SLE Amendment 00002 QA 11.19.25.pdf

Reference Question Answer Q1 Table L.1; L.13 PROPOSAL CONTENT, VOLUME IV /Tabs A

& B - Cost/Price Proposal: page 106/107 If the page limit for the Price Proposal Narrative remains at 15 pages, we recommend that the required supporting documentation be allowed in an appendix that is excluded from the 15-page limitation but is evaluated.

Revised to no page limit "N/A".

Q2 Amendment 001 Could the FAA please explain the rationale for the change in SIR Amendment 1 modifying Section L.13 Tab D, Sub-Factor I, Sub-Factor 2, Volume III and M.3.1.1 Sub-Factor 1 "from seven (7) Years to ten (10) years?" SIR Section M.4 describes every confidence level (High through Low) as "recent and relevant contract performance" (emphasis added). A citation from a contract that ran from, for example, 2010 through 2015 does not appear to be recent, the likelihood of receiving an accurate PPQ response would be substantially diminished, and the work cited would not cover or have encountered many of the current critical needs of the FAA environment.

To enhance competition and accommodate circumstances surrounding delays caused by the protest of the initial SIR and recent shutdown of the Federal Government which impacted the timeline for awarding a follow-on contract

Q3 L.12 When will the Government publish all correspondence including questions and answers submitted as part of this SIR response? As soon as possible after question closing date.

Q4 L.13 PROPOSAL CONTENT The RFP does not include font requirements for tables and graphics. Can Offerors use 9 point Times New Roman for tables and graphics? Yes.

Q5 L.13 PROPOSAL CONTENT, VOLUME I, Tab B: Contract Documentation - SIR Sections A-K (page 103)

Volume I, Tab B Contract Documentation requires SIR Sections A-K. Will the government verify that Offerors are not required to provide a completed Section B in Volume I since cost information is not allowed in other sections of the proposal (per L.13 VOLUME IV) and a completed Section B is required in Volume IV.

Yes, a completed Section B is not required in Volume I.

Q6 Section F.2: Place of Performance (page 16) Section F.2 states “ Services shall be primarily performed at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center (MMAC) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the National Weather Service’s Radar Operation Center (ROC) in Norman, Oklahoma and the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) in Egg Harbor Township. However, services are also accomplished nationwide including U.S. territories. On rare occasions, services are provided to other countries as necessary.” Can the government confirm that these are to be staffed with personnel located and working in Oklahoma City, OK and Egg Harbor, NJ?

Yes, the contractor personnel supporting this requirement will be based in either the Oklahoma City, OK area or Egg Harbor, NJ area.

Q7 Section F.2: Place of Performance (page 16) Section F.2 states “ Services shall be primarily performed at the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center (MMAC) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the National Weather Service’s Radar Operation Center (ROC) in Norman, Oklahoma and the William J. Hughes Technical Center (WJHTC) in Egg Harbor Township. However, services are also accomplished nationwide including U.S. territories. On rare occasions, services are provided to other countries as necessary." During performance, for locations other than OK and NJ, will the government clarify if Oklahoma City will be used as the base rate and an OPM locality pay factor be applied to these rates?

See answer to question 6. No locality needs to be applied.

6973GH-26-R-00011 Questions and Answers Amendment 00002

Q8 L.13 PROPOSAL CONTENT, Volume II, Sub-Factor I Organizational Management and Staffing (pages 104-105)

Will the government confirm that Volume II, Factor 1, Sub-Factor I/Tab A: Organizational Management and Staffing is limited to the employees and contracts of the 8(a) offeror, 8(a) team member, or 8(a) JV partner?

See clause L.1, "Information submitted by a subsidiary company of an Alaskan Native Corporation (ANC) or Indian Tribal Organization (ITO) specifying performance by a parent or other related subsidiary/sister of the ANC or ITO will be considered for evaluation purposes of Experience and Past Performance." Also see AMS T3.6.1B.6 and CFR 121.103 (b). A Joint Venture partner or managing partner can utilize past performance/experience from a subsidiary or sister company that is not part of the JV as long as the proposal demonstrates how the subsidiary or sister company will be used meaningfully in performance.

Q9 L.13 Volume II, Sub-Factor 2 Engineering Experience and Support Capability (page 105)

Will the government confirm that contracts cited for Engineering Experience and Support Capability must be the same contracts cited in Factor 1, Sub- Factor 1/Tab A: Organizational Management and Staffing?

The Experience sited must be used but other contracts may be included if Sub-factor 1 is demonstrated on less than the required number of contracts for Experience.

