Government correct this?

The table has been revised.

6973GH-25-R-00028 Questions and Answers Amendment A0001

Q7 L.10, Table L.1 - Proposal Organization (pgs. 93-94); L.15 (pg.

95)

Table L.1 - Proposal Organization shows 25 pages for the Engineering Contracts Experience, Letter of Credit and Qualified Contract Manager Tabs (A-C). However, Section L.15 (under Phase I -VOLUME I (Tabs i, ii, A-D)) states, "Tabs A-D shall not exceed 25 pages." Will the Government clarify what Tabs in Part I comprise the 25 page limit

The table has been revised to clarify what comprises the page limit.

Q8 L.10, Table L.1 - Proposal Organization (pgs. 93-94); L.15 (pg.

95)

In Table L.1, Part I, Tabs A-C have a 25 page limit. However, Engineering Contracts Experience only requests a "brief description of the effort." Does the Government expect comprehensive descriptions in this section (based on the 25-page limit)?

Page limit has been revised.

Q9 L.10, Table L.1 - Proposal Organization (pgs. 93-94)

Section M.1 states "Technical is significantly more important than cost or price. Technical Factor 3, Staffing plan is significantly more important than the other technical factors which are of equal importance."

Will the Government provide a weight for the Staffing Plan (Factor 3/Tab B) and the factors that are of equal importance?

Adjectival ratings have been assigned to each factor.

Q10 L.10, Table L.1 - Proposal Organization (pgs. 93-94)

Table L.1 requires an Evaluation Factor Matrix. The requirements for this matrix are not included in the RFP. Will the Government confirm this should be a matrix mapping Offeror's proposal sections to Section M?

Yes, this should be a matrix in the offerors format mapping where in the offerors proposal the information is located.

Q11 L.15; Phase I -VOLUME I (Tabs i, ii, A-D); Factor 3/Tab B: Staffing Plan;

Subfactor 3(A) & L.15, PHASE II- VOLUME III /Tabs A (pg. 97) & L.15, PHASE II- VOLUME III /Tabs A & B - Cost/Price Proposal Instructions (pg. 100

Subfactor 3(a) requires the recruitment and retention incentives, which appears to be a total compensation plan. Is this plan to be included in full detail and can it be an appendix outside of page count in Phase I Part II?

Language conflict as AMS clause 3.6.2-15 appears to be applicable to Phase II Vol III. Please clarify in which volume this should be submitted

It should be submitted in Phase I Volume II. The language does not conflict it supplements the clause.

Q12 L.15, PHASE II- VOLUME III /Tabs A & B - Cost/Price Proposal Instructions (pg. 100); M.6 PHASE

II/COST/PRICE PROPOSAL

EVALUATION (pg. 112)

Will the Government confirm that offerors should be using the most recent version of AMS Clause 3.6.2-15 (April 2017) rather than the 1996 version currently cited in Sections L and M?

Yes, AMS Clause 3.6.2-15 (April 2017) should be used and has been updated in the

SIR.

Q13 L.15, PHASE II- VOLUME III /Tabs A & B - Cost/Price Proposal Instructions (pg. 100)

The RFP states "The SET must have access to resources and/or the system offerors used to develop proposed rates. If it is not possible to grant access privileges to the SET; then the data produced by the restricted source must be included and clearly specified in the cost/price volume." Will the Government confirm that offerors may provide the "resources and/or the system...used to develop proposed rates" as separate appendices or tabs to the excel file, and that these appendices are to be excluded from the Phase II - Volume III/Tabs A & B Cost/Price Proposal page limitation?

The page limitation has been revised.

Q14 L.1 (a) PROPOSAL SUBMISSION &

“DOWN-SELECT” PROCESS,

Phase II/VOLUMES III – Risk Assessment, and Cost Price Analysis

(pg. 92); M.3 (pg. 107); M.5 (pg.

111)

Section L.1 states that the risk assessment will occur as part of Phase II ("Phase II/VOLUMES III – Risk Assessment, and Cost Price Analysis). M.3 also states that the risk assessment will be completed after the technical evaluation. However, M.5 is labeled 'M.5 PHASE I/RISK ASSESSMENT" and states, "A risk assessment will be accomplished at the conclusion of the Phase I evaluation process." Will the Government clarify when the risk assessment will occur - as part of Phase I or Phase II?

Revised, the risk assessment has been removed.

Q15 L.15 Factor I/Tab B: Organizational ML.15, Phase I-Volume II/ Evaluation Factors 1-4 (Tabs i, ii, A-D), states that Tabs A-D have a 50-page limit. However, this section includes the Organizational Management and Staffing table. Depending on the number of employees listed, this spreadsheet has the potential to be more than 10 pages. Will the Government please remove the Organization Management and Staffing table from page count?

