Attachment 3- SST RFP Question Answers 3-10-2021.pdf

Question Number Document Name Page

Number Section Number Question Response 1 Attachment 1 SST TMEI Statement of Work 5 Task B - Help

Desk Support We recommend TSA provide sample reports such as the Help Desk Call Log, Customer Service Field Support Log, and the Site Readiness Report.

The requested documentation will not be provided at this time.

2 Attachment 1 SST TMEI Statement of Work.doc.pdf

56 11.1.2.1 Included with the training kits/aid will be a CD containing instructions on how to use and protocols for usage, security, and control. Is there a required format for this CD - Does the TSA prefer written instruction documents?

The CDs are just a copy of the information that has been stored on TSA's designated respository (i.e., Sharepoint and/or Shared Drive) by the TSA project lead. There is no required format as long as the format is consistent for all CDs, unless specified otherwise by TSA.

3 Attachment 1 SST TMEI Statement of Work.doc.pdf

56 11.1.1.1 Regarding the updating of existing threat kits, is there a timeframe associated with this? If so, how many kits should we expect to update per month?

The MBS Kits as a whole, will not be updated.

However, if T&D training requires a new kit to be created or a kit component added or modified, TSA will specify the requirements which will include quantities and expected completion date.

4 Attachment 1 SST TMEI Statement of Work.doc.pdf

56 11.1.1.2 Is there a timeframe associated with the prototype, development, and acquisition of the threat devices and threat items?

The timeframe will be agreed upon by TSA and the Contractor based on the requirements provided by TSA, unless the requirement falls under "Rapid Response". In this case, the timeframe will be accelerated as described in TME&I SOW Section 7.

5 Attachment 1 SST TMEI Statement of Work.doc.pdf

59 11.2.1 Where will the presentations referred to in this section take place? Will they be virtual? TBD

6 Attachment 1 SST TMEI Statement of

40 6 Task C For configuration management, are there strict controls for who can access or modify the TIL Repository? If so, what controls are in place?

Yes. The TIL is access controlled. Only those that know how to use it and have a need to use it are approved for each instance requested. It is an offline repository with the capability to restrict access to specific data elements within it, customized to each instance of access outside of the contractors that are required to use if during image development.

7 Attachment 1 SST TMEI Statement of Work.doc.pdf

56 11.1.1.5.1- 11.1.1.5.2

What is the expected duration of TSA internal testing? After TSA approval, what is the timeframe for the kits to be received in the field?

Section 11.1.1.5.1 refers to internal Contractor testing.

The timeframe for the kits to be received in the field will be agreed upon by TSA and the Contractor based on the requirements.

8 Attachment 1 SST TMEI Statement of Work.doc.pdf

56 11.1.1.8 Will the government please provide documentation of the Webform process referenced in this section? This detailed information is needed to provide an accurate 5-year Firm Fixed Price estimate for the execution of the full scope of the Threat Mitigation, Engineering, and Imaging Statement of Work.

WebForms as referred to in

11.1.1.8 is a “Trouble Ticket” form used to gather and store information, create help ticket requests, request training material and supplies, request repair of T&D equipment, request return authorization, etc.

Refer to TME&I SOW Section 5.1 "Help Desk Technical and Field Support".

9 Attachment 1 SST TMEI Statement of Work.doc.pdf

57 11.1.3.1 If the airports are maintaining their own kits, will the parts, maintenance, and additional kits be managed by the TML or the field?

The airports are required to maintain and manage kits at the airport level.

Components and/or kits may be supplied by the Contractor as long as they are available.

10 Attachment 1 SST TMEI Statement of

59 11.1.12 In order to develop costs, can TSA provide the current standards for auxiliary lifecycle? The Kit program has used a five (5) year review to establish shelf life. The 5-year review was established at time of creation (for each kit) based on training usage.

Due to excessive use outside of training, some components fail much quicker than five years where others last much longer. Section 11.1.12 establishes a return location for worn out or broken parts that cannot be disposed of in the field.

11 Attachment 11- SST FFDO PWS 7, 8, 10, 12 4.4 4.5 4.6 For the FFDO Program (Task 3), will the government provide the previous annual volumes of records that need to be created and processed for administrative support and the processing of records?

Offerors need to have some basis of estimate for the time required to manage, create, and process these records. This detailed information is needed to provide an accurate 5-year Firm Fixed Price estimate for the execution of the full scope of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Performance Work Statement.

The requested information is SSI and will not be provided at this time.

12 Attachment 11- SST FFDO PWS 7, 8, 10, 12 4.4 4.5 4.6 For the FFDO Program (Task 3), will the government provide the average call volumes (daily, weekly or monthly), the average handle time estimates, and the escalation process, with volume estimates, that might require TSA’s handling or follow-up for the Call Center support for FFDO? Offerors need this information to appropriately staff the program.

The requested information is SSI and will not be provided at this time.

13 Attachment 11- SST FFDO PWS 7, 8, 10, 12 4.4 4.5 4.6 For the FFDO Program (Task 3), there appears to be a wide range in the number of required sessions on an annual basis on any given year, but the total number of required instructors to be retained is consistent. Will the government provide the number of recertification classes? Should offerors use the minimum estimates for retained instructors and number of classes?

The requested information is SSI and will not be provided at this time.