Q10 L.1 GENERAL INFORMATION; L.10 INSTRUCTIONS FOR

ORGANIZATION AND PREPARATION PROPOSALS; L.13

PROPOSAL CONTENT, VOLUME I (Tabs A-F), Tab C: SBA 8(a) Certification Letter (page 103)

Sections L.1, L.10 (Table L.1), and L.13 require an SBA 8(a) Certification Letter. These official letters, generated by SBA through their system, may vary in length, therefore, will the government change the page limit to 'N/A'?

Yes, page limit will be revised to "N/A"

Q11 L.13 PROPOSAL CONTENT, VOLUME IV /Tabs A & B - Cost/Price Proposal (page 107)

Section L.13 requires Offerors to include "All information relating to the proposed price including all required supporting documentation must be included in the section of the proposal designated as the Cost/Price volume. Under no circumstances shall this information and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal." In addition to Attachment 4 which details the Direct Labor, Fringe, Overhead, Profit, etc., does the FAA require Offerors to also provide a narrative regarding Indirect Rates (e.g., fringe rate, overhead rate, G&A, Material & Handling, Profit, and Escalation)? If so, will the government consider removing the page count (in Table L.1 and L.13).

See answer to Question 1.

Q12 Attachment 4 T and M Labor Rates and Build up 4.3.2025 Will the government confirm that Offerors may add columns and make other changes in Attachment 4 to accurately reflect the requirements of the Offeror's estimating system and methodology?

Offerors may add columns and make other changes in Attachment 4 to accurately reflect the requirements of the Offeror's estimating system and methodology

Q13 L.8 SUBMISSION, MODIFICATION, REVISION, AND

WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSALS (page 101); L.11 DIRECTIONS FOR SENDING PROPOSAL(s) (page 103); and 3.2.2.3-20

Will the government confirm the method for submitting this proposal? Although email submission is referenced in 3.2.2.3-20 and L.8, L.11 references proposals must be received at "the mailing address below" (no address provided) with packages marked.

Clause 3.2.2.3-20 and L.8 state via email to Cilony.Alejandro@faa.gov and L.11 has been revised.

Q14 3.1.7-4 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST -

MITIGATION PLAN REQUIRED (OCT 2019)

Please confirm that an OCI mitigation plan is only required if the offeror identifies a conflict during the proposal process, and if/when the offeror/award identifies a conflict that should be reported to the Contracting Officer for consideration and approval.

Statement affirming there is no perceived or actual OCI is sufficient if none are identified during the proposal process. If an OCI arises after submittal or during performance, it is required to be submitted to the CO for review and approval.

Identification of OCI(s) and associated mitigation plans are excluded from the page count.

Q15

3.2.2.7-8 DISCLOSURE OF TEAM ARRANGEMENTS (APR

2008)

In which volume are subcontractor teaming agreements to be placed? If teaming arrangements will be used, they should be identified in Volume IV.

Q16 Attachment 1 SLE Follow on SOW, Section 5.2.1.2.1 k (page 16) Will the government confirm that offerors acquisition support is limited by writing test plans, operation and maintenance procedures, and in participating systems level integration, validation, and certification and does not include the procurement of new NAS facilities, systems, or infrastructure?

Yes, , the prospective contractor's acquisition support shall be limited to, writing test plans, operation and maintenance procedures, and participating in systems level integration, validation, and certification and does not include the procurement of new NAS facilities, systems, or infrastructure.

Q17

Attachment 4 T and M Labor Rates and Build up 4.3.2025

SIR requires offerors to populate Attachment 4 with Direct Labor rates, indirect burdens, profit and escalation rates in the following worksheets:

1.Total Base Year 2.Total Option Years One through Four

OKC and NJ worksheets are populated based on the input in these worksheets resulting in the same rate for both OK and NJ.

Will the Government update Attachment 4 to:

1.Modify the OKC and NJ rates worksheets for each year to allow offerors to input/differentiate Direct Labor rates for both locations?

2.Modify the worksheet named Summary to pull the individual totals from the OK and NJ location for each year?

With these changes, the worksheet named Total Base Year and Total Option Years can be deleted.

See answer to question 12, Attachment 4 dated 02.20.25 will be deleted

Q18 Attachment 4 T and M Labor Rates and Build up 4.3.2025;

Attachment 4 T and M Labor Rates CLINs X002-X003 (Build-up) 2.20.25

SIR requires offerors to fill out Attachment 4. The SIR has two Attachment 4. Will the Government confirm that all offerors are required to fill out Attachment 4 T and M Labor Rates and Build up 4.3.2025?

