SAVES HWSW Initial Q_A 20250930.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 98 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 697DCK-25-R-00302
About this file
This document is a comprehensive Questions and Answers (Q&A) file for the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Strategic Sourcing for the Acquisition of Various Supplies and Equipment (SAVES) Screening Information Request (SIR). The solicitation seeks to award approximately eight multiple-award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts for commercial hardware and software products, including network infrastructure components, personal computing devices, peripherals, audio/visual equipment, and related product-based services for IT asset lifecycle management.
The solicitation is structured with two competitive pools - a Small Business pool with up to six awards and an Unrestricted pool with up to two awards. Key requirements include OEM authorization relationships (minimum five for Small Business, ten for Unrestricted), ISO 9001:2015 certification, and past performance examples with annual awarded values of $3M for Small Business and $6M for Unrestricted. The Q&A file addresses numerous technical, pricing, and compliance questions from potential offerors, with responses clarifying requirements around product configurations, pricing submissions, OEM authorizations, and evaluation criteria. The proposal due date has been extended to October 21, 2025, at 1700 Eastern Time, with additional questions on amended items due by October 7, 2025.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 65 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1 Question Number Reference SIR Section Reference SIR Subsection and Paragraph Number (if applicable) Quote Specific SIR language in question Question Suggested resolution (if applicable) Government Answers
| 1 | Section L | L.11.2.1 | ISO 9001:2015 Certification. | Does not currently hold ISO 9001:2015 Certification. Could you please confirm if we may participate in this procurement by leveraging our partnership with Prime to satisfy the ISO 9001:2015 requirement? | According to SIR Section L.11.2.1, the Offeror (Prime) must supply an ISO 9001 Certification. Verification requires a copy of the Offeror’s official ISO 9001:2015 Certification of Conformity/Conformance. The section also specifies that an ISO 9001 certification from the manufacturer of the represented products does not satisfy the proposal submission requirement. Offerors are prohibited from using ISO 9001:2015 certifications belonging to a Parent Company, Division, or Subsidiary within their corporate structure. Additionally, SIR Section L.11.2.1 notes that for Small Business offerors, it is acceptable to provide evidence that the certification approval is underway by including the contact information of the appraisal body, including the representative's name, phone number, and email. The certification process must be finalized within 12 months of contract award. | |
| 2 | . | L.11.2.1 FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL | OEM Authorization Relationship and Letters of Authorization | We are very interested in submitting a bid and can provide 95% of the products requested. Oracle and F5 are not allowing any new partnerships at this time and will determine who is able to participate in this solicitation. Would if be possible to remove F5 Networks and Oracle in order to allow more competition? | Remove Oracle and F5 Network products from Attachment 2 - Price Evaluation Workheet_20250715 and Attachment 3 - OEM Authorization Relationship. | Oracle and F5 are critical to this solicitation, they cannot be removed. However, per Section M.3.1 Factor 1 - Technical Evaluation "The FAA will evaluate the completed Attachment 3 to assess that it meets the following criteria for acceptability: |
- For Small Business, the completed Attachment 3 demonstrates at least 5 (five) OEM authorized reseller relationships with the OEMs as indicated on the template
- For Unrestricted, the completed Attachment 3 demonstrates at least 10 (ten) OEM authorized reseller relationships with the OEMs as indicated on the template"
| 3 | Attachment 2 – Pricing Model Evaluation Worksheet | N/A | N/A | The price attachment seems to be broken or locked as the filters are not usable. | Provide an updated copy that allows filtering and sorting | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 4 | Section M | M.3.2.C, paragraph 2 | "The Prime example must meet the adjectival standard specified in the evaluation table above. The remaining examples will be evaluated collectively in the aggregate." | For the aggregate evaluation of remaining examples (2-4), are there minimum thresholds each must meet individually, or is it purely a collective assessment of the combined portfolio? E.g., examples 2-4 when combined must have total annual awarded value of 3M for SB, and 6M for unrestricted? | Confirm how the remaining examples will be evaluated in aggregate | We are keeping the $3M reuirement, but allowing TOs for Small Businesses. See SIR Amendment. | |
| 5 | Section M | M.3.4 A, paragraph 2 | "Failure to propose on all items per Attachment 2 –Pricing Model Evaluation Worksheet, will result in an | ||||
| Offeror’s proposal being removed from further consideration for award." | Section M states that all lines must be priced, but the solicitation also requires minimum OEM authorizations (10 for unrestricted, 5 for small business). Most offerors won't have authorization for all OEMs in Attachment 2. Can you clarify: Must offerors price lines for OEMs in which they're not authorized ? Or should the requirement be modified to only price lines for authorized OEMs? | Remove requirement to price all lines. Or update the template so that offerors must confirm authorization. If not authorized, allow offeror to plug in MSRP price | See amended SIR. Per SIR Section M.3.4, the prices proposed in the Price Model Evaluation Worksheet (Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet) will be used for evaluation purposes of the IDIQ contract. The Pricing Model Evaluation Worksheet is a historic representation of the FAA’s requirements and is not an all-inclusive list of the Hardware and Software as required under SAVES and is for evaluation purposes of the IDIQ. The Attachment provides examples of products currently used by the FAA.See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | ||||