14 Attachment 11- SST FFDO PWS 7, 8, 10, 12 4.4 4.5 4.6 For the FFDO Program (Task 3), does TSA have an average amount of time required to perform training site certification for each range?

Please see Section 4.6.2.2.

and 4.6.2.3, the site certifications are required on annual basis.

15 Attachment 11--FFDO PWS 8 4.4 Does the call center coverage and associated requirements described to support the FFDO activities connect in anyway to other SST, OTD, or broader TSA call center capabilities? If yes, can the TSA provide additional details about that alignment?

No. The FFDO Call Center Coverage is not connected with other SST, OTD or broader TSA call center capabilities.

16 Attachment 11--FFDO PWS 8 4.4 Can TSA please provide a list of all call center operations support required for the entire program for each task area to include hours of operation, current SLA’s, average handle times, and average volumes (daily, weekly or monthly), and any seasonal peak volumes (certain months of higher volumes)? Please also confirm whether offerors will need to bring the technology stack for each vs.

use GFE.

Please see Section 4.4.1.

and 4.4.2. regarding the hours of operations. The Offerors will need to utilize the technology stack.

17 Attachment 11--FFDO PWS 8 4.5 We request the TSA provide a copy of the FFDO Facilitator Guide (s) and the FFDO SOP so that vendors could provide thorough response to the TSA and potentially provide additional insight into areas of efficiency or improvement--especially since this is a performance-based statement of work.

The requested information is SSI and will not be provided at this time.

18 Attachment 11--FFDO PWS 8 4.5 "4.5.4.9 The contractor shall provide on-site management to subordinate support contract staff. (SST Labor Category Number ??)"? Can the government confirm that the SST LCAT portion is a typographical error ?

It is a typographical error and needs to be deleted.

19 Attachment 1--SST-TMEI 3 4.1 We recommend TSA provide more details to the Government-provided Inventory Management System (IMS) (believed to be Sunflower) to include a description of the software licenses, data reference model, interfaces with other systems used in support of the SST program.

The requested information or documentation will not be provided at this time

20 Attachment 1--SST-TMEI 38 5.1.2.3 & 5.1.2.4 We recommend TSA provide details related to the TSA iShare WebForm online system with regard to technology (software platform, interface, ticket type, call volume /ticket volume (beyond a "standard" definition of 1,400 per year and 350 "escalated"), tier volume, performance metrics (e.g.

first call resolution rate), user profile, location, etc. This will enable informed, and equitable, responses to the solicitation requirements.

We don’t currently request help desk ticket metrics to this degree.

21 Attachment 1--SST-TMEI 49 10.1.5 Can TSA provide any historical requirements, to date, in connection with this statement "The Contractor shall maintain a requirements repository with all proposed requirements" and indicate which of those requirements are still valid, or provide any updated version of the Historical Requirements Document referenced as Item 4 in Section J of the 2020 December Draft RFP provided in support of the Draft RFP.

The requested information or documentation will not be provided at this time.

22 Attachment 1--SST-TMEI 49 10.1.6 Can TSA provide any current interface requirements for TRX Simulator to the Data Management Portal?

The requested information or documentation will not be provided at this time

23 Attachment 1--SST-TMEI 49 10.1.7 Can TSA provide a copy of the Test Administration Guide (TAG)? The requested information or documentation will not be provided at this time

24 Attachment 1--SST-TMEI 49 10.2.4 Can TSA provide a copy of the current USP Functional Requirements Document (FRD)? The requested information or documentation will not be provided at this time

25 Attachment 1--SST-TMEI 50 10.2.5 Can TSA provide a copy of the current Instructor Reference Manual (IRM)? The requested information or documentation will not be provided at this time

26 Attachment 2-SST TMEI Statement A - Non-SSI Kit Descriptions

NA / No Page numbers

The threat kit contents are not enumerated in Attachment 2 - TME&I SOW Attachment A - Non-SSI Descriptions. In order to accurately price and estimate fulfillment timelines, will the government please list a breakdown of the kit contents and quantities? This detailed information is needed to provide an accurate 5-year Firm Fixed Price estimate for the execution of the full scope of the Threat Mitigation, Engineering, and Imaging Statement of Work.

The requested information or documentation will not be provided at this time.

27 Attachment 2-SST TMEI Statement A - Non-SSI Kit Descriptions

NA / No Page numbers

Is there an estimate for how many of each type of inert kits will be needed? Any production of a kit or replacement component will be established in the requirements document (i.e. technical direction).

28 Attachment 5 Draft Curriculum Development

SOW

3 6.8 Will the government provide a list of the approved, and those currently under review, software in accordance with TSA Office of Information Technology currently in use across all aspects of the SST program?

Please refer to Attachment 14 for a current list of products that is approved for use on TSA GFE.

Please note this list is a constant and changing document and is subject to change on an ongoing basis.

29 Attachment 5 Draft Curriculum Development

SOW

6 We recommend TSA remove the requirement "Subject Matter Expert (SME) Labor Categories, shall NOT be utilized for any work for this TO". The curriculum development and training depends on having access to an array of subject matter experts to help develop, delivery, and provide quality assurance.

Leave as is

30 Attachment 5 Draft Curriculum Development

SOW

6 8.6 We recommend the TSA release the Online Learning Center’s (OLC) Content Integration Guide. The OLC Integration Guide will be provided upon award.