The page limitation has been revised.

Q16 L.10(b)(1) and L.10(b)(2) (pg. 94) Since this is an electronic submission, will the Government remove the requirement for both a Volume Cover and a Title Page? No, Volume Cover and Title page are required.

Q17 L.10, Table L.1 - Proposal Organization (pg. 94)

In Table L.1, next to Subfactor 3(b) - Personnel Retention Plan, it states, "(not more than 90 calendar days gap during transition)." With the transition being 30 days, will the Government correct the Table L.1 to state "(not more than 30 calendar days gap during transition)"?

No, the evaluation factor is not for the transition period is for contract performance.

Q18 L.8 (pg. 93), L.10(b)(5) (pg. 94), 3.2.2 L.8 SUBMISSION, MODIFICATION, REVISION, AND WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSAL states proposals shall be submitted via CD/DVD-ROM or USB Flash drive. L.10(b)(5) and clause 3.2.2.3-20 state submit electronic via email.

Please verify that proposals are to be submitted electronically via email to the address provided in 3.2.2.3-20. Please also provide email size limitations.

The submission will be electronic and the size limitation is 10 MB.

Q19 Section L, Factor 3/Tab B: Staffing Plan, Subfactor 3(A): Recruitment & Retention Incentives (pg. 97)

Please confirm that one set of benefits allows for comparable/equivalent compensation packages between the Prime Offeror and subcontractors (e.g., similar medical benefit packages but different providers)?

Yes, provide a side-by-side comparison.

Q20 Attachment 1 SLE Follow on SOW 2.21.25

For labor categories with multiple levels, will the Government confirm that the years of experience equivalent to the succeeding labor category level would be "an addition to the years of experience from the previous level"? For example, an Engineering Technician Level 1 would be 0-3 years, a Level 2 would be 3+ years, a Level 3 would be 6+ years, and a Level 4 would be 9+ years?

It is a good guideline to go by but the FAA wants to have flexibility.

Q21 L.10, Table L.1 - Proposal Organization (pgs. 93-94); RFP PHASE II- VOLUME III /Tabs A & B - Cost/Price Proposal Instructions (pgs. 99-100)

The guidelines specify a five-page limit for the Cost/Price Volume. Will the government remove the page count limit from the price narrative?

Revised.

Q22 L.10, Table L.1 - Proposal Organization (pgs. 93-94); RFP PHASE II- VOLUME III /Tabs A & B - Cost/Price Proposal Instructions, Accounting System (pg. 101)

The guidelines specify a five-page limit for the Cost/Price Volume. Can Accounting and Estimating System requirements be submitted as an appendix and excluded from the five-page limit or remove the page count limit on the price narrative?

See Answer 21.

Q23 Attachment 4 and Attachment 1 SOW, Section 4.17 (pg. 11)

Attachment 4 does not specify which LCAT are in OK or located in NJ. Also, 4.17 states "To establish rates for other locations, an adjustment factor will be applied to the direct hourly negotiated rate for the Oklahoma City, OK, and Atlantic City, NJ. " However, Attachment 4 does not specify which LCAT / hours are for OK or for NJ.

Can the Government provide an Attachment 4 for OK and NJ so Offerors may price the LCAT and hours by location?

Attachment 4 has been revised to include both locations.

Q24 Attachment 4 and Attachment 1 SOW, Section 6.1 (pgs. 24-77)

Section 6.1 does not provide description / qualification information for the following positions: Administrative Operations Specialist Level 3 (in CLIN 0002), as well as the Procurement Technician, Ground Support Equipment Mechanic, Contract Administrator, Recruiter, and Business Assistant (in CLIN 0001). Can the Government provide description / qualification requirements for these positions?

The FAA did not provide description for these positions since they are firm fixed price positions. The FAA is accounting for overhead for running the contract.

Q25 Attachment 4 Can the Government confirm that Offerors may add/remove columns in Attachment 4 to accurately reflect the requirements of the Offeror's estimating system and methodology?

Yes, the contractor may add or remove columns.

M.6 states, "NOTE: The government must be provided access to all sources (subscriptions, databases, etc.) utilized and relied upon to support the offeror’s proposed costs. If it is not possible to allow access to restricted sources then data derived from those sources must be included in the offeror’s proposal " Is this requiring the offeror to provide the Government the appropriate

Section M.6 (pg. 112) The page limitation has been revised. Q26

Q27 Attachment 1 SOW, Section 6.1.1.1 Contract Manager (pg. 24)

Section 6.1.1.1 Qualifications for the Contract Manager requires "A Bachelor of Science degree in engineering with at least 3 years of experience in management of NAS second-level engineering groups that provide hardware and software support of electronic systems is required." For a program of this magnitude, will the Government confirm that the 3 years specified in

6.1.1.1 is the minimum years of experience as a Contract/Program Manager for a contract of this magnitude?