| 6 | Section L | L.11.2.2.1, paragraph 2 | "Each Past Performance example must be recent and relevant and must have been completed no more than three (3) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation, although the Government will evaluate the entire period of performance of the contract." | Please confirm that past performance examples can include both completed AND ongoing contracts. | All past performance examples to include ongoing contracts. | Yes, per SIR Section L.11.2.2.1, "Past Performance examples must be recent and relevant and must have been completed no more than three (3) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation," therefore, past performance performance examples may include both completed and ongoing contracts, provided they meet the recency requirements. | |
| 7 | Section L | L.11.2.1 (b), paragraph 1 (last sentence) | "Offerors are limited to only those OEMs identified above and must attach a letter of authorization to its proposal for all authorized reseller OEMs and reference the attachment number." | Are there any LOA requirements? What is the recency requirement for LOAs (e.g., must be dated within last 12 months)? Must the LOA reference SAVES, or is a generic LOA from the OEM acceptable? | Add any LOA requirements to the solicitation. | The LOA does not have to reference SAVES. LOA must be current as of date of proposal submission | |
| 8 | Section L | L.11.2.1 (b), paragraph 1 (last two sentences) | "An “authorized reseller” is defined as a reseller who is known by the OEM and the OEM has verified that the |
reseller is considered by them to be an authorized or approved reseller of all items or subset of items. Offerors are limited to only those OEMs identified above and must attach a letter of authorization to its proposal for all
| authorized reseller OEMs and reference the attachment number." | Do LOAs need to come from the OEM? If an OEM is refusing to provide LOAs for this solicitation, can an LOA come from an approved distributor on behalf of the OEM? | Confirm LOAs must come from the OEM, or allow LOAs from a distributor | LOAs must come from the OEM. Per L.11.2.1 (b) "OEM has verified that the reseller is considered by them to be an authorized or approved reseller of all items or subset of items" The OEM must verify, by an LOA that an Offeror to this SIR is an authorized reseller. | ||||
| 9 | Section I | Clause List (first clause) | "This screening information request (SIR) or contract, as applicable, incorporates by reference the provisions or clauses listed below with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make the full text available, or offerors and contractors may obtain the full text via Internet at: https://fast.faa.gov/contractclauses.cfm." | Can you please provide copies of all clauses, provisions, and guidance incorporated by reference? For example, I could not locate AMS Guidance T3.2.2.2.7.A.1, which is being used to evaluate offeror responsibility. | Make the full text available. | See amended SIR. Revised to reflect E) Prior to the award of any contract, the prospective Contractor must also be determined to be responsible in accordance with AMS Guidance T3.2.2.7.A.1. |
| 10 | Section M | Section M.3.2 (b) paragraph 2 | "The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, and (if applicable) its first-tier subcontractors’ and their team members’ demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services and in meeting technical, price, and schedule requirements, while maintaining good customer relations." | Do past performance from team members have to examples in which they were prime contractors? | Confirm team member past performance is not limited to its experience as a prime contractor. | See amended SIR Section M.3.2, "The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, and (if applicable) its first-tier subcontractors’ and their team members’ demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services and in meeting technical, price, and schedule requirements, while maintaining good customer relations." These examples do not need to be as a prime contractor, however, per SIR Section M.3.2.C, the Offeror must be the prime on at least one (1) contract example provided. |
| 11 | Section I | 3.1.7-1 - 3.1.7-5 | See clauses | Will the Government remove clauses 3.1.7-1 through 3.1.7-5 as not applicable since this contract is for commercial goods? | Remove these clauses from the solicitation | Organizational conflict of interest clauses are mandatory in our solicitation to safeguard the integrity of the procurement process. These clauses are designed to prevent any unfair advantage or bias that might arise due to conflicting interests. |
| 12 | Attachment 4 - Past Performance Information Form | E. Primary Customer POCs | N/A | For past performance examples where the original Contracting Officer or Program Manager/COR are no longer available (due to retirement, transfer, etc.), are alternate POCs acceptable? E.g., successor CO/COR, technical leads, current program personnel familiar with the contract. | Allow alternate POCs with knowledge of contract performance | Yes, note the replacement on the attachment |
| 13 | Section M | M.3.2 Factor 2 - Past Performance Evaluation | Small Business: The example cited is a contract vehicle similar to SAVES IT HW/SW, which was active within the last three |
(3) years before the SIR’s release date; the example has an annual awarded value of $3M or more, AND the
| Offeror was the prime on at least one (1) contract vehicle example cited | Would the contracting office consider lowering the past perfomace annual awarded value to match that used for NASA SEWP VI for all businesses proposing in Category A of $150,000 to be rated relevant? | NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, 6th Generation of Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurements | See amended SIR Amendment. No, We are keeping the $3M requirement. | |||||
| 14 | Section B – CLIN Structure | B.1 | Category 4 – Approved OEMs/Products Not on Contract and Product-Based Services | Can FAA confirm if Category 4 OEMs must be submitted for pre-approval prior to RFQ response, or only prior to Delivery Order award? | Clarify that Category 4 OEMs may be added at DO level with COR/ACO approval, avoiding delays during proposal phase. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet. Additionally, per SIR Section G.4.3 Technical Refresh, after award, "[i]n accordance with C.23, the FAA anticipates performing a Technology Refreshment process on a quarterly basis for the addition of new OEMs/products, the deletion of OEMs/products identified in Schedule B, OEM list, and/or adjustment of OEMs/products as necessary." | ||