31 Attachment 5 Draft Curriculum Development

SOW

N/A N/A In order to provide an accurate 5-year pricing proposal in Tabs 3a and 3b of the pricing spreadsheet addressing the work described in Attachment 5 - SST Draft Curriculum Development PWS, we request that TSA provide more detailed information including the percentage of each modality used, number of participants for each method, location and frequency of each on-site facility, etc. based on reporting from TSA's current Learning Management System (LMS) and/or other logistics systems and reports for all learning modalities, including:

• Instructor-led

• Web-Based Training (WBT)

• Computer-Based Training (CBT)

• Video

• Facilitation/Coaching

• Practical Skills Demonstrations

• On-the-Job Training (OJT)

• Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS)

• Government Off-the-Shelf (GOTS)

• Shadow/Co-Teach

• Train-the-Trainer (T3)

• Job Aids/Kits and Images

• Security Training Kits and Boards

• Simulation

• Other innovative training methodologies (e.g., mobile learning/m-Learning, social media)

• Pilots and/or Operational Tryouts

• Virtual Instructor-Led

See Curriculum Development SOW Sections 8.2 and 8.3.

32 Attachment 6 SST Inventory Listing All Can the TSA provide a more detailed view of the inventory that includes quantity per item, a description of the item, and location of the item?

The requested information or documentation will not be provided at this time

33 Attachment 6-SST Inventory List NA / No Page numbers

Is there a reason why the training kits were not listed in the Inventory List? Does this mean all kits will be replaced, or will there be another list provided by TSA for refurbishment of the existing training kits? This detailed information is needed to provide an accurate 5-year Firm Fixed Price estimate for the execution of the full scope of the Threat Mitigation, Engineering, and Imaging Statement of Work.

The current training kits inventory that the Contractor is responsible for is provided in TME&I SOW section 11.1.2.2.

34 Attachment 9 PM PWS All C.4.5 Section C.4.5 states "The contractor shall provide an integrated approach to effectively support nation-wide program operations and logistics as it relates to the comprehensive TSA training program" and yet a large number of the operations and logistics management activities such as (but not limited to):

a) Logistics

b) Call Center and Customer Service Activities and Tools to assist with general training related

c) Property Distribution, Storage, Maintenance, Purchase and Management, and Asset Lifecycle in accordance with all applicable regulations are not listed, or only notionally referenced, as discrete requirements within the Program Management PWS and in some cases are not listed, or notionally listed, in other task area Statements of Work or Performance Work Statements. Was this an oversight in the acquisition documentation or is it TSA's intent to have the work managed solely at a task order level?

This was not an oversight.

35 Attachment+4+SST+Pricing Tab 2a / Ta Tab 2a / Tab 2b Tab 2b TME&I Pricing Schedule references a CLIN X0001h-1 for each contract period. Tab 2a TME&I LCAT & Mix references a CLIN X0001i. Should these be the same? Which CLIN number should offerors use?

Yes, see Attachment 4- SST Pricing Tabs 2a/2b changes made.

36 Attachment+4+SST+Pricing Tab 1 - Labor Category Crosswalk

Please clarify how columns D (LCAT) and E (Qualifications and Experience) should be populated.

Are these to be used only if the contractor is deviating from the Role Titles and minimum qualifications listed in columns A - C?

Columns D and E should be completed to identify which alternative LCATs will be proposed and if the qualifications proposed are consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the Attachment.

37 Attachment+4+SST+Pricing All Travel and ODC NTE's are listed as "TBD" for the price. Please provide the anticipated NTE amounts, or historical spend from the incumbent contract, for each Travel and ODC CLIN for offerors to understand the potential level of spend for the new contract.

As stated in the RFP, Section B.5.1.2., Travel and ODC's shall remain separate from labor and will be funded on a NTE basis as determined by the Government. These amounts will not be provided at this time.

38 Attachment+4+SST+Pricing Tab 1 - Labor Category Crosswalk

In the Education and Experience equivalency table, there appears to be an inconsistency for Level V.

Given the years of experience listed for the Associates - Master degrees, should the minimum quals be a Doctorate and 6 years of experience vs. 10 years of experience?

An update will be made to the Education and Equivalency table for Level V.

39 Attachment+4+SST+Pricing Tab 1 - Labor Category Crosswalk

In the Education and Experience equivalency table, for Level I, can there be an equivalency added for an Associates Degree and 0 years of experience?

An update will be made to the Education and Equivalency table for Level I.

40 Attachment+4+SST+Pricing Tab 1 - Labor Category Crosswalk

In the Education and Experience equivalency table, for Level II, can there be an equivalency added for a Bachelors Degree and 0 years of experience?

An update will be made to the Education and Equivalency table for Level II.

41 Attachment+4+SST+Pricing Tabs 3b & 4b Column C in Tabs 2b & 5b list the contract type for each CLIN. Can a similar column for contract type by CLIN be added Tabs 3b & 4b for clarity and consistency?

Yes, see Attachment 4- SST Pricing Tabs 3b & 4b for changes made.

42 N/A - no specific document N/A N/A How many X-ray systems and AIT systems need to be updated? This detailed information is needed to provide an accurate 5-year Firm Fixed Price estimate for the execution of the full scope of the Threat Mitigation, Engineering, and Imaging Statement of Work.

