Questions and Answers 66-70.pdf

SIR 6974GH-25-R-00221

AVS SAFETY, ANALYTICAL AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 66 THROUGH 70

Question 66 REVISED: As written, original answers to Questions 44 and 66 preclude the use of more than one live contract as past performance. Our understanding is that the FAA’s intent is to limit live contracts for past performance to those with more than one year of performance.

We respectfully request the use of ongoing projects not be limited to one contract as it is an unusual restriction and limits the Government's ability to review active performance and abilities of an offeror and their team, which is in the Government’s best interest. Would the Government consider revising this requirement to allow additional ongoing projects with substantial performance periods (e.g., minimum of 12-18 months) to be included in past performance submissions? This would enable a more comprehensive evaluation of offeror capabilities while maintaining recency and relevance standards.

Original 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.

Original Answer 66: No, potential offerors are only allowed to utilize one (1) contract where performance is in-progress and at least one year of performance has been completed.

Revised Answer 66: After much consideration, the Government has determined that it would be in the best interest of all parties to change this requirement to allow potential offerors to utilize two (2) contracts where at least twelve (12) months of performance has been completed.

Provision L.5 of the SIR will be revised to incorporate this change.

Question 67a: Question 3 from the Question and Answers states that L.7, Teaming Arrangements shall be included as part of Volume II (Factor 1). Additionally, Amendment 0001, page 2, seems to be missing part of the last sentence in the changes to ""SECOND: SIR Provisions L.7."" The last sentence of the new verbiage currently is a sentence fragment that reads: ""of the technical proposal l for Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical Approach/Program Management/Supervision Plan." For consistency with the response to Q41, should the last sentence read: "Potential offerors should address how their proposed Teaming Arrangement Plan will enhance their technical capability in their Technical Proposal for Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical Approach/Program Management/Supervision Plan""?

Question 67b: For clarity, will the government confirm that the single Teaming Arrangement Plan signed by all teammates addressing the minimum elements in L.7 (b) Teaming Arrangements is limited to 10 pages and does not count towards the total 75-page limit of Volume II Technical? Will the government please confirm this Teaming Arrangement Plan can be placed in an Appendix as part of Volume II?

Question 67c: Amendment 0001 document, page 3 states: "The requirement to provide a copy of signed and executed teaming agreements as part of Volume I - Contract Documentation is moved to Volume II (Factor 1) – Technical Proposal." This contradicts several responses to questions such as Question 20 where responses say to provide a full copy of each executed Teaming Agreement "as part of Volume I - Contract Documentation." Will the government please confirm that multiple Teaming Agreements (executed individually between the prime and each of its subcontractors) should be included in Volume 1, Contract Documentation with no page limitation?

Answer 67: SIR Amendment 0003 will correct the language to show that ter to show that Teaming Arrangements shall be included Volume II, Technical Proposal, Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical Approach/Program Management/Supervision Plan as well as show that the Teaming Arrangements are not subject to a page limitation. Previous Questions and Answers regarding where Teaming Arrangements are to be provided in an offeror’s proposal are revised to state that the Teaming Arrangements are to be included Volume II, Technical Proposal, Sub-factor 1.1

– Technical Approach/Program Management/Supervision Plan as well as show that the Teaming Arrangements are not subject to a page limitation. In regard to your question about a “single Teaming Arrangement Plan”, the Government has no way of knowing how each individual offeror might be utilizing a Teaming Arrangement; therefore, it may not be feasible for there to be a single Teaming Arrangement. The Government seeks to request that Teaming Arrangements be combined as much as possible; however, there will likely be situations where potential offerors need to include more than one signed and executed Teaming Agreement.

Question 68: By responding "correct" to question 51, can the government confirm that submissions from subcontractors are only needed if a specific subcontractor's buildup (e.g.

salary + indirects + profit) is the basis for 1 or more of the 21 labor categories being proposed at the Prime level?

Answer 68: Each potential offeror is required to provide a price build-up of each labor category.

This requirement exists regardless of potential teaming arrangements from a teaming partner or subcontractor. If an offeror proposes to have a subcontractor perform a particular labor category, then the potential offeror is required to provide the subcontractor’s price build-up.

Please keep in mind that regardless of number, if any, of teaming agreements, any resulting award of this requirement will only include ONE Section B, Pricing Schedule and it should be submitted by the Prime offeror.

Question 69: Can the government confirm that "Attachment 1, Section B, Pricing Schedules" should only be submitted by the Prime offeror considering this file will be used to calculate the entire team's singular total evaluated price?

Answer 69: Regardless of number, if any, of teaming agreements, any resulting award of this requirement will only include ONE Section B, Pricing Schedule and it should be submitted by the Prime offeror.

Question 70: Under, AC0090 ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH (JULY 2016), (4) (i) requires contractors “prior to start of performance of work under this contract to (i) Ensure that all employees supporting the contract work activities are “ Aware of and conform with the Operational Control documents referenced as attachments in Section J of this solicitation/contract” The referenced Operational Control documents are not listed under Section J of the solicitation nor were they provided as attachments. Will the Government please provide the referenced Operational Control documents so that Offerors may ensure and certify compliance under AC4560?

Answer 70: After further review, AC0090, ENVIRONMENTAL, SAFETY AND HEALTH (JULY 2016) is not a required clause and will be deleted in Amendment 0003.