| 15 | Section F – Deliveries | F.2 | All deliveries must be FOB Destination, CONUS and OCONUS | Can FAA provide specific guidance for OCONUS shipping requirements (e.g., Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Alaska, overseas posts)? | FAA to issue a logistics appendix or clarify minimum OCONUS delivery standard. | The current requirement is 20 days CONUS, 30 days OCONUS for Delivery and performance statistics. | ||
| 16 | Section G – Contract Administration | G.6 | Quarterly rebates shall be calculated at 0.5% of eligible sales. | Should Offerors include the 0.5% rebate in their unit prices upfront, or present it as a separate line item | FAA to confirm rebate must be priced into unit pricing and not shown as a separate CLIN. | There is no Section G.6 of the SIR, however the rebate program is described in SOW Section 19 (Page 22) and states "The Contractor must have the established rebate cost built into their pricing and must pay DOT/FAA a quarterly rebate on all purchases executed against this Contract. | ||
| 17 | Attachment 1 – SOW | Sec. 14.2 | The Contractor shall conduct a physical site analysis within 15 days of Delivery Order acceptance | Can FAA confirm if virtual site analysis (via FAA-provided schematics/photos) is acceptable when physical access is restricted? | Allow virtual analysis if FAA facility access is not possible. | To be determined at the delivery order level. | ||
| 18 | Appendix 1a – Deliverables | Sec. 2.0 | Asset Identification Reports due weekly by Monday 11:59 AM ET | Can FAA confirm if AI reports must be submitted when no new assets were delivered that week? | Clarify whether a “zero-asset” AI report is required. | No a "zero-asset" AI report is not required. Only an email stating that there were no assets for that week, is required. | ||
| 19 | Appendix 1a – Deliverables | Sec. 3.0 | Monthly Activity Reports due by the 10th of each month | Can FAA confirm whether FAA will provide a standardized Excel format for MAR submissions, or if Offeror templates are acceptable? | FAA to provide locked MAR template to ensure consistency. | FAA will provide a locked MAR template after award of this contract. | ||
| 20 | Section H – Special Requirements | H.3 | Contractor must comply with Section 889 of the NDAA | Can FAA provide a definitive list of prohibited equipment brands/models to ensure Offeror avoids inclusion at pricing stage? | FAA to publish updated prohibited OEM list. | See SIR Section K, Clause 3.8.9-1 Representation Regarding Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment (JUL 2023) for specific instructions. | ||
| 21 | Section J – Attachments | Att. 6 – OEM List | Approved OEMs include Cisco, Dell, Oracle, etc | For OEMs not listed in Attachment 6 but requested in Section J (e.g., Sunhillo), should Offerors propose them under Category 4 or request an OEM list amendment? | FAA to clarify handling of OEMs not currently listed in Attachment 6. | Attachment 6 - Schedule B CLIN_OEM List is not part of the Pricing Evaluation. The Attachment- Price Evaluation Worksheet and the overall OEM Product list, Schedule B (Attachment 6) are not meant to match. | ||
| 22 | Section L – Instructions | L.3 | Offerors shall not include macros in proposal submission files. | Can FAA confirm if formulas and pivot tables are permitted in Excel submissions? | FAA to confirm Excel formulas are allowed if no macros are embedded. | Confirm no macro's, no pivot tables, but simple formulas are allowed (but must be visible to the FAA per SIR Section L.10.1.j.ii) | ||
| 23 | Section M – Evaluation | M.2 | Technical acceptability is required for award.” | Can FAA clarify if “technical acceptability” means merely meeting minimum OEM compliance, or if best-value tradeoffs will be considered? | FAA to define whether award is LPTA (Lowest Price Technically Acceptable) or Tradeoff. | Per Section M.2 The Government will make awards utilizing a lowest price technically acceptable approach. | ||
| 24 | SecL. | SecL.11.2.1 (b) Subfactor 2 | Attachment 3, OEM Authorization | |||||
| Relationship | Must a Small Business bidder themselves be an Authorized reseller for every OEM listed in Att A. "OEM Authorization Relationship" in order to qualify to submit a bid or can they team/subcontract with another small business who is authorized. | Large full and open businesses have a much greater chance of being authorized for every OEM listed in Att. A due to their size. Allowing small business bidders to form teams to canvas all the OEMs in Att A will give FAA a larger pool of potential of talent from which to award. | Per SIR Section M.3.1, "[f]or Small Business, the completed Attachment 3 demonstrates at least 5 (five) OEM authorized reseller relationships with the OEMs as indicated on the template." (emphasis added) | |||||
| 25 | Section L | L.11.3.1, Volume III, Factor 1b - Past Performance Requirements | “...must attach a letter of authorization to its proposal and reference the attachment number (In Column G of SIR Attachment 4, tab 2). Additionally, include an OEM point of contact who can verify that information and can validate the letters of authorization.” | Is there a recency requirement for the letters of authorization? | See #7- LOAs to be current as of date of proposal submission | |||
| 26 | Section L | L.11.2.2.2, paragraph 1 | Offerors must submit either a Past Performance Questionnaire in accordance with Attachment 5 - Past Performance |
Questionnaire (PPQ) or a Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation for each of the Past Performance references submitted in response to SIR Section L.11.2.2.1 above. If the contracts, identified on the Performance Information Sheet are different than the contracts identified on the Past Performance Questionnaire or Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation, the entire proposal may be determined nonresponsive, and the Offeror may be excluded from award consideration. CPARS evaluations may be submitted for contracts in lieu of a PPQ, or a combination of PPQs and CPARS evaluations may