The number of X-ray systems and any associated upgrades are not a part of this contract. AT X-ray upgrades are done by the specific vendor tech, outside of the SST contract. The AT X-ray systems that need to be updated at the Threat Mitigation Lab will be updated by the specific vendor maintenance tech.

43 N/A - no specific document N/A N/A How many threat kit or library updates were made through the course of the previous contract? This detailed information is needed to provide an accurate 5-year Firm Fixed Price estimate for the execution of the full scope of the Threat Mitigation, Engineering, and Imaging Statement of Work.

The requested information or documentation will not be provided at this time

44 SST RFP & TME&I SOW (Attachment 1) N/A N/A Was it the Government's intent to exclude any work related to Threat Image Projection (image library updates, reporting, etc.), that was previously included in the draft RFP SOW, from the SST RFP and

TME&I SOW?

The overall language related to image development covers the need to create images for TIPs

45 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 72 Volume III – Price and Business (Written Response)

The submission requirement for Factor 6: Price is stated "Limited to Attachment 4". Please confirm the Government does not expect any price narrative or Basis of Estimate to be provided in addition to Attachment 4.

No price narrative or basis of estimate is to be provided in addition to Attachment 4.

46 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 69 7.3 e Will the government grant offerors permission to use Arial Narrow 10 pt for graphics and tables for ease of readability?

Font changes will not be made and the guidelines are to be followed as stated in the RFP.

47 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 9 C.4.4 In order to provide an integrated solution for the full scope of the SST program we need to have a complete set of task area objectives for each projected task area. Can TSA provide a draft SOW or PWS for the Image Testing Program Assessments (Human Capital) task area and Emerging Technologies and Innovation task area?

Human Capital Task Order for image testing program assessments will be negotiated and issued after award.

48 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 61 SECTION J -

LIST OF

ATTACHMENTS

To accurately develop staffing estimate we request that Service Level Agreements (SLAs) the SST program be provided.

SLAs will not be provided at this time.

49 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 61 SECTION J -

LIST OF

ATTACHMENTS

To ensure continuity of service during transition, we request that TSA provide systems architecture documentation describing the interface, or transfer of data between the contractor’s software system and TSA's instance of Sunflower, logistics management, or other applications including TSA's financial management system(s).

The requested documentation will not be provided at this time.

50 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 17 C.6 Compliances In order to ensure viability of proposed solutions, can the government please provide FISMA requirements for contractor proposed software and cloud-based solutions?

FISMA requirements will not be provided at this time.

51 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 61 SECTION J -

LIST OF

ATTACHMENTS

Will TSA provide a system inventory the describes each SST systems' function, technology stack, number of users, database size, what is the current FISMA Level, when was the last ATO conducted, and what are the ATO boundaries?

The requested information will not be provided at this time.

52 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 61 SECTION J -

LIST OF

ATTACHMENTS

In order for offerors to adequately plan to address Factor 3 during orals, we request TSA provide a detailed list of legacy systems and in-flight projects that will be transitioned to the contractor for operation and maintenance, as well as a list of any systems or tools that interface/integrate with those systems or must be used for in-flight projects.

The requested information will not be provided at this time.

53 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 61 SECTION J -

LIST OF

ATTACHMENTS

In order to accurately estimate program effort on the SST program, we request that TSA provide documentation of its Change Control Board (CCB) process for training. The requested documentation will not be provided at this time.

54 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 61 SECTION J -

LIST OF

ATTACHMENTS

We recommend TSA provide the current Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) used to support the SST program that explains the business relationships to TSA through graphically and textually detailing the data that is stored per each database and system/application.

The requested information will not be provided at this time.

55 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 61 SECTION J -

LIST OF

ATTACHMENTS

We recommend TSA provide any Logical Data Model (LDM), Conceptual Data Model (CDM), Physical Data Model (PDM), Data Flow Diagrams (DFD) relevant to the SST program. The requested information will not be provided at this time.

56 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 61 SECTION J -

LIST OF

ATTACHMENTS

We recommend that TSA provide contractor with TSA's learning deliverable review and acceptance workflow including timeline and any tools TSA expects to use for this workflow. The requested information will not be provided at this time.

57 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 66-67 Section L-1 TSA-INSTR: OFFEROR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION (SSI) NECESSARY FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION (FEB 2021) provides instructions on offeror responsibilities to access SSI for proposal preparation. Will offerors need to access SSI as part of this proposal? What is the timing of this requirement? For instance, should offerors implement this process during Phase I in preparation of Phase II?

This information will not be provided at this time.

58 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 26 C.6.14 In order to ensure viability of proposed solutions, we request TSA provide the most current DHS and TSA Enterprise Architecture documents including, but not limited to, the following documents:

DHS Enterprise Architecture TSA Enterprise Architecture TSA IT Governance Management Directive 1400.20 DHS Data Management Policy MD 103-01 The most current version of the DHS SELC Guidebook The requested documentation will not be provided at this time.

59 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 75 7.6.5 We recommend that TSA provide additional guidance in the Past Performance – Factor 4 section that includes page limits to the past performance write up and/or a specific form to capture and promote specific past performance evaluation factors including CPAR scores (or equivalent performance reviews) for work performed related to both recent and relevant programs.

