Questions and Answers 1-60.pdf

SIR 6974GH-25-R-00221

AVS SAFETY, ANALYTICAL AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1 THROUGH 60

Question 1. Section L Paragraph 3.6.1-17 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE (OCT 2022) lists the NAICS code as 561612, Security Guards and Patrol Services. Given the scope of work described in the Statement of Work (SOW), can the Government please confirm whether NAICS Code 561612 is correct? We respectfully request changing it to NAICS Code 541990, All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services.

Answer 1: Per the Market Survey Request and SIR posting, the NAICS Code was established as 541990, All Other Professional, Scientific and Technical Services. AMS Clause 3.6.1-17 NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) CODE (OCT 2022) will be corrected in an upcoming SIR amendment to reflect NAICS code 541990.

Question 2. Section L.7 TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS, paragraph (a) states, "When a teaming arrangement is proposed, it shall be included as part of the technical proposal for Sub-factor (1A) Management Organization and Qualifications." Can the Government please confirm that this requirement applies to a Subcontractor Teaming Agreement (STA)?

Answer 2: AMS Clause 3.2.2.7-8 Disclosure of Team Arrangements (April 2008) defines Team Arrangements as follows:

"Team arrangements," as used in this clause, are cooperative arrangements where:

(i) Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or

(ii) A potential prime contractor enters into an agreement with one or more other companies to have them act as subcontractors under a specific contract.

In response to the question, yes, Provision L.7 TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS apply to Subcontractor Teaming Agreements.

Question 3. Section L.7 TEAMING ARRANGEMENTS, paragraph a. states "When a teaming arrangement is proposed, it shall be included as part of the technical proposal for Sub-factor (1A) Management Organization and Qualifications." However, the solicitation does not contain a Sub factor (1A) titled "Management Organization and Qualifications". Can the Government please clarify the technical subfactor under which offerors should address teaming arrangements?

Answer 3: SIR Provision L.7, Teaming Arrangements will be revised to state that when a teaming arrangement is proposed, it shall be included as part of Volume II (Factor 1) – Technical Proposal. Potential offerors should address how their proposed Teaming Arrangements will enhance their technical capability in their Technical Proposal for Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical Approach/Program Management/Supervision Plan.

Question 4. Sections L.3 and L.4 include Subfactor 1.3, Key Personnel/Resumes, within the Volume II 75-page limitation. Given that Key Personnel qualifications require detailed information to demonstrate compliance with the stated minimum education, certification, and experience requirements, respectfully request that Subfactor 1.3 be excluded from the Volume II 75-page limitation. As an alternative, would the Government consider establishing a separate page limitation of three pages per Key resume (for the two required positions)? This approach would ensure consistency across offerors, allow sufficient detail to demonstrate qualifications, and prevent unnecessary compression of critical management and technical proposal content within Volume II.

Answer 4: The SIR will be revised to state that the Key Personnel Resumes in support of Sub- Factor 1.3 – Key Personnel/Resume are excluded from the 75-page limitation. Potential offerors are given a separate page limitation of 3 pages for each Key Personnel Resume.

Question 5. Section L.3 defines Volume II as “Technical Proposal, Factors 1 and 2” with a 75-page limitation, and Volume III as “Past Performance” with no stated page limitation. However, Section L.3(f) defines Volume III as Factor 2 – Past Performance Information, and Section L.5 further defines Factor 2 Past Performance/Experience. Can the Government please confirm that page limitations do not apply to the Past Performance submission?

Answer 5: Volume III (Factor 2) Past Performance Information is not subject to a page limitation. Potential offerors are advised to provide complete and full documentation to demonstrate the Offeror’s experience in performing Safety, Analytical and Technical Support Services to the magnitude and scope of the AVS Safety, Analytical and Technical Support Services II as described in this acquisition. SIR Provision L.3, Table L.1 Proposal Organization , Volume II will be revised to state Technical Proposal, Factor 1.