Correct, confirmed.

Q28 Attachment 1 SOW, Section 6.1.1.1 Contract Manager (pg. 24)

Will the Government specify the total years of experience required for a Contract Manager? No, the government does not want to put restrictions on the best qualified candidate.

The technical manager is key personnel that will still be reviewed by the COR and respective team manager with why the contractor believes they will be the best fit.

Q29 Attachment 1 SOW, Section 6.1.2 Technical Manager (pgs. 25-26)

Section 6.1.2 provides a detailed position description along with educational and specific FAA NAS experience for Technical Managers. The qualifications are missing the years of experience required to be a Technical Manager. Will the Government provide the minimum years of experience in a related field that is required to be a Technical Manager?

No, the government does not want to put restrictions on the best qualified candidate.

The technical manager is key personnel that will still be reviewed by the COR and respective team manager with why the contractor believes they will be the best fit.

Q30 Attachment 1 SOW, Section 6.1.3 (pgs. 26-30); Section M.6 PHASE

II/COST/PRICE PROPOSAL

EVALUATION (pg. 112)

Section 6.1.3 has a position description for Computer Engineer, Electrical Engineer, Electronics Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Aerospace Engineer, Physics Engineer, and General Engineer.

Attachment 4 - TandM Labor Rates CLINs X002-X003 (Build-up) has only four levels of Engineer labor category without any breakdown by type of Engineer. As part of the cost/price analysis, Section M.6 states "...evaluation of proposed labor rates will include, but not limited to... If labor rates take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty.".

Gi th i d t f E i i iti d ib d i SOW 6 1 3 d th diff i ti b t th

No, there are other pricing methodologies to capture the difference (such as composite rate).

Q32 Section L.15 (pgs. 95-96) Will the Government confirm that headers/footers are exempt from the given font requirements? Header and footers are exempt.

Q33 Section I -contract Clauses, (pg. 32), 3 If the offeror has no known or potential OCI, please confirm that an OCI Mitigation plan is not required with the offer, but rather a statement affirming there is not perceived or actual OCI. Should an OCI arise after submittal or during performance, it is then required to be submitted to the CO for review and approval A

If this assumption is not correct, where in the proposal is an OCI Mitigation Plan to be included and will it be excluded from page count?

Statement affirming there is not perceived or actual OCI is sufficient. if an OCI arises after submittal or during performance, it is then required to be submitted to the CO for review and approval. It is excluded from the page count

Q34 L.15 Factor I/Tab B: Organizational Management and Staffing (pg. 96)

Factor I/Tab B: Organizational Management and Staffing – The offeror must demonstrate it exclusively employed and managed, within the previous five (5) years from the date responses are due for the SIR, 200 or more full-time employees, (not including corporate staff), simultaneously for a minimum period of two years or more on an engineering services contract involving NAS systems and equipment or other government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity.

NOTE: Offeror’s proposing as a teaming arrangement (i.e. joint venture, partnership, etc.) must show how one of the teaming arrangement’s partners meets the requirement of exclusively employing and managing 200 or more full-time employees as noted above.

Will the Government confirm that an offeror must demonstrate that 200 or more full-time employees must have been employed for at least two years on a single contract within the last five years?

No, See revived L.15.

those sources must be included in the offeror s proposal. Is this requiring the offeror to provide the Government the appropriate salary survey data as part of the submission? If so, should the offeror provide this data as an appendix within the cost narrative, and can it be excluded from page count?

“Offeror proposals must be received by: PHASE I: 4:00 p.m. (Central/Oklahoma Time) March 20, 2025, as amended, at the mailing address shown below.” Will the Government confirm that this is electronic delivery based on 3.2.2.3-20 Offers Paragraph (d)

Section L.15 (pgs. 95-96)Q31 Revised.

Q35 Section L.11 DIRECTIONS FOR SENDING PROPOSAL(s) (pg. 94)

Will the Government confirm that the SIR is a draft? Yes, The SIR is draft. The proposal due date has been revised.

Q36 L.1 (a) PROPOSAL SUBMISSION &

“DOWN-SELECT” PROCESS,

Phase II/VOLUMES III – Risk Assessment, and Cost Price Analysis ( 92) M 3 ( 107) M 5 (

Will the Government provide a submission date for Phase II questions? The submission date is the same as Q&A for the SIR.