Please see Attachment 13 Past Performance Questionnaire.

60 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 77 M We recommend adding in language to Factor 2- Technical and Management Approach (Program Management, Curriculum Development Sample Critical Scenario, Federal Flight Deck Officer Training Support) so that it enables thorough evaluation of ALL task areas to include C.4.4 Image Testing Program Assessments (Human Capital) AND C.4.6 Emerging Technologies and Innovation.

This would provide TSA the ability to select vendors that have a comprehensive approach and capabilities to address all aspects of the SST program now and throughout the life of the contract. No changes will be made to Factor 2 at this time.

61 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 7.6.5.3 Price – Factor 6

We recommend the government return to the previous pricing instructions for offerors to provide a fully-burdened rate card and to price a Sample Task Order to determine the evaluated price for the SST Program. That approach is consistent with a more standard pricing evaluation approach for an IDIQ type contract. The current pricing instructions and evaluation methodology requiring offerors to develop a bottoms-up, 5-year FFP price for TME&I Recurring Tasks (CLIN 1 of Task 2) and Program Management Support of TME&I and CD (CLIN 1 of Task 5); and a bottoms-up, 5 year Job-level quote of the FFDO Task (CLINs 1-9 of Task 3) require a level of detailed documentation missing from the current RFP, and are a major departure from the previous Draft RFP and Industry Day communications from the Government. The lack of detailed documentation will likely result in widely varying proposal prices, making an apples-to-apples comparison between pricing proposals extremely difficult and time consuming for the evaluation team, and will increase the likelihood of protest if prices are determined to be inaccurate based upon missing or incomplete documentation. No changes will be made regarding Factor 6 at this time.

62 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 70 L.7.4.1 Advisory Multi-Step Process Overview

To ensure a timely, efficient, and fair competition on the SST procurement we recommend the Government sets a page limit for Volume 1 to 10 pages. This will allow offerors sufficient space to demonstrate an approach that adequately and completely considers, defines, and satisfies the requirements, while still conforming with the guidance to be both clear and concise. The current unlimited volume will make an equitable evaluation both difficult, and extremely time consuming for the evaluators, and substantially increases the likelihood of a protest.

With fundamentally the same instructions and evaluation criteria, the December draft RFP set a 5 page limit to the response to the Sample TME&I Critical Scenario. TSA subsequently communicated a desire to increase that page count to 8 pages during the January 21, 2021 Industry Day. Without a page limit associated with this factor, the government is likely to receive widely varying responses from offerors. Some offerors will logically conclude the previously articulated page count guidance of 8 pages aligns with the evaluation criteria to provide “clearly and concisely identified strategies, processes, and methodologies to successfully meet the Performance Work Statement as they relate to the technical scenario”. An incumbent offeror is likely to provide an order of magnitude longer response.

No page limit increase will be granted at this time for Phase I submissions.

63 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 68 L.7.2 Submission In

For the government to have an adequate period of time to evaluate questions and make potential changes to the procurement documents to address issues and feedback raised by offerors, we recommend the Phase 1 due date be extended from March 8 to March 22.

No extension will be provided at this time. Any changes will be announced through BetaSam.Gov.

64 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final 74 and 77

L.7.6.4 Element 2B- Technical and Management Approach – Curriculum Development Technical Sample Scenario Response and

M. - Element 2B – Technical and Management Approach for Curriculum Development Sample Critical Scenario

The requirement to provide training deliverables b.-f. in support of Factor 2B provides an unfair competitive advantage to the incumbent provider and inhibits the government’s ability to conduct a fair competition. Currently, the only fully relevant TCO specific training materials on new TSA scanning equipment are in the possession of the incumbent provider. They incumbent provider will submit deliverables b-f based upon existing contract deliverables that require only minor modification to fully align with the scenario. All other offerors will have to develop custom project deliverables for the scenario at significant cost and effort.

We recommend the Government consider one of two course of corrective action:

1) Remove deliverables b-f from the instructions and evaluation criteria, as all offerors should be able to demonstrate that their Technical and Management approach satisfies the scenario requirements, leads to measurable improvements, and uses innovation to deliver ROI entirely within the confines of their orals presentation.

or

2) provide a recent version of analogous content and deliverables from the current SST program to all bidders to level the baseline starting point between offerors.

No updates will be made to Factor 2B at this time.

65 TMEI Statement of Work 38 5.1.2.4 TSA estimates standard helpdesk tickets not to exceed 1,400 this base period and escalated helpdesk tickets not to exceed 350 this base period. Do these quantities also apply to option years 1 thru 4.

Yes SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final 16 C.5.4 See updated SST

RFP70T01021R7670N004

Final attachment A00002.

SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final 74 L.7.6.4.1 Factor 3 See updated SST

RFP70T01021R7670N004

Final attachment A00002.

Attachment 1- SST TMEI Statement of Work.doc 64 13 Task J See updated Attachment 1- SST TMEI Statement of Work A00002

Attachment 9- SST PM Support PWS 9 11 Transition-In See updated Attachment 9- SST PM Support PWS A00002

There are different transition timeframes and associated approaches within the requirements illustrated below. Can the government please provide clarity with respect to the overall transition-in key milestones?