Question 6. Section L.3 c Format requires the proposal to be submitted double spaced. Given the Volume II page limitation and the technical nature of the required content, would the Government consider amending this requirement to permit single spacing?

Answer 6: No.

Question 7. Per SOW Paragraph 3.11, the contract is to be performed using facilities and materials provided by the Government. Services will be performed at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, FAA facilities in Washington, D.C., and other facilities designated by the FAA. Attachment 1 Section B does not breakdown hours by location. To ensure accurate pricing would the Government consider providing a revised section B that breaks down labor category and hours by performance location?

Answer 7: The government confirms that all labor rates should be based on performance in the Washington DC location.

Question 8: The instructions state "Technical proposal is limited to no more than 75 pages." Will the government confirm that resumes do not count towards the total page count? If so, will the government please provide a page limit for resumes?"

Answer 8: Refer to Question and Answer 4

Question 9: The instructions in L.3 state for Volume II (Factor 1) Technical Proposal that "Technical proposal is limited to no more than 75 pages." However, table L.1 states that Factors 1 and 2 of the Technical Proposal will not exceed 75 pages. Because there is no Factor 2 within Volume II, will the government confirm that Factor 2 Past Performance is not part of the Technical Proposal and therefore does not count towards the total 75 pages for Volume II?

Answer 9: Refer to Question and Answer 5

Question 10: The instructions state that "Pages are to be typewritten, double spaced, on standard 8 1/2” X 11” letter size paper" and that "Font size is allowed to vary for descriptive inserts, tables and/or foldouts." In addition to smaller font, will the government confirm single spacing is allowed for tables, graphics, and callout boxes?

Answer 10: The Government will allow descriptive inserts, tables and/or foldouts to be in slightly smaller font and will allow single spacing for tables, graphics and callout boxes on a limited basis. Potential offerors should note that proposals that are very difficult to read due to size and spacing may not contribute to a favorable proposal evaluation.

Question 11: To ensure teams can showcase the full breadth and depth of capabilities, will the government please confirm offerors can submit past performance from our proposed teammates/subcontractors as part of the maximum four contracts with at least one contract required from the Prime as part of the Past Performance Factor?

Answer 11: It is anticipated that potential offerors will have a variety of methods utilized to create an effective team to showcase the offeror’s full breadth and depth of technical capabilities. Each offeror will determine their own acquisition strategy on how to best demonstrate their technical capabilities. Potential offerors must provide a minimum of two (2), but no more than four (4)

A. contracts demonstrating the Offeror’s experience in performing Safety, Analytical and Technical Support Services to the magnitude and scope of the AVS Safety, Analytical and Technical Support Services and B. current or past customers complete the Past Performance Survey (PPS) listed in SIR Attachment 5, Past Performance

Question 12: The PPS criteria appear to be very similar to a CPARS. To reduce burden on government agencies and to expedite the evaluation process, will the government allow offerors to submit recent CPARS in place of the Past Performance Survey (PPS)?

Answer 12: No, the PPS is a more detailed evaluation that a CPAR and this is why completion and submission of the PPS is required.

Question 13: We request removal or revision of the requirement for the prime and all teaming partners to propose as a team a single compensation plan for all employees based on the following concerns:

a. Unduly Restrictive on Competition - Contractors have established compensation structures based on their geographic locations, market conditions, internal and unique job architectures, company size, and existing benefit providers. Negotiating unified benefits (especially with external insurers) takes months and is impractical within proposal timelines, potentially eliminating otherwise qualified teams.

b. Potentially Favors Incumbent - To the extent that the incumbent contractor has already established a single compensation plan, including benefits, such a plan would have occurred post-award since the predecessor RFP did not include this requirement. This new requirement could give an unfair competitive advantage to the incumbent who had the ability to establish such a plan while performing under the incumbent contract without the artificial time constraint of a proposal deadline.

c. Forces Disclosure of Confidential Information - Compensation practices, benefits structures, and pricing methodologies are highly proprietary. Companies don't share this information with other companies even when both parties are under strict NDAs. The

Government already recognizes this and accordingly allows teaming partners to submit such detailed information through sealed packages.

d. Having the same compensation plan will force offerors to establish prices not based on the teammate with most efficient benefits package or lower labor rate increases, rather it forces offerors to base their proposed rates on teammates with less efficient benefits packages and higher likely labor rates. Realistic and executable rates can be achieved without mandating a single compensation plan, please see our suggestions in questions 20 and later.