| be submitted. | Does the Government mean that a combination of PPQ and CPARS evaluations may be submitted for each of the required past performance example? | We ask that the Government allows that a combination of PPQ and CPARS per project, in addition to using CPARS or PPQ. | A combination of PPQs and CPARS evaluations may be submitted for each of the required past performance examples; however, both are not required. Offerors must submit either a Past Performance Questionnaire in accordance with Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or a Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation for each of the Past Performance references submitted in response to SIR Section L.11.2.2.1. However, the PPQs and/or CPARS evaluations must be for the same contracts as identified on the Past Performance Information Sheet (Attachment 4). | ||||
| 27 | Section L | L.11.1 Volume I – Business Proposal | Proposals must include the following: | This section lists what is required of Volume I. Is it permissible to add further content in this volume, for instance, company overview, quality, risk management process, etc.? | We ask that the Government allows adding content related to the company performance in this Volume. | Offerors are advised to adhere to the SIR Section L requirements to ensure that the required content is provided within the appropriate Volume/Factor for evaluation purposes. Any additional information or materials not specifically requested by the Government will not be evaluated and will not be considered in the award determination. | |
| 28 | Section L | L.11.1 Volume I – Business Proposal | The cover letter must stipulate that the Offeror’s proposal is predicated upon all the terms and conditions of this SIR and is valid for theminimum acceptance period as identified in AMS clause 3.2.2.3-2 | When reviewing the AMS clause 3.2.2.3-2, we did not find a validity date. Can you please provide it? | Please provide the validity date. | Per AMS Clause 3.2.2.3-2 the FAA requires a minimum acceptance period of 90 calendar days, per AMS Clause 3.2.2.3-2(d) an Offeror can specify a longer acceptance period than the 90 calendar days. | |
| 29 | Section L and Attachment 2 | L.11.2.1 Factor 1, Technical (b) and L.11.2.2.1 Past Performance Information and Attachment 2 - Price Evaluation Worksheet_20250715 | Attachment 2 - Price Evaluation Workheet_20250715, starting on row 59 -77, the SAVES CLIN and OEM is listed as HPE, but in Column D Description the descriptions are listed as HP. | Would the government please clarify whether the government refers to HPE as the OEM from which the offerors should be sourcing their Letter of Authorization? | We ask that the Government please clarify from which OEM we should source the LOA. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 30 | Section B | Section B.5 | Minimum Order Obligation | Minimum Ordering Obligation – Section B.5 sets a $1,000 minimum ordering obligation for the entire contract term. Is this per contract holder or cumulative across all awardees, and does this minimum apply per ordering activity? | See amended SIR. Per Contract holder. | ||
| 31 | Section G | Section G.4 | Delivery Order Threshold Competition | Delivery Order Competition Threshold – Section G.4 uses $250K as the small-business-only threshold but reserves the right to change it. If the threshold changes mid-performance, will it apply immediately to ongoing solicitations? | Changes to the contract are implemented through formal modifications. These documents will clearly outline the reasons for the changes and specify the effective dates. | ||
| 32 | Section I | Contract Clauses, specifically clause 3.2.4-35 | Option Period Notification | Option Period Notification – The Option to Extend clause allows a 30-day preliminary notice, but also references a different number of days in brackets. Which period will FAA actually apply? | Per AMS Clause 3.2.4-35, the Government will give the Contractor a preliminary written notice of its intent to extend at least 30 days before the contract expires. The system does not allow the information in the brackets to be removed. | ||
| 33 | Section G | G.3.2 | Supply Chain Risk Management | Mentions relationships and prohibitions on “direct feeding” RFQ/RFI data. What constitutes a “business relationship” sufficient to share information with subcontractors, and will an NDA be considered enough? | A business relationship is one where there is a contractual agreement between the parties with speciic terms and conditions that each identifies what to provide in response to a SAVES FAA RFP. Yes, an NDA is sufficient. | ||
| 34 | Section B | B.1) | COTS Definition Boundaries | The contract excludes “non-COTS software items” and “software development for COTS items” but allows software “to support hardware.” Could you clarify where configuration, customization, or integration work falls? | Per SIR Section B.1 General, "This contract DOES NOT include: non-COTS software items, software development for COTS items, web development and web design services, software operations and maintenance (O&M) services, alterations to a physical site (e.g., wiring, electrical, plumbing, construction), level of effort (LOE) support services including full time equivalent employees with a yearly period of performance (i.e. option years)." Configuration, customization and Integration are software operations and maintenance and thus not in the scope of this solicitation. | ||
| 35 | Section L | L.11.2.2 Factor 2 | L.11.2.2.1 Past Performance Information | For Attachment 4 – Past Performance Information Sheet, should each past performance reference be submitted on its own sheet, or can multiple past performances be combined into a single sheet? | See amended SIR, Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Sheet | ||
| 36 | Section L | M.3.2 Factor 2 | Past Performance Evaluation (Paragraph B) | It appears that the solicitatioin is seeking IDIQ/GWAC-level past performance examples. However, these contract vehicles generally do not include CPARs or similar past performance evaluations, and performance is typically measured at the task order level. Would the Government confirm whether it will accept task order-level past performance examples under an IDIQ or GWAC, in lieu of vehicle-level evaluations? | The past performance example is at the contract level. The past performance should cover the order vehicle and task orders under the vehicle. | ||