The RFP Section C.5.4 stipulates, "Transition of operational capabilities is to be completed within ninety (90) calendar days";

RFP Section L.7.6.4.1 stipulates, "All transition activities to include full operational and performance capabilities must be complete within 180 calendar days of Task Order award.";

the TME&I SOW stipulates, "The transition in period for this contract must be complete with the Contractor being fully operational within 60 days of kickoff" the PM Support PWS stipulates, "Two (2) months are allotted for this (Transition-In) task, which shall include processing of clearances, shadowing of the outgoing Contractor, and other required services."

67 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final, Attachment 4 SST Pricing

2 B.5.1.2, Attachment 4 SST Pricing

In Section B.5.1.2, the Government states:

"Travel costs will be in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulations (FTR), if applicable, and may be estimated for each TO. Other Direct Costs (ODC’s) shall include all 3 other direct costs to include any other non-labor related cost specified by the Government. Travel and ODC’s shall remain separate from the labor and will be funded on a Not-to-Exceed (NTE) basis as determined by the Government."

Will the Government provide plug numbers based upon historical expenditures for the Contractors to utilize for travel and ODCs?

As stated in the RFP, Section B.5.1.2., Travel and ODC's shall remain separate from labor and will be funded on a NTE basis as determined by the Government. These amounts will not be provided at this time.

68 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final, Attachment 4 SST Pricing

3 B.5.1.3, Attachment 4 SST Pricing

The current IDIQ Contract Line Items table does not reflect all the CLINs defined in Attachment 4 SST Pricing. Does the Government intend to update this table to reflect all the CLINs in Attachment 4?

If not, it is not clear exactly what should be included in this total - e.g., all years, optional CLINs, Travel, ODCs, etc.? Can the Government please clarify what they would like included in this table?

As stated in the RFP, the identified line item is reflective of the totality of the IDIQ ceiling value.

This pricing will not be broken out further in Attachment 4. Offerors are to identify pricing per program and tab as stated in the directions.

69 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final, Attachment 4 SST Pricing

3 B.5.1.3, Attachment 4 SST Pricing

Between the CLIN table and Attachment 4, the Period of Performance (POP) for each Task Order/CLIN/Year is not provided. Can the Government provide the anticipated POPs? The anticipated periods of performance for each program will vary, however the Government is estimating a one year base and four one -year option periods for orders issued off of the IDIQ.

70 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final, Attachment 4 SST Pricing

3 B.5.1.3, Attachment 4 SST Pricing

Between the CLIN table and Attachment 4, not all of the contract types for each Task Order and all associated CLINs have been provided.

Specifically, Curriculum appear to define the contract type for the base period only - please clarify the option years; and none of the FFDO CLINs appear to have any contract type labeling.

All contract types for potential and future orders are subject to change and will not be identified or labeled at this time.

71 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final 68 L.7.3 (e) In the second sentence, the Government states "There are no margin requirements, although font shall be no smaller than 11-point type"

It appears this sentence is a requirement for the Oral Presentation slide (as the previous sentence appears to cover proposal volumes), but does not explicitly state. Please clarify that this requirement is for the Oral Presentation?

The referenced section is referring to proposal submission in its entirety.

Unless the Oral Presentation format is specifically identified, statements about formatting and margins do not apply.

72 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final 72/76 7.6.2, 7.6.5.2

In the Section 7.6.2 table, under Factor 5: Socio-economic Considerations, the Government references a "Subcontracting Plan" but does not mention a Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP). In Section 7.6.5.2, the Government references the "Small Business Participation approach" for evaluation.

Can the Government clarify that the requirement is to deliver a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) and a Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) as part of Volume III Price and Business?

The Offeror is required to submit a Subcontracting Plan in accordance with Factor 5. The plan identified on Page 72 and on 76 are referring to the same document.

73 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final, Attachment 4 SST Pricing

76 7.6.5.3, Attachment 4 SST Pricing

In this Section, the Government states "The Offeror shall provide information to show the build-up of its rates in the Attachment 4 by mapping the labor categories and hourly rates."

Attachment 4 SST Pricing does not have the cells defined to show where this data should be provided. Is it a correct assumption that this should be provided within "Tab 1 - Labor Category Crosswalk" and that the offeror can modify the sheet to add all the information requested?

The Offeror shall map the Labor Categories and Rates per program as identified in Tabs 2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a.

74 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final 78 Factor 6 - Price In this Section, the Government appears to have two different methods defined for calculating the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), and states:

"In order to evaluate price, the Government INTENDS to apply the proposed hourly rates to an estimated number of hours for each labor category to arrive at a total evaluated price. The Government MAY also, at its discretion, use any of the price evaluation techniques found in FAR 15.404-1(b)."

and "The Government will utilize the proposed pricing included in Attachment 4 – Task Order Price Schedule for the purpose of calculating the total evaluated price for each Offeror’s proposal."

The first definition appears to utilize Government estimated hours (against bid rates) and the second one appears to utilize Contractor provided hours (from Attachment 4) for the TEP calculation.

Will the Government utilize the Contractor proposed hours (the second definition) to calculate the TEP and delete the first definition? If the Government intends to keep both definitions, please clarify which TEP definition will be used for the Award decision.

Please see changes made to Factor 6 on page 78.