Recommendation: Remove the requirements for a single compensation plan covering the prime and all teaming partners. Instead allow the prime and each proposed teaming partner/subcontractor to submit their company’s unique compensation plan, with subcontractors submitting them through separate, sealed packages for Government review only.

Answer 13: This requirement will be removed in an upcoming SIR Amendment.

Question 14: The instructions state "The teaming plan will be limited to 10 pages and will not count toward the 75-page limit for the technical proposal. When a teaming arrangement is proposed, it shall be included as part of the technical proposal for Sub-factor (1A) Management Organization and Qualifications." There is no Sub-Factor (1A) with that title. Will the government please clarify where offerors should provide this plan? Since it's outside of the 75 total page limit, would the government accept this plan as an appendix to Volume II or as part of Volume I Contract Documentation?

Answer 14: Refer to Question and Answer 3.

Question 15: AMS Clause, 3.1.7-5 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (JUL 2018), is listed as a Contract Clause and it requires offerors to provide a statement stating no conflicts of interest or a statement describing any conflicts. Will the Government advise what volume the statement should be included in?

Answer 15: This information should be provided in Volume I(3) – Contract Documentation

Question 16: AMS Clause, 3.1.7-6 DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS (APR 2023), is listed as a Contract Clause and it requires offerors to provide information in proposals regarding Subject Individuals. Can the Government advise what volume the information should be included in?

Answer 16: This information should be provided in Volume I(3) – Contract Documentation

Question 17: AMS Clause, 3.2.2.3-15 AUTHORIZED NEGOTIATORS (APR 2024), is listed as a Contract Clause and it requires offerors to name authorized negotiators. Can the Government advise what volume the information should be included in?

Answer 17: This information should be provided in Volume I(3) – Contract Documentation

Question 18: Item (B) lists the Period of Performance as 8/20/2026 to 8/19/2027 and it also states the Base Period is 7/20/2026 to 7/19/2027. Can the Government clarify the correct Period of Performance for the Base Period?

Answer 18: The Contracting Officer was sleep-deprived and unable to accurately count when preparing this information. The Period of Performance for the Base Period is 8/20/2026 to 8/19/2027. The SIR will be revised to reflect this information.

Question 19: Section A states that the contract types will be FFP and T&M. Were 3.10.1- 13 Changes - Cost Reimbursement and Alternate I included in error?

Answer 19: This clause was included in support of Other Direct Costs, which are cost reimbursable.

Question 20: Volume I requires signed and executed Teaming Agreements but these are limited to 10 pages. Most company teaming agreements are in excess of 10 pages. Section L.3 - Table L.1 Proposal Organization, e (7) states that a "completed copy of any signed and executed Teaming Agreement (limited to 10 pages)". If the Prime has multiple subcontractors, should all executed Teaming Agreements (TAs) be included within the cumulative 10-page limitation, or is the 10-page limit applicable per agreement? Additionally, given that executed TAs are legal documents that may exceed 10 pages and are not typically drafted to conform to proposal page limitations, the Offeror respectfully requests that the Government remove the 10-page limitation for executed TAs, or clarify that full agreements may be submitted without page restriction.

a. Would the Government revise the RFP to remove the page restriction for each individual

TA?

b. Alternatively, would the Government revise the RFP to allow offerors to submit the 1st page (identifying the subcontractor/teaming partner) and signature page of teaming agreements in lieu of the entire agreement? This approach will significantly reduce the page count of Volume I while still allowing the Government to verify that appropriate teaming arrangements are in place.