See answer to question 17.

Q19

Attachment 4 T and M Labor Rates and Build up 4.3.2025

Attachment 4 T and M Labor Rates and Build up 4.3.2025 has the estimated hours that need to be priced out. Will the Government confirm that all offerors must bid the hours by Labor category as specified in Attachment 4 T and M Labor Rates and Build up 4.3.2025?

All offerors must bid the hours by Labor category as specified in Attachment 4.

Q20

L.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

The SIR at page 100 provides that the definition of the term "offeror" used in SIR Section L, is as follows: "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) and certified as an 8(a) company."

Will the government please confirm that any joint venture offeror may only cite past performance or corporate experience of the member of the joint venture that is currently certified in the SBA 8(a) program?

See answer to Question 8.

Q21 Schedule B Section B, CLINs 20001, 30001, and 40001 note an estimated quantity of 26 months. Can the government confirm this is an error and should be 12 months?

Revised Schedule B to 12 months for CLINS 2001, 3001, and 4001.

Q22 L.13 PROPOSAL CONTENT, VOLUME I (Tabs A-F), Tab D:

Engineering Contract(s) Experience (pages 103-104) (1) engineering contract individually valued at over $100 million involving NAS systems and equipment or other government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity." The requirement then states that "The offeror must provide a list of contracts that contains the following information..." Will the government correct the sentence to state, "The offeror must provide one (1) engineering contract that contains the following information..."

Volume I, Tab D states that "the offeror must demonstrate it currently holds or has held within the previous ten (10) years from the SIR closing date, one Revised to state, The offeror must provide the following information:"

Q23 L.13 PROPOSAL CONTENT, VOLUME IV /Tabs A & B - Cost/Price Proposal (page 107)

As stated in part from L.13, "The SSET 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 SSET; then the data produced by the restricted source must be included and clearly specified in the cost/price volume."

W the government allow supporting pricing documentation, which originates from a MS Excel downloaded report, included as additional worksheets within the Attachment 4 submissions, which are not page-limited unlike the price narrative, with the goal to provide a concise packaged Volume IV Cost/ Price Proposal response?

Yes, See answer to Question 1.

Q24 Section L - Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders, L.10

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION AND PREPARATION

PROPOSALS

Please confirm that government documents (e.g., SF30s, SF33s, or RFP document fill-ins (such as Sections A – K)), which do not meet font and margin requirements, should not be altered except to fill in required information and are excluded from all font and margin requirements, and page markings (e.g., page numbering, header/footer, date, solicitation number, etc.).

Confirmed.

Q25 Section M - M.2 Summary of Overall Evaluation Process & M.3.1.1 Sub- Factor 1

Factor I, Technical, Sub-Factors under Factor 1 are of equal importance is significantly more important than Factor 2, Past Performance, Past performance is more important than Factor 3, Cost Price.

M.3.1.1 Sub-Factor 1: Organizational Management and Staffing is rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an offeror is "Unacceptable" on any one sub-factor, they are automatically excluded from further consideration.

As Sub-Factor 1 is either acceptable or unacceptable would the Government consider revising the weight of Factor I, Technical, to read as "Sub-Factor 2, Sub-Factor 3, and Sub-Factor 4" are of equal importance is significantly more important than Factor 2, Past Performance, Past performance is more important than Factor 3, Cost Price.

M.2 will be revised to state Factor 1, Technical, is significantly more important than Factor 2, Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Factor 3, Cost/Price. Sub-Factor 1 under Factor 1 will be rated either acceptable or unacceptable.

Subfactors 2 through 4 under Factor 1 are of equal importance. If any sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable” the entire proposal will automatically be excluded from further consideration.

Q27 SOW and CDRLs, CDRL A007, SOW 80 Section 8.7 indicates that CDRL A007 is the Trip Cancellation Credits. Section 9 indicates CDRL A007 is the Quality Control Plan, which also matches the issued CDRL.

Can you confirm if there is a Trip Cancellation Credits CDRL and provide with next Amendment?

The SOW has been amended to state "shall submit a monthly report detailing credits from cancelled travel plans in the contractor format". A CDRL is not associated with this requirement.

Q28 L.10, Table L.1 - Proposal Organization, 102 Will the Govt. revise Table L.1 to exclude title pages, Table of contents and evaluation matrices from page count? This was excluded in the previous RFP under Solicitation 6973GH-25-R-00028

Yes, title pages, Table of contents and evaluation matrices are excluded from the page count.