| 37 | Section L | L.11.2.2 Factor 2 | L.11.2.2.1 Past Performance Information | Section L.11.2.2.2 requires Offerors to provide the number of delivery/task orders issued and the total value of orders issued within the last 12 months as it directly pertains to the listed OEMs. Can the required task order and value information be incorporated within each Attachment 4 Past Performance Information Sheet, or does the Government require this information to be submitted separately | All information requested is to be provided on the SIR Attachment. Attachment has been updated, see SIR Amendment. | ||
| 38 | Section L | L.11.2.2.2 Pat Performance Questionnaires (ATTACHMENT 5): | Factor 2 - Past Perfromance | How should an offeror proceed with referencing a contract vehicle for which the applicable program management offices do not respond to program PPQ's? | Per L.11.2.2.2 it is incumbent upon the Offeror to ensure that each Past Performance reference provides responses to the items listed on the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) and that it is returned to the Government by the deadline for proposal submissions. A combination of PPQs and CPARS evaluations may be submitted for each of the required past performance examples. Additionally, CPARS may be utilized to evaluate Past Performance even if CPARS information was not submitted by the Offeror. | ||
| 39 | Section L | L.11.2.2.1 | 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 | Please confirm you are only looking for past performance references at the GWAC/IDIQ/BPA Level. | The past performance example is at the contract level. The past performance should cover the order vehicle and task orders under the vehicle. | ||
| 40 | Section L | L.11.2.2.1 | 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 | This requirement will eliminate small businesses from competing in FAA SAVES, because it will only allow larger business with multiple IDIQ/GWAC/BPA schedules to compete. | Please consider allowing small businesses to provide past perfromance at the task order level. | The past performance example is at the contract level. The past performance should cover the order vehicle and task orders under the vehicle. | |
| 41 | Section L | L.11.2.2.1 | Paragraph 4, Therefore, the proposed offeror’s past performance pertaining to those OEM relationships above is limited only to those OEMs. Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use data provided by each Offeror in this volume and, data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of Past Performance or both. | Instead of identifying OEMs associated with a single IDIQ/GWAC/BPA contract, why doesn't the FAA make this a stand alone form/document for offerors to provide information across all their contracts over a given prior 12 months? | The Government does not intend to modify this requirement at this time. | ||
| 42 | Section L | L.11.2.2.2 | 1st Paragraph | It appears the FAA only wants IDIQ/GWAC/BPA type of contract past perfromance references. Is the FAA aware not all GWAC contracts provide past performance at the master contract level; to exemplefy this the NASA SEWP V contract as well as the GSA Schedule 70 contract do not, you can only get past perfromance references at the task order level. | Consider removing the apparent desire for only BPA/IDIQ/GWAC past performance references and allow task order level references. Doing so would also open the door to more small business to compete. | The past performance example is at the contract level. The past performance should cover the order vehicle and task orders under the vehicle. | |
| 43 | Section L | L.11.2.2.3 | 1st Paragraph - CPARS |
evaluations may be submitted for contracts in lieu of a PPQ, or a combination of PPQs and CPARS evaluations may
| be submitted. | Please confirm if an offer has a CPARS for a given past performance reference, it does not need to submit a Past Performance Questionnaire. | Confirmed, per SIR Section L.11.2.2.2, "Offerors must submit either a Past Performance Questionnaire in accordance with Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or a Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation for each of the Past Performance references submitted in response to SIR Section L.11.2.2.1" | |||||
| 44 | Section L | L.11.2.2.2 | 4th Paragraph - The Offeror must submit with its proposal, copies of the PPQ, with items 1 through 8 completed as documentation | ||||
| that the PPQ was submitted to the PPQ evaluator for completion. | If a CPARS is being provided in place of a PPQ, is this requirement even still a submission requirement? Please confirm a copy of the CPARS will be sufficent. | Confirmed, per SIR Section L.11.2.2.2, "Offerors must submit either a Past Performance Questionnaire in accordance with Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or a Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation for each of the Past Performance references submitted in response to SIR Section L.11.2.2.1" | |||||
| 45 | Section L | L.10.1 | Proposal Volumes and Page Limits | Attachment 3, OEM Authorization requires us to provide LOA's listed as attachment 1-20 in Atttachment 3. Can the LOA's 1-20 be consolidated in to one pdf file for submission? | Letters of Authorization required per Section L.11.2.1(b) and Attachment 3- OEM Authorization Relationship, may be submitted as one consolidated PDF attachment to the proposal with one Attachment # . | ||
| 46 | L.7 NUMBER OF AWARDS | L.7 | The FAA plans to award approximately eight (8) contracts under this solicitation, anticipating up to six (6) awards to Offerors reserved for Small Businesses, and up to two (2) awards to Offerors Unrestricted in Size (Other than Small Business). | Will the FAA obtain a waiver to the Nonmanufacturer Rule for all products that do not have a class waiver in place? | An individual waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR) should be obtained. Any proposal from a small business that is awarded a set-aside contract or task order that includes equipment from large business manufacturers (such as Cisco, HPE, Dell, etc.) would be in violation of the NMR. |
Without an Individual Waiver for entire IDIQ, the ordering Contracting Officers would be required to seek waivers for each task order, which discourages the use of set-aside task orders and effectively eliminate small business participation on SAVES.