Answer 20: A full copy of each executed Teaming Agreement is to be provided as part of Volume I – Contract Documentation. There will no longer be a page limitation of 10 pages for Teaming Agreements. Potential offerors should address how their proposed Teaming Arrangements will enhance their technical capability in their Technical Proposal for Sub-factor

1.1 – Technical Approach/Program Management/Supervision Plan.

Question 21: Attachment 1 Section B dated 2-19-26, Tab “Base Period”, Row 12 references C.16.1 of the SOW. Should this reference be for Sections 3.9 and 3.91 of the SOW?

Answer 21: Yes, and this reference to C.16.1 of the SOW will be corrected to reference Sections 3.9 and 3.9.1 of the SOW in an upcoming amendment.

Question 22: Sample Client Authorization Letter, Para 1. The sample letter is written from the FAA CO to a client, customer, or respondent on behalf of the offeror. The last sentence may be confusing. Recommend changing “…work we have performed…” to “…work [Offeror Name] has performed….”

Answer 22: The FAA is amenable to this change, and potential offerors may make this change to the Sample Client Authorization Letter.

Question 23: Section I – Contract Clauses references AMS 3.6.1-4 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (APR 2025). Both Section L.3 Instructions for Preparation and Submission of Proposals and Provision L.6 reference AMS 3.6.1-4 Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan (July 2019). Can the government confirm that the offerors should prepare their plans to meet the requirements of the AMS clause 3.6.1-4 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (APR 2025)?

Answer 23: AMS clause 3.6.1-4 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (APR 2025) is the applicable revision and Provisions L.3 and L6 will be revised to reflect this revision in an upcoming amendment.

Question 24: AC0090 ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH (JULY 2016) states "Operational Control documents referenced as attachments in Section J of the solicitation/contract". Can the Government provide these documents as they are not included in Section J?

Answer 24: The clause will stay in the SIR but only applies to contractor employees that are working in a federal facility.

Question 25: The SOW states: "Services will be performed at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, FAA facilities in Washington, D.C., and other facilities designated by the FAA." We understand that the workforce is predominantly based within the D.C. area. Will government confirm that the rates should be based delivery at the Washington D.C. location? If not, to ensure the most accurate pricing is submitted and can be consistently evaluated across all offerors, would the government kindly provide the geographic locations by labor category within "Attachment 1 Section B dated 2-19-26"?

Answer 25: Please refer to Question and Answer 7.

Question 26: Given that the SOW requires offerors to provide administrative, analytical, and technical subject matter expert services, would the government please consider removing the following clauses?

a. AC0090 ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH (JULY 2016)

b. AC4560 CERTIFICATION OF CONTRACTOR CONFORMANCE TO THE MMAC

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EMS) AND OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND

HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (OSHMS) (APRIL 2010)

c. H.7 AVIATION INSURANCE COVERAGE

Answer 26: AC0090 and AC4560 are required clauses when work is being performed on a federal facility. While the majority of the contract performance will not be on a federal installation, there is some effort that will be performed on a federal facility; therefore, those two clauses will remain.

After review, the FAA has made the decision to remove Provision H.7 from the SIR and this will be reflected in an upcoming SIR Amendment.

Question 27: Given the importance of quality and stability of professional labor for this contract and recognizing that inadequate salaries could impair the contractor's ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, would the Government be willing to establish minimum salary thresholds that offerors must bid at or above for each labor category listed in Attachment 1? This approach would help ensure staffing stability and would be in lieu of offerors providing salary from nationally recognized surveys.

Answer 27: No

Question 28: The government states: The offeror’s total evaluated price will be determined by totaling the sums for Other Direct Costs as well as the sum of the proposed composite hourly rates per service area multiplied by the estimated labor hours per service area to arrive at a total estimated contract value. The total evaluated price will consist of the total of the Base Period Option I, Option II, Option III and Option IV. The terms ""service area"" and ""proposed composite hourly rates"" look to be holdovers from the prior SIR where the evaluated hours were broken out by ""east"", ""central"", and ""west"" service areas. Within Attachment 1 of the current SIR, there is not a breakout of hours by ""service area"". Since this work is predominantly executed out of Washington DC area, please confirm salaries proposed and source documentation provided (e.g. market salary survey data) should be based on Washington DC delivery and that a ""composite rate"" for any of the labor that blends multiple location-based salary datapoints will be deemed non-compliant.