Q29 L.13, Volumes I and II, 103 and 104 Statement: "Information shall be submitted in Times New Roman with a 10 point font."

Question: Will the Government change this to state minimum of 10 point font?

Information shall be submitted in Times New Roman with a 10 point font minimum with the exception of tables and graphics see answer to Question 4.

Q30 L.13, Volumes I and Volume IV, 103 and 106, Volume I, Tab B indicates to provide SIR Sections A - K. Volume IV states to provide Section B and also the statement "information and documentation related to proposed price should not be included elsewhere in the proposal."

Question: Do offerors need to provide Section B in Volume I since it contains the CLIN pricing?

See answer to Question 5.

Q32 L.13, Volume II, Sub-Factor I/Tab A - Organizational Management and Staffing, 104

Will the Govt. exclude Sub-Factor 1 from the page count restriction for Volume II, especially considering Sub-Factor 1 uses a different evaluation criteria (Acceptable/Unacceptable) than the remaining Sub-Factors in this Volume?

No, the page limit will remain at 100 pages

"Under the previous RFP (Solicitation 6973GH-25-R-00028), Q13 from Amendment 02 indicated that ""Offerors are required to fill out Section A, leave section B blank, and complete all fill-ins in section K.""

Question: Is this the same expectation for offerors on this solicitation?"

L.13, Volume I, Tab B, 103Q31 Yes, it is the same expectation.

The 7 years of experience requirement for all Experience and Past Performance Factors favors the incumbent given that they are the current holder for both NAS/SLE contracts at Oklahoma City and at the Tech Center. Also, with the protest and government shutdown, the incumbent contractor is advantaged with their performance extending into it’s 8th year by the new solicitation submission date of 12/1/2025. This eliminates any previous incumbents responding with relevant NAS experience.

See answer to Question 2.Q26

Q33 L.13, Volume III/Tab A - Past Performance, 106 Is the expectation for Volume III to only include the Attachment 6 Client Authorization Letter in our submission? As per L.13, Volume III, The offeror shall fill out Part I of the Past Performance Questionnaire (s) (PPQ’s) for contracts identified as part of Sub-Factor 1 & 2 and submi Completed Part I directly to the FAA Contracting Officer no later than the SIR closing date. The Client Authorization Letters go directly to the reference identified.

Q34 L.13, Volume IV, Accounting System, If an offeror has an approved accounting system, but the approval evidence is marked as CUI, how should offerors submit this evidence document? Submit the document with markings in Volume IV.

Q35 SIR, Pages 108 - 111 Are Offerors required to complete and submit any of the 3.x items on Pages 108-111? If yes which Volume and where should Offerors provide? Yes, offerors are required to complete the representations and certifications within the document as part of Volume I.

Q36 REVISION IN WORK

Attachment 4 T and M Labor Rates and Build Up

The pricing excel build up asks for a single rate to be inserted into the "Total" tabs for each year. The template then automatically pulls those rates into the location specific tabs. This results in the same T&M rates for both locations, OKC and NJ. Does the Government expect there to be one rate for each a LCAT regardless of location? If not, could the Government please update the submission template to allow for varying rates based on location?

See answer to Question 12. The Government expects a rate for both locations see revised ttachment 4.

Q37

Table L.1; L.13 PROPOSAL CONTENT, VOLUME IV /Tabs A & B - Cost/Price Proposal (pages 106-107)

Section L VOLUME IV /Tabs A & B - Cost/Price Proposal states “This Cost/Price Volume shall contain a summary of the resources utilized to develop proposed direct rates and fringe benefits. The SSET 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 SSET; then the data produced by the restricted source must be included and clearly specified in the cost/ price volume. Offerors should include a narrative of no more than 15 pages describing the information contained within the remaining cost/price proposal sections, including cross referencing as required to provide traceability and understanding of the proposal contents.”

The Government requires offerors to provide resources utilized to develop proposed direct rates and fringe benefits. Offerors may not be able to grant access privileges to the SSET for some of these resources/back up data and may be required to provide voluminous full back up.

Will the government remove the 15-page limit from the Price Proposal Narrative to allow offerors to provide the required supporting documentation that supports fair, reasonable, and realistic pricing and aligns with the remaining non-page limited documents to be submitted to complete Volume III Cost/Price Proposal?

See answer to Question 1.