75 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final, Attachment 4 SST Pricing

3 B.5.1.3, Attachment 4 SST Pricing

Tab 4b FFDO Pricing Schedule does not have a CLIN for Task Order specific PM and QC activities.

Will the government add individual CLINs to price these activities? Please see response to question 41.

76 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final.pdf 25 C.6.14 1.D

Per paragraph D., "The period of performance may begin 60 days after contract award to allow for the Enter On Duty Fitness Determination." The majority of required transition deliverables are required within 30-45 days after contract award; e.g. Final Transition Plan, GFE/GFI Report, Quality Control Plan, Security Control Plan, etc. (as well as a number of recurring monthly deliverables.) Given that some of these deliverables may require input from personnel in the EOD process, would the Government consider changing all of the transition delivery requirements to be from contract start?

See updated SST

RFP70T01021R7670N004

Final attachment A00002.

77 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final.pdf 73 L.7.6.4.1 Factor 2, Element 2B Scenario

"To begin operational rollout, training needs to be delivered within 30 days.."

Are these business days or calendar days?

Calendar days.

78 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final,Attachment 6 8.2, 8.3 To support the Offeror's pricing effort, can TSA provide the average number of instructional hours that each course will include?

See Curriculum Development SOW Sections 8.2 and 8.3.

79 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final,Attachment 6 8.2, 8.3 To support the Offeror's pricing effort, can TSA confirm that each example course includes an instructional assessment? If so, will the Government provide the average number of hours for each example course?

No. Not all courses require an instructional assessment and will be specified per course.

80 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final,Attachment 6 8.2, 8.3 To support the Offeror's pricing effort, can TSA confirm that front end analysis (JTA, Gap Analysis, etc.) will not be required for the example courses?

It will be requested as required by the Government.

81 SST RFP70T01021R7670N004 Final,Attachment 6 8.2, 8.3 To support the Offeror's pricing effort, can TSA confirm that each example course should include a formative level 1 evaluation (course pilot, IMI beta testing)?

Yes. That is a requirement for every course.

82 N/A SST RFP

& TME&I

SOW

(Attachme nt 1)

Did the government intend to exclude any work related to Threat Image Projection (image library updates, reporting, etc.), that was previously included in the draft RFP SOW, from the SST RFP and

TME&I SOW.

The overall language related to image development covers the need to create images for TIPs

83 SOW Can the government provide more detailed information documentation to accurately estimate the effort to deliver the requirements of the TME&I, FFDO, PM, and CD SOW/PWS.

All relative information is provided in each individual

SOW/PWS.

84 Can the government provide and extension of Phase 1 proposal due date? This would allow us to incorporate any answers to questions in or submittal No extension will be provided at this time. Any changes will be announced through BetaSam.Gov.

85 2b SOW Can the government to either provide copies of current deliverables for Section 2B, or to remove the requirement to develop them. The incumbent has copies of current deliverables that closely align to the scenario? This would allow for an even playing field.

The requested documentation will not be provided at this time.

86 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final L.7.6.4 Element 2B- Technical and Managem ent Approach Curriculu m Developm ent Technical Sample Scenario Response and

M. - Element 2B – Technical and Managem ent Approach f

The requirement to provide training deliverables b.-f. in support of Factor 2B provides an unfair competitive advantage to the incumbent provider and inhibits the government’s ability to conduct a fair competition. Currently, the only fully relevant TCO specific training materials on new TSA scanning equipment are in the possession of the incumbent provider. They incumbent provider will submit deliverables b-f based upon existing contract deliverables that require only minor modification to fully align with the scenario. All other offerors will have to develop custom project deliverables for the scenario at significant cost and effort.

We recommend the Government consider one of two course of corrective action:

1) Remove deliverables b-f from the instructions and evaluation criteria, as all offerors should be able to demonstrate that their Technical and Management approach satisfies the scenario requirements, leads to measurable improvements, and uses innovation to deliver ROI entirely within the confines of their orals presentation.

or

2) provide a recent version of analogous content and deliverables from the current SST program to all bidders to level the baseline starting point between offerors.

No updates will be made to Factor 2B at this time.

Attachment 2-SST TMEI Statement A - Non-SSI Kit Descriptions Is there an estimate for how many of each inert kits will be needed?

Any production of a kit or replacement component will be established in the requirements document (i.e. technical direction).

Attachment 2-SST TMEI Statement A - Non-SSI Kit Descriptions

The threat kit contents are not enumerated in Attachment 2 - TMEI SOW Attachment A - Non-SSI Descriptions. In order to accurately cost and estimate fulfillment timelines, could you please list a breakdown of the kit contents and quantities? This detailed information is needed to provide an accurate 5-year Firm Fixed Price estimate for the execution of the full scope of the Threat Mitigation, Engineering, and Imaging Statement of Work.

Repeat of question 26.

Attachment 6-SST Inventory List

Is there a reason why the training kits were not listed in the Inventory List? Does this mean all kits will be replaced, or will there be another list provided by TSA for refurbishment of the existing training kits? This detailed information is needed to provide an accurate 5-year Firm Fixed Price estimate for the execution of the full scope of the Threat Mitigation, Engineering, and Imaging Statement of Work.

Repeat of question 33.

Attachment 1 SST TMEI Statement of Work.doc.pdf 6 Task C For configuration management, are there strict controls for who can access or modify the TIL Repository? If so, what controls are in place?

Yes. The TIL is access controlled. Only those that know how to use it and have a need to use it are approved for each instance requested. It is an offline repository with the capability to restrict access to specific data elements within it, customized to each instance of access outside of the contractors that are required to use if during image development.

N/A - no specific document N/A How many threats or library updates were made through the course of the previous contract? How many X-ray systems, AIT systems needed to be updated?

The requested information or documentation will not be provided at this time

92 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf 5 C.4 Will the Government please provide additional details for OCONUS-related TSA locations? Will be requested as required by the Government.

93 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf 7-8 C.4.2.a Please explain how the existing simulator platform(s) is acquired and how TSA will mitigate potential conflict of interest concerns if any of the existing platform software is owned by one of the TSA SST incumbent contractors. We recommend the simulator platforms be provided as GFE.

Please refer to changes made in Attachment 1 - Section 8.2.1.

94 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf 7-8 C.4.2.a Training Aid Development and Maintenance Threat Training Kits:

• Weapons Training Kit

• Modular Bomb Training Kit

• Modular Bomb Set Training Kit

• TSWG Explosives Simulant Training Kit

• Liquid Explosives Training Kit

• Practical Skill Evaluation Test Kit Please confirm that these training kits are still in use and have not been discontinued and that SST no longer provides MBS and other training kits to the airports as the airports now secure their own via COTS materials.

These training kits are still in use. Only the maintenance and accounting has been transferred to the airports.

The Contractor will continue to support new kit and component production that is required for training until inventory has been depleted.

95 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf 10 C.4.5.a What are the Government's specific requirements for the "contractor's integrated and automated data management system." Is this the same system as the "contracting property system" mentioned later in the paragraph?

See updated SST

RFP70T01021R7670N004

Final attachment A00002.

96 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf 22-23 C.6.4 Contingency and COOP Planning Will the offeror be responsible for operating and/or maintaining a TSA network or system that requires disaster recovery and COOP planning?

No.

97 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf 66 L-1 Clauses and Provisions TSA-INSTR: OFFEROR ACCESS TO SENSITIVE SECURITY

INFORMATION (SSI) NECESSARY FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION

A. Background. As part of the solicitation process, TSA may allow offerors access to Sensitive Security Information (SSI). SSI is information that, if publicly released, would be detrimental to transportation security, as defined by Federal Regulation 49 C.F.R. Part 1520. SSI may be available to offerors/[QPL APPLICANTS] in preparing responses to this acquisition. Potential offerors must obtain specific authorization in order to obtain SSI. SSI will not be available or otherwise provided or disclosed to any person not specifically authorized to receive it. SSI provided under this acquisition may only be used to satisfy acquisition requirements. Question: We see no need to access SSI information in our proposal response. Recommend that the Government remove this provision because it puts any non-incumbent offeror at a disadvantage? No updates will be made to

Section L-1 at this time.

98 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf 68 1. Evaluation

Factors &Criteria and 7.1 General Submission Instructions

Will the Government please clarify the rationale underlying this numbering scheme?

No comment.

99 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf 70 L.7.4.2 Factor 1: TME&I Technical and Management Approach for Sample Critical Scenario

Is the carry-on luggage (also referred to as bags in the same section) GFE or is the contractor required to procure the bags and all related clutter?

The articles used for image development are dictated by the government and are purchased by the Contractor using ODCs.

The existing inventory of bag sets, threat items, and non-threat items will be provided upon contract award/transition.

100 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf 70-71 7.4.3 Why are the evaluation criteria for the Phase I - Written Response in Section L instead of Section M?

No comment.

101 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf 73 7.6.4.1 Element 2A states "The Offeror shall propose its technical approach to meet or exceed the requirements described in the Program Management (PM) Performance Work Statement (PWS) (RFP Attachment 9)." Subsection 2(a) states that the Offeror should demonstrate "An approach for achieving each individual task area within the PWS in sufficient detail to clearly allow the Government to understand the Offeror’s capabilities for each task area." Please verify that you do not expect Offeror to address scope areas described in Section C.4 of SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf.

The element within the factor is referring directly to the documentation provided in accordance with the program and factor.

102 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf 73-74 L.7.6.4.1 Element 2B – Technical and Management Approach – Curriculum Development Technical Sample Scenario; the final sentence of the second paragraph states, "Upon completion of the training, TSA needs to measure success using 360 assessments from supervisors, peers, individuals, instructors, and coaches." The scenario specifically states that TSA is requesting an all virtual certification training be provided by the contractor. It also does not outline a train-the-trainer since all participants are being trained and certified virtually. Question: How is the term "360 assessment" applied in this scenario since supervisors, TSA instructors, and coaches are not training or certifying their subordinate TSOs and the scenario is not requesting team/collective training?

TSA is not requesting for a 360 leadership evaluation.

We are looking for evaluation recommendations based on all levels of Kirkpatrick.

103 SST+RFP70T01021R7670N004+Final.pdf 74 L.7.6.4.1 Factor 3: Transition Approach: "The Plan shall include a schedule with dates for meeting the Offeror’s pre- transition and the transition milestones. For planning purposes, EOD Suitability is required to be complete, and performance commence, within 60 calendar days of the date of award.