Answer 28: Please refer to Question and Answer 7.

Question 29: Within M.4, the government states: “The cost information should be summarized and be traceable to each CLIN. The cost information shall be presented at least at major cost element level to include Direct Labor, Labor Overhead, Other Direct Costs, General and Administrative, and Profit.” Please confirm that offerors need to provide this data for each LCAT and year found in the x003 CLIN series within Attachment 1 and that the direct labor rate for each labor category should be traceable to the salary survey data points provided with each offeror’s proposal. Please also confirm that these calculations can be shown within separate tabs of Attachment 1 (excel workbook).

Answer 29: Yes, potential offerors need to provide data for each LCAT, and year found in the X003 CLIN series within Attachment 1 and the direct labor rate for each labor category should be traceable to the salary survey data points provided with each offeror’s proposal. Potential offerors are to provide these calculations within separate tabs of Attachment 1 (excel workbook).

Question 30: SIR, L.3 (g) (a), Page 89 - Would the Government please confirm that Attachment 1, Section B should be submitted in both Excel and PDF formats?

Answer 30: Yes, Attachment 1, Section B should be submitted in pdf format for incorporation into any resulting contract. Potential offerors are also required to provide this information in excel format to ensure that calculations are correct.

Question 31: We assume that the time zones stated in the SIR refer to Central Standard Time (CST). Will the FAA please confirm the correct time zone for times stated in the SIR?

Answer 31: Yes, time zones referenced in the SIR refer to Central Standard Time (CST). Don’t forget to spring forward this coming weekend (YIKES).

Question 32: SIR Provision L.3 (d) - The SIR states "d. Volume cover shall designate section title along with applicable page(s) the Offeror deems competition sensitive." Would the FAA consider allowing offerors to add a table designating applicable pages deemed competition sensitive at the beginning of the first page of the proposal?

Answer 32: Yes, this will be acceptable.

Question 33: SIR Provision L.3 e. (3) - The SIR states "Contract Documentation, SIR Sections A – K (with Section K, Representations and Certifications completed.)" should be included in Volume I, Contract Documentation. Does the FAA require that offferors include Sections A - J even though they are not to be completed by offerors?

Answer 33: Yes, the FAA’s intent is that each potential offeror will provide a model contract containing Sections A through J.

Question 34: SIR Attachment 1, Section B, Other Direct Costs - Would the Government consider removing the text in the estimated value for Other Direct Costs (e.g., in the Base Period Tab, Cell E14) so that it does not interfere with the calculation for price per year?

Answer 34: SIR Attachment 1, Section B will be revised to include this correction in an upcoming amendment.

Question 35: SIR Attachment 1, Section B, Other Direct Costs - Would the Government please update the pricing template to include a formula to multiply the material and handling rate to the estimated Other Direct Costs value to match the evaluation criteria? Also, would the Government update the total cost per year formula to use the burdened rate as part of the final calculation?

Answer 35: Yes, SIR Attachment 1, Section B will be revised to include this correction in an upcoming amendment.

Question 36: SIR Provision L.7 - Would the Government please confirm that Section L.7, Teaming Arrangements and subsequent bullets is intended for Joint Ventures (JVs) and Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) versus Subcontractor Teaming Agreements?

Answer 36: No, please refer to Question and Answer 2.

Question 37: SIR Provision L.3.e.(7) - Would the Government please confirm that Section L.3.e (7), Teaming Agreements is where offerors would provide the Section L.7 Teaming Arrangements (Teaming Plan), if required?

Answer 37: Yes, please refer to Question and Answer 20

Question 38: SOW, page18, Section 3.11 - Will the Government identify which labor categories support which places of performance/work locations?

Answer 38: Please refer to Question and Answer 7.