The following solicitations are similar in nature and all obtained the appropriate NMR waiver:
-Army ITES-4H -NASA SEWP VI (In progress)
| - DHS FirstSource III (since cancelled, but the SBA did approve an Individual Waiver for the entire contract, which was similar in scope) | The FAA is not subject to 49 U.S.C. 40110(d)(2), the Small Business Act, however the Contracting Officer has obtained a waiver at the IDIQ level for the Nonmanufactuer Rule from the FAA Small Business Office. | |||||
| 47 | L.11.2.3 VOLUME III, COST/PRICE | L.11.2.3 | The Government does not accept any adjustments or alternate pricing to the CLINs. | Will the FAA remove Oracle products from the BOM? | The FAA should remove Oracle from the pricing attachment due to the restrictive nature of Oracle's federal partner program, which is highly selective and not supportive of small business participation. Oracle’s stringent requirements create significant barriers that prevent many small businesses from becoming authorized partners, thereby reducing the pool of qualified vendors who can meet the FAA’s needs. |
For example, our company is a small business reseller with several top-tier partnerships, including Cisco Gold Integrator. Unfortunately, Oracle views these high-level partnerships with other OEMs as conflicting with their program and therefore will not authorize us to sell their products. This effectively excludes successful small businesses that operate under a brand-agnostic model.
| By including Oracle at this stage of procurement, the FAA is enabling Oracle to determine which resellers are eligible to compete—effectively allowing a vendor to decide who can and cannot serve government customers. This undermines the principles of open competition and small business inclusion. | Oracle is critical to this solicitation, and cannot be removed. | ||
| 48 | G.3.2 SHARING OF RFQ/RFI INFORMATION | SIR: G.3.2 | |
| SOW: Section 17 | In accordance to Section C.17, the Supply Chain Risk Management specifically addresses the different levels of the supply chain and reinforces the importance of “relationships” between a SAVES Contractor and Industry. |
This contract and its associated delivery/task orders are subject to the Federal SCRM policies and regulations including:
• Supply Chain Risk through application of appropriate security controls outlined and described in CNSSI 1253, Appendix D
• NIST SP 800-53
• NIST SP 800-161
• NIST SP 800-171
• Any related industry standards This section mentions "Any related industry standards" should be applied during contractual performance.
| Will the FAA require an O-TTPS certification to ensure offerors have the process and procedures in place to meet SCRM requirements? | The FAA should require all offerors to submit an active O-TTPS self-certification with proposals. | This requirement will not change. | |||
| 49 | Attachment 5 -Past Perf Questionnaire_20250603 | Part Two: Questionnaire | Multiple fields within the form | We found the following issues with the form: |
- When entering the input for (1) Name of Contractor being evaluated, the response field for (2) repeats the input from field (1).
- If "Prime" is selected for item (3), the "Subcontractor" box for (3) is automatically checked along with the "Prime" field for (4).
- For the evaluation portion, if one box is selected for any of the ratings, the entire column is filled in; unclicking a single box results in clearing the entire column.