Q38 Clarification Request Regarding Past Performance Thresholds for Non-Tribal/Non-ANC 8(a) Offerors: The SIR specifies past performance requirements—including minimum Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) staffing levels and annual revenue thresholds—that appear significantly higher than w most conventional SBA 8(a) firms can typically meet. These thresholds seem achievable primarily by Tribal or ANC-owned 8(a) entities, due to their unique statutory advantages and scale.

Questions:

Could the FAA please clarify how a non-Tribal, non-ANC 8(a) company is expected to qualify under these criteria, given that the required FTE counts and revenue levels appear to exceed what a standard 8(a) firm can reasonably demonstrate?

Additionally, will the FAA consider adjusting these thresholds—or allowing alternative forms of relevant experience—to ensure equitable participation for all eligible 8(a) firms?

Refer to sections L&M. No, the threshold will not be adjusted.

Q39 Please provide details why the FAA terminated the previous MMAC SLE competition? Industry needs this information to assist in making any kind of valid bid decision

Subsequent to receipt of a protest on the previous SIR, the FAA identified opportunities to enhance competition by addressing potentially confusing language in the SIR.

Q40 Considering no Market Survey for the MMAC SLE opportunity was ever conducted, that included Sections L and M, and the new release of the SLE opportunity consist of minor changes (i.e., 7 to 10 years for corporate capabilities, team utilization) to the previous cancelled solicitation. Will the FAA cancel the current solicitation, conduct new market survey, request industry feedback based on SLE SIR Bid requirements to ensure adequate competition to meet stringent bid requirements?

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

Q41 The NAS-E/SLE requirement has continually grown in size and value over the years. In 2002 it employed approximately 215 FTE’s and today based on Attachment 4 over 500 FTEs. Due to the increase in FTEs, dollar value, and restrictions to bid shouldn’t this opportunity be divided up to create additional competition and minimize FAA risk.

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

Q42 Amendment 001 Even though the bid requirements have been updated, based on the changes it will be difficult for anyone other than ANC to bid this opportunity.

Please extend the due date to January 16, 2026 if the FAA relaxes the requirement that the team capabilities can be utilized to achieve at the minimal 200 FTEs or 24 continuous months to allow adequate time to submit a proposal.

No, the due date will not be extended. The procurement strategy has already been determined.

Q43 Page 100: L.1 GENERAL INFORMATION: States “Information submitted by a subsidiary company of an Alaskan Native Corporation (ANC) or India Tribal Organization (ITO) specifying performance by a parent or other related subsidiary/sister of the ANC or ITO will be considered for evaluation purposes of Experience and Past Performance” Question: This gives a huge advantage to ANC and ITO that no traditional 8a can achieved based on minimal bid requirements of $100m contract with 200 FTEs performing NAS Engineering for a minimal of 24 consecutive months. As well as each ANC and ITO subsidiaries have a unique tax identification number and are considered separate companies. To create competition for this opportunity, will the FAA allow the vendor and its teaming partners at a minimum to utilize the team capabilities to meet the bid criteria for 200 FTEs. This would be equivalent to allowing different tax id numbe to achieve past performance criteria across all 8As regardless designation.

See answer to Question 8.

Q44 Attachment 4 The Base Year FTEs count for MMAC of 343 and WJHTC of 176 and 18.25 as FFP for a total of 537.25 SLE FTEs. Considering the previous NAS-E contract (MMAC) and the previous Technical Operations contract (WJHTC) are being merged under a single contract that now requires a minimal bid over 200 FTEs for 24 consecutive months that is not even half of the estimated SLE based year contract requirement shouldn’t this contract be 2 separate contracts ensuring current and future competition (i.e., increase talent pool, generate competition, prevent a single sole provider providing current and future support, minimizing FAA current and future risk).

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

Q45 Amendment 001 Page 105 L.13 PROPOSAL CONTENT: States: “Sub-Factor 2/Tab A: Engineering Experience and Support Capability–Information submitted in support of Sub-Factor 2 will determine the offeror's capability to support the mission as it relates to the NAS/SLE. Emphasis will be placed on the Contractor’s, experience, and the depth and breadth of understanding of the requirements set forth in this SIR as well as the offeror’s plans to provide support at various locations under multiple task orders. The offeror must provide experience history (last 10 years from SIR closing date) and information that indicates NAS/SLE systems and equipment, or other Government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity and magnitude, 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.”

Question: FAA changed experience from 7 to 10 years for corporate experience and past performance. However most if not all 8a would have graduated from the 8a program unless you are an ANC or ITO. Will the FAA allow the entire teams experience to meet the 10 year requirement to increase competition?

See answer to Question 8.