Question 39: Will the Government allow submission of follow-up and clarification questions after the release of answers to questions?

Answer 39: Yes.

Question 40: SIR, page 87, Provision L.3.b - In Table L.1, Volume II Technical Proposal is described as including both Factors 1 and 2. However, Factor 2 is Past Performance, which is described in Table L.1 as consisting of its own volume (Vol. III) and being non-page limited. Is Past Performance part of Vol. III and page limited?

Answer 40: Please refer to Question and Answer 5.

Question 41: SIR page 87, Provision L.3.e - L.3.e lists teaming arrangements as part of the Volume I submission, but L.7 says teaming arrangements are to be included as part of the technical proposal (i.e., Volume II). Which Volume should teaming arrangements be discussed ?

Answer 41: SIR Provision L.7, Teaming Arrangements will be revised to state that when a teaming arrangement is proposed, a full copy of each executed Teaming Agreement is to be provided as part of Volume I – Contract Documentation. There will no longer be a page limitation of 10 pages for Teaming Agreements. Potential offerors should address how their proposed Teaming Arrangements will enhance their technical capability in their Technical Proposal for Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical Approach/Program Management/Supervision Plan.

Question 42: SIR Provision L.5.b.iv - The SIR requires offerors to instruct customers completing Past Performance Surveys that they must “provide the completed PPS to the Contracting Officer by no later than the SIR closing date,” which is 3/23/2026. In the Past Performance Survey, however, the CO’s message instructs customers to return the form “no later than March 24, 2026.” Which is the due date for the PPS forms?

Answer 42: The correct due date for submission of completed PPS forms is March 23, 2026.

Question 43: SIR Provision L.5.b.ii/L.5.b.iv - The SIR instructs offerors to both complete “Part 1 of the PPS” [SIR section L.5.b.ii] and “Page 1 of the PPS” [SIR section L.5.b.iv]. Attachment 5 provides neither page numbers nor labels sections by “Part.” Can the Government please clarify what sections of Attachment 5 the offeror should complete? Given the requirement to submit PPSs to clients no later than 10 days before the SIR closing date, will the Government provide an extension should an answer to this question be returned with less than 10 days before the proposal due date?

Answer 43: Potential offerors are required to complete the information on Page 1 of the PPS as well as Items 1-11 on Page 2 of the PPS.

Question 44: SIR Provision L.5.a - L.5 Past Performance has the following recency requirement: “All projects submitted must have been underway or completed within the last five

(5) years through the closing date identified in the SIR; however, Offerors are allowed to utilize one (1) contract where at least one full year of performance has been completed.”

Will the Government please confirm this means one contract has no recency requirement and can be from a contract completed more than five years ago?

Answer 44: No, the recency requirement that projects must have been underway or completed within the last five (5) years through the closing date identified in the SIR apply to all projects.

This statement in SIR Provision L.5.a means that if a potential offeror is currently performing a contract where at least one full year of performance has been completed, the potential offeror is allowed to utilize this contract; however, each potential offeror is only allowed to utilize a maximum of one (1) in progress contract.

Question 45: SIR Provision L.5.a L.5.b includes the following statement about using subcontracts as past performance: “If the Offeror does not have prior prime contracts to cite, then the Offeror may cite instances on which it has served as a primary subcontractor, along with subcontractor scope of work and subcontract dollar value.” Will the Government please confirm that a subcontract can be used in addition to a prime contract reference(s)?

Will the Government please also confirm that, in instances when the subcontract was performed on a government project, past performance surveys for subcontracts should be completed by a government representative, rather than a prime contractor representative?

Answer 45: Each Offeror is required to provide a minimum of two (2) but no more than four (4) current or past customers complete a Past Performance Survey (PPS) to demonstrate overall job performance for the same or similar services related to the subject acquisition. If the Offeror does not have prior prime contracts to cite, then the Offeror may cite instances on which it has served as a primary subcontractor. In the event that the offeror does not have sufficient prime contracts to fulfill the requirement and utilizes a subcontract, then the PPS must be completed by a government representative, in lieu of a prime contractor representative.