| We respectfully request an updated Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire form. | See amended SIR, Attachment 5- Past Performance Questionnaire | ||||||
| 50 | L.11.2.2.1 | L.11.2.2.1, first paragraph | Utilizing the Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Sheet, the proposed prime offeror must provide at least three (3) and no more than four (4) current or completed prime contract(s)/ordering vehicle(s). | Will the government please confirm if the Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Sheet, should be incorporated into the Volume II document or be included in the proposal files as a separate document for each past performance reference provided? | Please allow offerors to incorporate Attachment 4 requirements within the Volume II document. | Confirmed, also see answer to Q35: The SIR has been amended in order to clarify and revise the page limitation submission requirements for Attachment 4, Past Performance Information Sheet. | |
| 51 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | Rows 59-77 | HPE | The printers and notebooks listed in Rows 59-77 of Attachment 2 should list the OEM as HPI. Will the government please update OEM in Rows 59-77 of Attachment 2 to "HPI"? | Please update OEM in Rows 59-77 of Attachment 2 to "HPI" | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 52 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | Row 78 | X922DE - MULTIFUNCTION - LASER - COLOR COPYING, COLOR FAXING, COLOR PRINTING, C includes delivery, TAA Compliant, Asset Tag | Our research indicates that part number 32CT066 is discontinued (X922DE). Will the government please revise to a currently available printer or remove from Attachment 2? | Please revise to a currently available printer or remove from Attachment 2. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 53 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | Row 100 | Salesforce Government Cloud Plus | Salesforce Government Cloud Plus pricing is based on a percentage of your net spend. Specifically, it is 15% of your net spend, billed annually. We are unable to price due to these circumstances. Will the government please provide the current spend number so that we can calculate price or revise with a part number that is not based on customer spend? | Please provide the current spend number so that we can calculate price or revise with a part number that is not based on customer spend. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 54 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | Row 97 | RedHat part number "MW00343”, with a description of “RedHat Middleware Portfolio (2 Cores or 4 vCPUs), 1 Year” | In Attachment 2 Price Evaluation, the RedHat part number “MW00343”, with a description of “RedHat Middleware Portfolio (2 Cores or 4 vCPUs), 1 Year”, is no longer available per RedHat. Will the government please remove this CLIN or revise with a current part number that we can quote? | Please remove this CLIN or revise with a current part number that we can quote. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 55 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | Rows 13-36 | Cisco CLINs | In Attachment 2 Price Evaluation, several of the Cisco products list a single part number in “Mfr. P/N” Column C, but then list numerous additional part numbers and things like asset tags and additional licenses in the “Description” column D. Will the government please confirm offerors should price only the part number listed in Column C? | Please confirm offerors should price only the part number listed in Column C. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 56 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | Row 36 | Cisco part number “CON-RNWL”, described as “Cisco smartnet renewal” | The Cisco part number “CON-RNWL”, described as “Cisco smartnet renewal” cannot be priced per our distributors. Will the government please remove this CLIN or revise with a current part number that we can quote? | Please remove this CLIN or revise with a current part number that we can quote. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 57 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | Rows 59 and 62 | 5QK08A | The HP Color LaserJet MGD MFD E877Z Printer, P/N 5QK08A on Row 59 and HP COLOR LASERJET MGD MFP E877Z PRNTR, P/N 5QK08A on Row 62 appear to be both duplicative and obsolete. Will the government please revise to currently available part numbers? | Please revise to currently available part number(s) and remove one as it is a duplicate. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 58 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | Rows 59-73 | Various | In Attachment 2 Price Evaluation, several of the HP products list a single part number in “Mfr. P/N” Column C, but then list numerous additional part numbers and things like asset tags in the “Description” column D. Will the government please confirm offerors should price only the part number listed in Column C? | Please confirm offerors should price only the part number listed in Column C. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 59 | Attachment 5 | Past Performance Questionnaire, Part Two | "Submit completed past performance questionnaire by _______ to the Government POCs: Dawn Bloome and Kristin Frantz at Dawn.A.Bloome@faa.gov and Kristin.T.Frantz@faa.gov." | Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire, contains PDF form field errors causing data duplication between adjacent fields. Specifically, entries in field #1 automatically populate field #2, entries in field #3 populate field #4, and the Contract Awarded Value (#6) duplicates into Contract Annual Awarded Value (#7). This prevents accurate completion of the questionnaire. Will the government provide a corrected version of Attachment 5 with properly functioning form fields? | Please provide a revised Attachment 5 with individually functioning PDF form fields to ensure accurate past performance data collection. | See amended SIR, Attachment 5- Past Performance Questionnaire | |
| 60 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | "Instructions and Assumptions" tab. #3 | "In Column A, the FAA has provided the CLIN structure per Section B and C. Additionally, the FAA has provided the OEM, part number, desription, and quantity shown in Columns B thru E. These columns are protected and Offerors must only enter information in Columns F thru I. A total evaluated price will be calculated and summed in Column J." | ||||
| The instructions state that "A total evaluated price will be calculated and summed in Column J." However, there are no formulas in Column J to calculate the totals and no total is summed. Will the government please provide a revised Attachment 2 with calculations in Column J? | Please provide a revised Attachment 2 with calculations in Column J. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |||||