Q37 Equivalent Federal Hire Rates Can the Government please confirm that the Government provided rates in the RFP are for Oklahoma City? Attachment will be removed as per new Executive Orders.

Q38 M.4.1.3 Factor 3: Staffing Plan M.4.1.3 states, "Subfactors 3 (A) – (C) will be evaluated and assigned an Adjectival ratings scale described in section M.2 (b) above." Please confirm this should be "M.3 above.

confirmed, Revised.

Q39 L.15 Factor I/Tab B: Organizational Management and Staffing (pg. 96)

Will the Government consider moving Factor I/Tab B: Organizational Management and Staffing to be included in Factor 3 Staffing Plan as 200 or more full-time employees employed for at least two years on a single contract within the last five years further demonstrates a reliable and stable workforce to support the NAS and should be included in our Factor 3 evaluation rating

The factor will not be moved.

Q40 Attachment 4 Will Government permit the offeror to modify the Attachment 4? Attachment 4 has been revised but the excel spreadsheet is able to modified by the offeror.

Q42 L.11 DIRECTIONS FOR SENDING

PROPOSAL(s), Page 94

PHASE I: 4:00 p.m. (Central/Oklahoma Time) March, 20, 2025, as amended, at the mailing address shown below. Early submission is acceptable if addressed as indicated and marked with the Solicitation number clearly on the package as shown:

MARK PACKAGES:

Solicitation No. 6973GH-25-R-00028 PHASE I Offer Closing Time: 5:00 P.M (CENTRAL/OKLAHOMA TIME) Both 4:00pm CT and 5:00pm CT are stated as the closing time. SF 33 indicates 5:00pm CT. Could the Govt please confirm that 5:00pm CT is the correct closing time?

Revised.

Q43 L.8 and L.15, pages 93 and 102

L.8 Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted in electronic format via CD/DVD-ROM or USB Flash Drive with no .zip files included and addressed to the CO at the address shown in Section A of the model contract/solicitation (Block 8 of SF33), and showing the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the offeror.

and

3.2.2.3-20 OFFERS (JAN 2018)

(d) Send your offer to Cilony.Alejandro@faa.gov. Can the Government please clarify the submission method? We respectfully request the Government allow email submissions.

Email preferred.

The offeror shall provide full past Experience history (last 5 years from date of SIR closing date) and information that indicates NAS/SLE related experience that demonstrates performance in all areas of effort in engineering and technical support services as defined in SOW Section 5.2.2 –Specific Areas of Qualification/Effort. Does the term "NAS/SLE related experience" in the requirement mean that the experience must specifically be with NAS/SLE, or does it allow for similar experience that is relevant to NAS/SLE?

see Answer 34. L.15, Phase I -VOLUME I (Tabs i, ii, A-D), Subfactor2(A): Engineering Experience pg 97

Q41

Q44 L.8, page 93 Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted in electronic format via CD/DVD-ROM or USB Flash Drive with no .zip files included and addressed to the CO at the address shown in Section A of the model contract/solicitation (Block 8 of SF33), and showing the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the offeror. If email submission is not permitted, would the Government please provide the address for courier or hand-carried proposal deliveries?

See Answer 43.

Q45 l.8, page 93 Proposals and modifications to proposals shall be submitted in electronic format via CD/DVD-ROM or USB Flash Drive with no .zip files included and addressed to the CO at the address shown in Section A of the model contract/solicitation (Block 8 of SF33), and showing the time and date specified for receipt, the solicitation number, and the name and address of the offeror. If email submission is not permitted, can the Government please validate the address below is correct, or provide the exact address? Revised for email submission.

See Answer 43.

Q47 L.11, Page 94 Offeror proposals must be received by: PHASE I: 4:00 p.m. (Central/Oklahoma Time) March, 20, 2025, as amended, at the mailing address shown below. Early submission is acceptable if addressed as indicated and marked with the Solicitation number clearly on the package as shown:

MARK PACKAGES:

Solicitation No. 6973GH-25-R-00028 Address is not provided. If email submission is not permitted, will the Government please provided addresses for both mail and courier of proposals?

Yes. See Answer 43.

Q48 L.1, page 92 "L.1 (a) PROPOSAL SUBMISSION & “DOWN-SELECT” PROCESS The FAA will conduct a 2-Phase proposal, “down select” evaluation process consisting of four (4) technical evaluation factors;

risk assessment, and a cost/price analysis. Phase I will entail an evaluation of responsiveness to the mandatory requirements and evaluation of technical evaluation factors 1-4. Throughout Phase I of the Detailed Evaluations, the SSO will make one or more down-selects. At the conclusion of Phase 1, the down selection process will result in the elimination of all offerors from consideration except the offeror submitting the most highly rated technical proposal, who will advance to Phase II. At the conclusion of Phase I, the down selection process will result in the elimination of all offerors from consideration except the offeror submitting the most highly rated technical proposal who will be notified by the CO to submit a response for Phase II evaluation." Please clarify how many offerors will make it to Phase II. The way this is currently written appears that only one offeror will make it to Phase II. If only one offeror makes it to Phase II, it appears that this solicitation is set up so that only the incumbent could win. Additionally, would the Government consider rating both technical and pricing together to ensure that the Government is recieving the best value?

Only one offeror will make it to Phase II. No. See sections L&M.

Q49 L.15, page 95 "Factor I/Tab B: Organizational Management and Staffing – The offeror must demonstrate it exclusively employed and managed, within the previous five (5) years from the date responses are due for the SIR, 200 or more full-time employees, (not including corporate staff), simultaneously for a minimum period of two years or more on an engineering services contract involving NAS systems and equipment or other government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity."

Define "or other government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity" as stated on page 95. For example, does similar in complexity mean the number of systems, number of locations, type of systems, etc.

Similar complexity means the number of systems, number of locations and type of systems etc.

Q50 M.1, page 105 Pursuant to Section L of the SIR, the procurement process will involve the evaluation of technical proposals, past performance, and cost/price proposal. Evaluations involved will permit the FAA to select an offer that is the most highly rated technical submission based on overall “BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF APPROACH” to the FAA. Evaluations involved will permit the FAA to select the responsible and responsive offeror that represents the overall best value to the FAA in accordance with the terms and conditions of the SIR. Technical is significantly more important than cost or price. Technical Factor 3, Staffing plan is significantly more important than the other technical factors which are of equal importance. How does the Government intend to evaluate a Best Value Trade-Off Approach in phase I if they will only look at pricing in Phase 2 where only one Offeror has been down-selected? In other words, what factors are used in risk/trade-off analysis in Phase 1 since in Phase 2 price trade-off analysis cannot be performed on only one vendor?

References to "Trade-off" have been removed. Best value will based on acceptibility of mandatory requirements and technical approach.

Q51 M.1, page 105 The price/cost evaluation team will not have access to technical proposals during the initial detailed evaluation. Likewise, the technical evaluation team will not have access to cost/price proposals during the initial detailed evaluation. After completion of the initial detailed evaluation, the technical and price evaluation teams may have access to the other teams' proposals only as authorized by the Contracting Officer.This does not align with the current two phase process since price will not be evaluated until Phase II for only one highest rated technical offeror.

Revised.

Q52 L.15 Proposal Content Pursuant to the Technical Evaluation Plan for this requirement, the procurement process will involve the evaluation of several areas. Evaluations involved will permit the FAA to select an offer that represents the overall best value to the FAA in accordance with the terms and conditions of this SIR/RFO. For this acquisition, there are two phases to the evaluation process. Proposals for Phase 1 are submitted for Factors 1-4, Only the offeror, who is notified by the CO of their eligibility to submit for Phase 2, may submit phase 2 proposal for evaluation, provided the proposals meet all requirements of this SIR/RFO. Proposals for Phase 2 will not be accepted from Offerors who were not notified of their eligibility to submit for Phase 2. How will best value be evaluated if only one offeror makes it to phase 2?

The strategy is best value Technical to ensure compensation of professional employees reflects changes in the marker conditions and other relevant factors to ensure the negotiated rates set forth in this contract are competitive enough to retain highly skilled personnel.

Q53 Sections L&M Section L's outline does not align exactly with section M in terms of use of "Phase" vs. "Part", "Volume", "Tab", and "Factor".

Please align with the same headings for better understanding of rating.

Revised.

Q54 M.3, page 106 Factor 1: Organizational Management and Staffing - Acceptable/Unacceptable Phase I, Volume I evaluation criteria is not discussed.

It is discussed on page 107 M.4.1.1.

Q55 L.1, page 92 At the conclusion of Phase I, the down selection process will result in the elimination of all offerors from consideration except the offeror submitting the most highly rated technical proposal who will be notified by the CO to submit a response for Phase II evaluation. In the event of a tie during Phase I—where two or more offerors receive equally the highest technical rating—how will the Government determine which offeror advances to Phase II?

In the event multiple offerors are determined to be equally highest technically rated the CO will continue communications with the those similarly situated offerors regarding the specifics of their proposal until one offeror’s proposal is determined to be more highly technically rated. Only one Offeror will make it to Phase II.

Q56 Phase I -VOLUME I (Tabs i, ii, A- D), Tab B: Engineering Contract(s) Experience, page 95

Tab B: Engineering Contract(s) Experience - As the contractor, the offeror must demonstrate it currently holds or has held within the previous five (5) years from the date offeror responses are due for this SIR/RFO, engineering contract(s) individually valued at over $100 million involving NAS systems and equipment or other government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity. Given that this solicitation is set aside for 8(a) firms, would the Government consider reducing the requirement for offerors to have held engineering contracts valued at over $100 million within the past five years? This threshold appears to significantly limit competition and may disproportionately favor the incumbent, as very few 8(a) firms are likely to have managed contracts of this size.

No, based on historical data this contract requires experiece with a higher dollar value.

Q57 L.1 and Factor 2 and Subfactors 2(a), Subfactors 2(b), Subfactors 2(c), page

Section L.1: If the offeror intends to propose as an SEDB(8(a)) certified business and the 8(a) is structured as a teaming arrangement, partnership, joint venture, etc. then the term "offeror” or “vendor" shall apply to the prime SEDB (8(a)) certified contractor team entity. This arrangement must be registered and corporately identified as a single entity (i.e. single SAM registration UEI, CAGE Code). According to the FAA AMS Clause T.3.6.1 6(c) Joint Venture Capabilities, past performance and experience: "the FAA must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture". Please clarify that each member of the JV's experience will be considered in the Technical response to it's engineering capabilities for Factor 2 and all of it's subfactors 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c).

yes, all members will be considered.

Q58 Section M.1(7), page 105 (7) Cost/Price proposals will be reviewed for mathematical accuracy for the base period and option contract periods one through four. Please validate that only one cost proposal from one vendor will be requested and evaluated.

Yes, Only one cost proposal will be requested and evaluated.

Q59 Section M.1(10) , page 106 Additional information may be requested from the vendor(s) whose proposal(s) the FAA considers to represent the overall best value. The information may clarify or supplement, but not basically change the proposal as submitted. The FAA reserves the right to award a contract based on initial offers received, without discussions or negotiations. For this reason, each initial offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from the standpoint of technical and price/cost. Please describe how best value is determined if only one vendor will advance to Phase II.

Section M.1(10) has been revised, The best value will be determined based on technical.

Q60 Section M.2 Past Performance, page 10Past Performance will be evaluated either “acceptable” or “unacceptable.” Acceptability is demonstrated when the offeror is deemed responsible based on the information in SAM.gov, CPARS.gov, Past Performance Questionaries and other sources.” Is responsibility determined based on CPARS scoring Satisfactory or higher?

Section M.2 has been revised.

Q61 Section L for Factor I/Tab B:

Organizational Management and Staffing, page 96

200 or more full-time employees, (not including corporate staff), simultaneously for a minimum period of two years or more on an engineering services contract involving NAS systems and equipment or other government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity.” However the table example provided shows multiple contracts and this section does not align to Section M.4.1.1 which suggests multiple engineering services contracts. Please validate that 200 or more employees may be demonstrated across multiple engineering services contracts.

Revised.

L.15, Phase I -VOLUME I (Tabs i, ii, A-D), Subfactor2(A): Engineering

Experience pg 97

The offeror shall provide full past Experience history (last 5 years from date of SIR closing date) and information that indicates NAS/SLE related experience that demonstrates performance in all areas of effort in engineering and technical support services as defined in SOW Section 5.2.2 –Specific Areas of Qualification/Effort. Can the Governemnt please define "related experience"?

Must the experience be NAS/SLE experience, or may it be be similar to NAS/SLE?

Revised.

Q63 M.1 EVALUATION AND BASIS

FOR AWARD, pg 105

Can the Governemnt please define "related experience"? Must the experience be NAS/SLE experience, or may it be be similar to NAS/SLE? Is Factor 4: Transition Plan considered a technical factor?

related experience is defined as similar engineering contracts with the same the number of systems, number of locations and type of systems etc. Yes, Transition Plan is a technical factor.

Q64 L.1 GENERAL INFORMATION If the offeror intends to propose as an SEDB(8(a)) certified business and the 8(a) is structured as a teaming arrangement, partnership, joint venture, etc. then the term "offeror” or “vendor" shall apply to the prime SEDB (8(a)) certified contractor team entity. Per the AMS, T3.6.1 - Small Business Program Revised

6. Joint Ventures Revised 9/2024

c. Capabilities, past performance and experience. When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set-aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this subsection, the FAA must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously. The FAA may not require the protégé firm to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract.

If the offeror is a Joint Venture, please clarify that the FAA will consider the experience and/or past performance of any member of the Joint Venture.

Yes, the FAA will consider experience from all members of the Joint Venture.

Q65 M.1 EVALUATION AND BASIS

FOR AWARD

Technical Factor 3, Staffing plan is significantly more important than the other technical factors which are of equal importance.Is Factor 3, Staffing Plan more important than the other technical factors combined?

Yes.

Q66 L.1 (a) PROPOSAL SUBMISSION & At the conclusion of Phase 1, the down selection process will result in the elimination of all offerors from consideration except the offeror submitting the most highly rated technical proposal, who will advance to Phase II. Would the Government consider revising the down-selection process at the conclusion of Phase I to allow the top two most highly rated technical proposals to advance to Phase II, rather than limiting advancement to only the highest-rated offeror? Expanding the pool of Phase II participants would enhance competition and provide the Government a broader basis for comparing both technical merit and pricing, ensuring a more competitive and comprehensive best value determination.

The strategy will not be revised.

Q67 Table L.1 and Section L.15, page 93 thTab labeling for Volume I We note the following discrepancies in the Tab numbering and labels between Table L.1 and Section L.15 in Volume I. Will the Government please clarify?

-Table L.1 indicates Tab A should be Title Page and Executive Summary, and Engineering contracts Experience. Section L.15 indicates Engineering Contracts Experience should be Tab B.

-Table L.1 indicates Tab B should be Contract documentation and Letter of Credit. Section L.15 indicates Letter of Credit should be Tab C.

-Table L.1 indicates Tab C should be Qualified Contract Manager. Section L.15 indicates Qualified Contract Manager should be Tab D.

Revised.

Q68 Table L.1 and Section L.15, page 93 thTab labeling for Volume II We note the following discrepancies in the Tab numbering and labels between Table L.1 and Section L.15 in Volume II. Will the Government please clarify?

-Table L.1 indicates Tab A should be Factor 1 - Organizational Management and Staffing. Section L.15 indicates Factor 1 - Organizational Management and Staffing should be Tab B.

-Table L.1 indicates Tab B should be Factor 2 - Engineering Support Capability. Section L.15 indicates Factor 2 - Engineering Support Capability should be Tab A.

-Table L.1 indicates Tab C should be Factor 3 - Staffing Plan. Section L.15 indicates Factor 3 - Staffing Plan should be Tab B.

-Table L.1 indicates Tab D should be Factor 4 - Transition Plan. Section L.15 indicates Factor 4 - Transition Plan should be Tab C.

Revised .

Q69 Table L.1 and Section L.15, page 93 thTabs A-D shall not exceed 25 pages. Is the 3 page Executive Summary excluded from the 25 page limit in Volume I? Revised.

Q70 Table L.1 and Section L.15, page 93 through 99

Tabs A-D shall not exceed 25 pages.Is the Contract Documentation - SF 33 and SIR sections A-K, Busines Development excluded from the 25 page limit in Volume I?

Revised.

Q71 L.15, Volumes I and II. Page 95 and

Information shall be submitted in Times New Roman with a 12 pitch font with the exception of charts or graphs which may be submitted in Times New Roman with a 10 pitch font. May tables be 10 pitch font?

Yes, revised.

Q72 Factor 2/Subfactor2(A), page 97 The offeror shall provide full past Experience history (last 5 years from date of SIR closing date) and information that indicates NAS/SLE related experience that demonstrates performance in all areas of effort in engineering and technical support services as defined in SOW Section 5.2.2 –Specific Areas of Qualification/Effort. This requirement and the downselect process that supports only one vendor to advance to Phase II favors the incumbent since they hold both NAS/SLE contracts at Oklahoma City and the Tech Center making it difficult for new contractors to compete and be considered. We request that FAA change the requirement to the "last 7 years".

Revised.

Q73 L.11, Page 94 Offeror proposals must be received by:

PHASE I: 4:00 p.m. (Central/Oklahoma Time) March, 20, 2025, Given that many key questions impact the bid/no-bid decision, will the FAA consider extending the RFP due date by four weeks?

The Due date will be extended.

Q74 Can the FAA provide the rationale for setting the contract ceiling at $700 million, given that it significantly exceeds standard SBA 8(a) thresholds? Under SBA guidelines, competitive 8(a) contracts rarely reach this level unless specific circumstances warrant such an award.

The FAA's internal estimate and histotical data.

Q75 Can the FAA consider structuring this contract in a way that allows greater participation from 8(a) businesses, such as multiple contract awards instead of a single ID/IQ structure?

No, the procurement strategy has been determined based on market reasearch results and historical data.

Q76 Can the FAA clarify the rationale behind granting the Contracting Officer unilateral authority to increase the contract value up to $700 million without a new competition?

The contracting officer does not have unilateral authority it has to be approved by the Chief of the Contracting Office.

Q77 Would the FAA consider mechanisms that ensure additional competition when increasing the contract value to allow for broader 8(a) participation?

No, the procurement strategy has been determined based on market reasearch results and historical data

Q78 Can the FAA provide further clarification on how past performance will be evaluated, particularly regarding the use of affiliate experience versus a firm’s own past performance?

Per AMS T3.6.1B.6.c., "Capabilities, past performance and experience" When evaluating the capabilities, past performance, experience, business systems and certifications of an entity submitting an offer for a contract set-aside or reserved for small business as a joint venture established pursuant to this subsection, the FAA must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture as well as any work done by the joint venture itself previously.

Q79 How does the FAA intend to ensure that small but capable 8(a) firms, including those with relevant experience outside large FAA contracts, receive fair consideration?

Refer to sections L&M.

Q80 Historically, the FAA required multiple past performance examples from the prime offeror. Could the agency explain the decision to modify this requirement?

The requirement for Past Performance is stated in Section L&M.

Q81 Could the FAA clarify how firms will be evaluated across the broad scope of work, particularly in areas where smaller 8(a) firms may have niche expertise?

Refer to sections L&M.

Q82 Would the FAA consider refining the past performance evaluation criteria to provide more transparency and predictability for prospective offerors?

No, it has been determined that the past performance will be evaluated as part of the responsibility determination, as one of the acceptable or not acceptable mandatory requirements and that the focus of the evaluation will be the technical approach.

Q83 The restrictive teaming requirements for one set of benefits appear to limit opportunities for various 8(a) firms, including woman-owned, SDVOSB, and Tribal 8(a) businesses, from participating as subcontractors. Could the FAA elaborate on how the teaming requirements were designed and whether any flexibility could be introduced to expand subcontracting opportunities for various 8(a) firms?

Market research and anlysis of historical data have determined that an 8(a) set-aside is the best approach.

Q84 Given that past FAA contracts of this scale have been broken up to encourage competition, what factors led to the decision to structure this as a single award?

The procurement strategy has been determined based on market reasearch results and historical data.The contract has historically been a single award.

Q85 The Solicitation states:

The offeror must submit a letter from a recognized United States financial institution, on institution letterhead, substantiating an approved line of credit in the minimum amount of $5,000,000.00. The line of credit ensures the offeror has the financial capability to sustain business operations during potential periods of disruption or interruption of standard payment processes.There is significant cost associated with opening a line of credit. We do not require a line of credit to fund contracts due to significant amount of cash reserves in excess of $10M which exceeds the LOC requirements. Will the Government please allow submission of our corporate financial statements that reflect current cash reserves adequate to support this requirement and sustain business operations during potential periods of disruption or interruption of standard payment processes?

No, Letter of credit is required.

Q86 The RFP states, "As the contractor, the offeror must demonstrate it currently holds or has held within the previous five (5) years from the date offeror responses are due for this SIR/RFO, engineering contract(s) individually valued at over $100 million involving NAS systems and equipment or other government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity."

The current engineering experience parameters heavily favor the incumbent and will limit competition of viable 8(a) Vendors.

Will the customer please consider eliminating the "involving NAS systems and equipment" specific experience to allow for a larger viable Vendor pool?

or Will the customer consider reducing the $100M value to $50M?

No, based on historical data this contract requires experiece with a higher dollar value.

Q87 The RFP requires offerors to, "demonstrate it exclusively employed and managed, within the previous five (5) years from the date responses are due for the SIR, 200 or more full-time employees, (not including corporate staff), simultaneously for a minimum period of two years or more on an engineering services contract involving NAS systems and equipment or other government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity;'

The current staffing experience parameters heavily favor the incumbent and will limit competition of viable 8(a) Vendors. Will the customer please consider eliminating the "involving NAS systems and equipment" specific experience and reduce the minimum period of execution to 6 months to allow for a larger viable Vendor pool?

Specific experience with NAS systems and equipment will not be removed but language will be added to allow similar complexity and magnitude. The minumum period of execution will not be changed.

Q88 The RFP states, "Acceptability is demonstrated when the offeror submits documentation that verifies the company has exclusively employed and managed, within the previous five (5) years from the date responses are due for the SIR, 200 or more full-time employees (not including corporate staff) simultaneously for a minimum period of two years or more on engineering services contract(s) involving NAS/SLE systems and equipment or other Government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity."

The current staffing experience evaluation parameters heavily favor the incumbent and will limit competition of viable 8(a) Vendors. Will the customer please consider eliminating the "involving NAS systems and equipment" specific experience and reduce the minimum period of execution to 6 months to allow for a larger viable Vendor pool?

No, the requirements will not be changed.

Q89 The RFP notes the the submitted staffing spreadsheet of 200 or more…