Question 46: SIR Provisions L.10-L.13 - Sections L.10-L.13 follow section L.1 and precede section L.2. Will the Government please renumber these sections to allow for easier reference?

Answer 46: Welcome to the wonderful world of the PRISM contract writing system!!

Unfortunately, after many different attempts in the past, the Contracting Officer is unable to change how PRISM formats Provision numbers and completely agrees with potential offerors that this is confusing.

Question 47: SIR Section L, Clause 3.6.1-17 0 The NAICS listed in the SIR for this solicitation is 561612, Security Guards and Patrol Services, which is different from the 541990 NAICS listed on SAM.GOV. Respectfully, the 561612 NAICS does not appear to align with contract scope, and small business contracting has undergone tremendous industry-wide changes since the 541990 NAICS was originally suggested during the 2024 market survey.

Would the Government consider a different NAICS for this solicitation that better aligns with the scope and promotes increased competition from qualified small business offerors? Some potential NAICS include:

• 541330, Engineering Services

• 541611, Administrative and General Management Consulting Services

• 541715, Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Answer 47: The NAICS code will be corrected to 541990. Please refer to Question and Answer 1.

Question 48: Given the complexity of the SIR, that the industry day takes place less than a month before the submission deadline, and that answers to questions will likely have a significant impact on offeror responses, will the Government consider providing a submission deadline extension of three weeks (i.e., April 13, 2026)?

Answer 48: While the FAA does agree that there have been a significant number of questions submitted in response to the SIR, most of these questions are to ask where information is to be provided and some formatting questions. In addition, several questions are duplicate questions.

There might be an SIR extension, but a three-week extension is very unlikely.

Question 49: SIR Provision L.3.b - The SIR states that “responses to each evaluation factor shall be provided in a separate section and the section shall be tabbed for ease of reference as noted in Table L.1 below.” Submissions are to be made electronically via email, however. Is there an electronic tabbing process the Government wants offerors to follow?

Answer 49: Potential offerors are given the opportunity to utilize the format to provide the electronic tabbing that they believe is most beneficial to the understanding of their proposal.

Question 50: SIR Provision L.4.e - The SIR states that “If any portion of the work is to be performed by a subcontractor, the proposal must provide rationale for subcontracting, how the specific subcontractor was determined (reference AMS 3.10.2-5, Competition in Subcontracting), and the percentage of work to be performed by the subcontractor. The proposal must include supporting documentation describing each subcontractor's technical qualifications and detailed pricing information to support all subcontractor costs.”

Are offerors meant to provide the referenced “supporting documentation describing each subcontractor’s technical qualifications” as non-page-limited appendices to the technical proposal?

Answer 50: AMS Clause 3.2.2.7-8 Disclosure of Team Arrangements (April 2008) defines Team Arrangements as follows:

"Team arrangements," as used in this clause, are cooperative arrangements where:

(i) Two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or

(ii) A potential prime contractor enters into an agreement with one or more other companies to have them act as subcontractors under a specific contract.

Potential offerors should address how their proposed Teaming Arrangements will enhance their technical capability in their Technical Proposal for Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical Approach/Program Management/Supervision Plan.

Question 51: SIR Provision L.3.g - The SIR states that “The proposal must include supporting documentation describing … detailed pricing information to support all subcontractor costs.”

Can the Government please clarify and elaborate on what it considers “detailed pricing information to support all subcontractor costs”? Would this consist of subcontractors providing all requested elements of Vol. IV (i.e., items a-e of L.3.g)?

Answer 51: Correct

Question 52: SIR Provision L.3.g - The SIR requests that Vol. IV information, including “Estimating Rationale, Methodology, and Support” and details for “each cost element for each CLIN,” is “tabbed.” Please clarify if the Government is requesting this written information as added tabs to the provided Section J, Attachment 1 spreadsheet. Additionally, are items d and e found in L.3.g a duplicate requirement?

Answer 52: Correct, the Government is requesting that potential offerors provide added tabs to show how their fully loaded labor rates were determined. Correct, items d and e found in L.3.g are basically the same thing. This will be corrected in an upcoming SIR amendment.

Question 53: SIR Provision L.7.3 - Does the statement, “Since employee wages and benefits may differ among the teaming partners, offerors proposing as a team must select a single compensation plan that all employees, regardless of which teaming partner they work for, receive the exact same employee wages and benefits” only apply to Joint Ventures (JV)? As the Government is aware, this requirement for non-JV’s would disregard market-based pay structures, regional cost-of-living differences, rate build-ups, and established human resource policies that individual companies have independently developed, which would impose unnecessary administrative burdens, potentially increase overall costs, limit the flexibility in teaming arrangements, and cause unneeded discrepancies in the employee workforce.

Answer 53: Please refer to Question and Answer 13

Question 54: SIR Provision L.5/M.3.b - L.5, Past Performance Experience makes no mention of a dollar size relevancy requirement. In section M.3.b, however, the SIR states that “relevancy may also be looked at in terms of Contract Value … [and number of] employees.” Furthermore, M.3.e discusses Contract Value as a required part of the evaluation criteria.

Is Contract Value always part of the evaluation criteria, or is it dependent on a case-by-case basis (as indicated by the use of “may” in M.3.b)?

Do subcontracts used as past performance references have to meet the same size relevancy standards as prime contracts?

Answer 54: The main reason the dollar size relevancy requirement was not addressed in Section L is because Section L contains the instructions to potential offerors on how to complete their proposals and Section M contains the details of how proposals will be evaluated. Provision M.3 contains the detailed procedures that will be utilized to evaluate past performance, and the relevancy evaluation is the next sequential step after paragraph M.3.b.

Question 55: SIR/Attachment 1 Section B - Attachment 1, Section B lists the Project Manager hours per year as 11,160, which exceeds the hours for one FTE. Project Manager is one of the key positions listed in the SIR. To meet the requirement to provide a resume for the key position of Project Manager, should offerors provide resumes for all personnel supporting the Project Manager labor category level of effort?

Answer 55: No. Only one Project Manager will be a key position on the contract to oversee the administration of the overall contract and all task orders. Please submit one resume for the Project Manager you are submitting for this requirement.

Question 56: Please confirm the anticipated percentage split between FFP and T&M task orders over the five-year ordering period.

Answer 56: In case potential offerors are not aware, there has been a mandate to eliminate T&M priced contracts and only utilize contracts with Firm-Fixed Price arrangements. This is one of the many reasons why there has been a delay in issuing this SIR. In order for the acquisition team to receive CFO approval, the team has been required to revisit the acquisition and make changes so that approximately 90% of the known Delivery Order/Task Orders that are anticipated to be issued against the resulting contract will be Firm-Fixed Price. Please understand that this is an estimate as of today’s date and is subject to change.

Question 57: Will labor categories and fully loaded rates proposed at award apply uniformly to all task orders, or may pricing be renegotiated at the task order level?

Answer 57: Fully loaded labor rates included in any resulting contract will be utilized when establishing Delivery Orders/Task Orders to be issued against the base contract.

Question 58: For T&M task orders, how are ceiling prices established (e.g., per labor category, per task order, or contract level)?

Answer 58: The ceiling prices will be established for each individual T&M task order.

Question 59: Are option year labor rates fixed at award, and what escalation methodology is expected? For T&M task orders, will fully burdened labor rates remain fixed for each contract year, or can offerors propose escalation?

Answer 59: Since the labor categories included in this acquisition are exempt from the Service Contract Act, they are not subject to an annual equitable adjustment IAW AMS 3.6.2-30, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards – Price Adjustment. Any escalation to be utilized in proposing labor rates is up to each individual offeror and such escalation shall be included in each offeror’s response to the subject SIR.

Question 60: Under what circumstances will certified cost or pricing data be required at award or for task order modifications?

Answer 60: The FAA does not anticipate that certified cost and pricing data will be required for this acquisition.