| 61 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 2R Okta Single sign On | P0000052 | The SKU should be P000052, not P0000052 (extra zero was added). | Please use the Mfr. P/N: P000052 so the item can be accurately quoted across all offerors. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 62 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 2R Okta Universal Dir | P0000055 | The SKU should be P000055, not P0000055 (extra zero was added). | Please use the Mfr. P/N: P000055 so the item can be accurately quoted across all offerors. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 63 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 2R Okta Adaptive MFA | P0000020 | The SKU should be P000020, not P0000020 (extra zero was added). | Please use the Mfr. P/N: P000020 so the item can be accurately quoted across all offerors. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 64 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 2R Okta Lifecycle Mgt | P0000402 | The SKU should be P000402, not P0000402 (extra zero was added). | Please use the Mfr. P/N: P000402 so the item can be accurately quoted across all offerors. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 65 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 2R Okta API Access Mgt | P0000021 | The SKU should be P000021 , not P0000021 (extra zero was added). | Please use the Mfr. P/N: P000021 so the item can be accurately quoted across all offerors. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 66 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 2R Oracle Weblogic | L59000-S | The SKU provided "L59000-S" appears to be incorrect. The correct SKU is L59000 | Please use the Mfr. P/N: L59000 so the item can be accurately quoted across all offerors. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 67 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 2R Oracle Internet App | A90632-S | The SKU provided "A90632-S" appears to be incorrect. The correct SKU is A90632 | Please use the Mfr. P/N: A90632 so the item can be accurately quoted across all offerors. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 68 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 1HAW Cisco 9400 | Cisco SMARTnet (CON-SNTP-C9407R) | Cisco SMARTnet (CON-SNTP-C9407R) is not typically bundled with all of the SKUs listed underneath it. Was the intent to bundle this with SAVES CLIN # 1H Cisco 9400 (line 21 in Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715) above? | CON-SNTP-C9407R is not an available SKU to configure with C9407R as it appears Cisco is rebranding the service to "Success Track." It is still available to configure as a standalone SKU, however. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 69 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 1H Cisco 9400 | C9400-LC-24XS and NETWORK-PNP-LIC | Please note that items C9400-LC-24XS and NETWORK-PNP-LIC aren't directly related to one another and should not be bundled together. | We recommend making unbundling these two items | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 70 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 2M Cisco RNWL | CON-RNWL | Please note that quoting CON-RNWL requires serial #(s) that are due to be renewed | Please provide the serial numbers of the systems that need to be renewed | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 71 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 2M F5 BIG-IP | F5-SVC-BIG-VE+PREL13 | We believe SKU "F5-SVC-BIG-VE+PREL13" requested is incorrect and should be "F5-SVC-BIG-VE-PREL13" | Please use the Mfr. P/N: F5-SVC-BIG-VE-PREL13 so the item can be accurately quoted across all offerors. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 72 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 1H HPE Dock OEM: HPE Mfr. P/N: 72C71AA Description: HP USB-C Dock G5 US | 72C71AA#ABA | Model still available in distribution has a note for this part number - 5TW10AA#ABA replaces 72C71AA#ABA | Please use the Mfr. P/N: 5TW10AA#ABA so the item can be accurately quoted across all offerors. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 73 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 1H HPE Dock OEM: HPE Mfr. P/N: 4H7K4AV Desription: DIB HP TB 120W TAA G4 Dock | 4H7K4AV | The SKU referenced is the DIB SKU, while the correct standalone SKU is 4J0J0AA#ABA | Please use the Mfr. P/N: 4J0J0AA#ABA so the item can be accurately quoted across all offerors. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 74 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 1H HPE Dock OEM: HPE Mfr. P/N: 4L1N6AV Desription: DIB HP TB 280W TAA G4 Dock w/Combo Cable | 4L1N6AV | The SKU referenced is the DIB SKU, while the correct standalone SKU is 4J0J9AA#ABA | Please use the Mfr. P/N: 4J0J9AA#ABA so the item can be accurately quoted across all offerors. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 75 | Attachment+2+-+Price+Evaluation+Workheet_20250715 | SAVES CLIN #: 1H HPE Mouse | 265D9AA | The SKU referenced is the DIB SKU, while the correct standalone SKU is 9VA80AA#ABA | Please use the Mfr. P/N: 9VA80AA#ABA so the item can be accurately quoted across all offerors. | See amended SIR, Attachment 2A - Small Business Price Model Evaluation Worksheet or Attachment 2B - Unrestricted Price Model Evaluation Worksheet | |
| 76 | SIR 697DCK-25-R-00302 20250807 | L.11.2.2.2 | Offerors must submit either a Past Performance Questionnaire in accordance with Attachment 5 - Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or a Contractor Performance Assessment and Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation for each of the Past Performance references submitted in response to SIR Section L.11.2.2.1 above. | NASA SEWP V is a highly applicable hardware and software ID/IQ contract that does not issue CPARS at the ID/IQ level and the PMO that manages it does not complete Past Performance Questionnaires a the ID/IQ level. Instead, the SEWP PMO has a real-time ID/IQ level performance rating system called Program Performance (more information available here: https://www.sewp.nasa.gov/documents/ProgramPeformance.pdf) that operates like CPARS and demonstrates satisfactory performance. The performance ratings are publicly available here: https://sewp.nasa.gov/sewp5public/chperformance | Please allow offerors that are SEWP V prime contractors to use a PDF print out of their current SEWP V Program Performance ratings to demonstrate satisfactory performance instead of a CPARS or a PPQ. Otherwise, SEWP V can't be used as past performance. | This requirement will not change. | |
| 77 | SIR 697DCK-25-R-00302 20250807 | M.2 | The Government will make awards utilizing a lowest price technically acceptable approach with a two-pool evaluation process | Can a small business offeror that meets both the small business and large business evaluation factor requirements be considered for both the large and small award pools? | Please clarify if a small business can be considered for both award pools and how an offeror should indicate they want to be considered for both pools. | Per Section L.5.1(c), Offerors are required to identify under which pool (Small Business or Unrestricted) their proposal is to be evaluated. Failure to do so will result in the proposal being rejected and not considered for award. Offerors may only submit under one pool. Offerors should clearly state the chosen pool in the cover letter or on the first page of the proposal (i.e This proposal is submitted for evaluation under the Small Business or Unrestricted Pool). |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .