Questions and Answers for ASTRO (4).pdf

Page: 1

ASTRO Questions and Answers

ASTRO

Questions and Answers

Oct 21, 2020 01:18 PM EDT

1. When will ASTRO Symphony Portal (ASP) training be provided? [ref: 47QFCA20R0026 - Page B-9 - Section B.7 -

Paragraph 1] Astro Symphony Portal (ASP) training is scheduled for September 3rd and September 10th at 1PM EST. Watch the

Interact for links to the web meeting to be posted.

2. Section L.2.6 defines a Small Business Teaming Arrangement as a small business prime with small business subcontractors. This is different from the definition of a CTA found in Section L.5.1.6, which requires the CTA to be a partnership rather than a prime/subcontractor relationship. Can we assume that if a small business CTA is formed it does not need to be a partnership, but rather a prime with subcontractors who are also small? [ref: L.2.6 and L.5.1.6] Section L.2.6 is simply a provision. The proper section governing all contractor teaming is Section L.5.1.6. For evaluation purposes, all "teams" are treated and scored alike. In accordance with Section L.5.1.6:

"An offeror may submit a proposal under a CTA in the form of a Partnership or Joint Venture only if the Partnership or Joint Venture has a corresponding DUNS Number in SAM and all the proposal submission documents are in the name of the Partnership, the Joint Venture, or the individual members of the Partnership or Joint Venture. However, any proposal submission requirements associated with scoring points that are provided shall be in the name of the CTA;

otherwise, the points allotted for those scoring aspects shall be considered “non-prime.” See applicable scoring charts for point allotments in Attachments C.1 through C.10"

3. Please confirm that Offerors may submit Past Performance Surveys using the template provided in the Draft RFP

(February 5, 2020), as long as the form is signed. The “ASTRO Q&A from Due Diligence” released in March specifically stated “We will accept the draft survey form in ASTRO Proposal submissions, so you may begin gathering the surveys now.

Please have the rater sign the form.” Going back to the raters with a replacement form would cause significant re-work on the

Government’s part, especially given the end of Government fiscal year and COVID-19 disruptions. If the Government will accept the signed draft survey, does the Government intend to clarify the instruction in the RFP? [ref: Page L-23, Section

L.5.4.2, Paragraph 1] Confirmed that a signed draft survey will be accepted. No amendment necessary.

4. We understand that contracts executed by a JV are not currently allowed to be used as Relevant Experience Projects.

Will the Government consider allowing just one Relevant Experience Project to be a contract executed by a JV?

Rationale: JV past performance has been allowed to be used in other Federal competitions. By only allowing one JV contract to

Page: 2 be used, the Offeror still must demonstrate through the other three Relevant Experience Projects that it has the prime experience required support this effort.

[ref: L.5.3.1.1 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECTS] No

5. Section B.2 lists “Research and Development (R&D) Pool,” however in Section L it is referred to as the “Research

Pool.” Please clarify the correct pool title. [ref: B.2 Pools, page B-4] The correct Pool name is simply "Research Pool". We will amend Section B.2 to reflect this. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

6. Discussion: "For the purposes of this solicitation, for projects awarded by the DoD or NASA, the most current SSR or SF

295 report is for the reporting period ending March 31, 2020."

Question: SSR Reports are filed once a year at the end of each fiscal year - September 30th, due October 30th. SSRs are not required for the period ending March 31, 2020. (Per FAR 52.219-9(l)(2)(i)(D)). Therefore can you change the SSR reporting period to end September 31, 2019 for DoD and NASA? [ref: L.5.5.1.18 Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals, page

L-5, paragraph 7] Yes. We desire to see the most current report. We will amend to reflect the change.

7. This section describes what sources may be used for Relevant Experience Projects, specifying only Task Orders (TOs) issued under a SA-IDIQ/BPA. Since relevant experience projects (per L.5.3.1.1, page L-14) may be TOs issued under a SA/MA

IDIQ or BPA, or a BOA, would the Government include MA-IDIQ/BPA and SA BOA in section L.5.4.1 as well? [ref: L.5.4.1;

2nd para (a-c), pg L20-21] The references to single-award "SA" shall be removed from Section L.5.4.1 in a future amendment.

8. The SF 33 appears to be missing from the RFP package. Will the Government please provide the SF 33? [ref: L.5.1.1

Standard Form (SF) 33, page L-7] The SF33 was originally planned to be in electronic form within Symphony. That is no longer the case. We will amend to provide the attachment.

9. The paragraph states, “For each of the projects submitted as Relevant Experience Projects in accordance with Section

L.5.3.1, the offeror will be rated more favorably for Sections L.5.3.1.2.1 through L.5.3.1.2.7.” L.5.3.1.2.5 is the last Relevant

Experience Project (OCONUS Locations) listed. There is no L.5.3.1.2.6 or L.5.3.1.2.7 on page L-16. Can the government clarify this section? [ref: L.5.3.1.2; Additional Points for Relevant Experience Projects, pg L-14] The citation will be amended to read, "For each of the projects submitted as Relevant Experience Projects in accordance with Section L.5.3.1, the offeror will be rated more favorably for Sections L.5.3.1.2.1 through L.5.3.1.2.5."

Page: 3

10. This section provides acceptable examples for verification of contract award for Relevant Experience Projects (i.e., SF

1449, SF 33, etc.). Offeror’s relevant experience projects are Task Orders on a classified DoD contract and we are unable to provide the official award document. Will FEDSIM confirm that a Government-issued document that contains company name, contract/TO number, value, and date is acceptable for proof of contract award. [ref: L.5; Proposal Content, pg L-6] We will accept statements of fact that are signed by the cognizant contracting officer for validation purposes.

11. For offerors using contracting officer letters that map the evidence to each RFP requirement, are tags/highlights necessary? [ref: L.5.3.1 Relevant Experience Elements Common to All Pools, page L-13] Yes.

12. Does the Government intend for offerors to submit copies of their CPARS? [ref: L.5.4.1, Past Performance Category 1, page L-20] Yes.

13. Please confirm that Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) is not a mandatory requirement for proposal submission.

[ref: Symphony Portal, My Company, Business Factors] Confirmed.

14. Is the Team Member section only applicable to offerors submitting under a CTA? [ref: Symphony Portal, My Company, Team Members] This section applies to any Offer claiming scoring elements from any entity not in the name of the Offeror with the exception of those entities covered under a Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter.

15. The requirement states “The offeror shall reference the page number and paragraph of the certification or letter that determined the approval of the ISO 9001:2015 Certification.”

Question: If our certification is a 1-page certificate, is it necessary to provide page number and paragraph references?

[ref: L.5.5.1.8 ISO 9001:2015 Certification (Quality Management), page L-27] No.

16. This section states, “The SSR report shall be current and shall have been approved in the eSRS by the cognizant CO in order to be considered.”

Question: eSRS only uses the term ACC=Accepted. Can the Government confirm that an offeror shall show proof of acceptance versus the term approved?

[ref: L.5.5.1.18; Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals, pg L-29]

Page: 4

Confirmed.

17. Please confirm the Government will accept Purchase Orders as acceptable Prime Contracts for International

Government, International Public Sector, and Non-Government / Commercial Projects. [ref: L.5.3.1.1, Relevant Experience

Projects, page L-14] Confirmed.

18. When does the Government plan on holding live ASTRO Symphony Portal training, and through what venue will training be announced? [ref: General] ASP Training

Astro Symphony Portal (ASP) training is scheduled for September 3rd and September 10th at 1PM EST. Watch the

Interact for links to the web meeting to be posted.

19. Using the SF 33 form, Solicitation, Offer and Award, posted as page 1 of the solicitation in the Government Point of

Entry (GPE), the offeror shall fill out blocks 12 through 18 accordingly: Please clarify where the SF33 is located

[ref: solicitation PWS L.5.1.1 SF 33] Attachments

The SF33 was originally planned to be in electronic form within Symphony. That is no longer the case. We will amend to provide a pre-filled attachment with the anticipated final amendment that incorporates the solicitation Q&A.

20. Per section L.5.3.1., "All validation documentation submitted shall be highlighted and contain comments (“tags”) indicating the specific reference for validation purposes. Failure to highlight and tag validation documentation shall result in the offeror being disqualified."

Will the Adobe PDF Tag tool suffice for this requirement? The ASTRO evaluator would need to enable the Tag tool in their

Adobe application and then select the Tag tool to see our Tags. But if the ASTRO evaluators are not familiar with the Adobe

Tag tool, we will use a different tagging method. If you would like, I can send a screenshot of what I am describing. Thank you for your time and attention on this matter. [ref: L.5.3.1.] The Adobe Tagging or Comment tool are acceptable methods for tagging your documents.

21. Discussion: "For the purposes of this solicitation, for projects awarded by the DoD or NASA, the most current SSR or SF

295 report is for the reporting period ending March 31, 2020."

Question: SSR Reports are filed once a year at the end of each fiscal year - September 30th, due October 30th. SSRs are not required for the period ending March 31, 2020. (Per FAR 52.219-9(l)(2)(i)(D)). Therefore can you change the SSR reporting period to end September 31, 2019 for DoD and NASA? [ref: L.5.5.1.18 Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals page

Page: 5

L-5, paragraph 7] Yes. We desire to see the most current report. We will amend to reflect the change.

22. If you exceed the small business size standard listed in the table in Section B.2, are you prohibited form submitting a proposal for that pool? [ref: Section B.2 Pools] No. This is full and open solicitation.

23. If we have a printout which shows our FCL, should we submit that in Symphony? [ref: Para L.5.5.1.14 Top Secret

Facility Clearance] Yes, but not required.

24. The RFP States "All proposal documents shall be in Adobe (.pdf) format. All validation documentation submitted shall be highlighted and contain comments (“tags”) indicating the specific reference for validation purposes. Failure to highlight and tag validation documentation shall result in the offeror being disqualified."

Comments and Tags are separate and distinct functions in PDF documents. Which function is the Government requiring in the validation documentation? [ref: Paragraph L.5.3.1 Relevant Experience Elements Common to All ASTRO Pools] Either is fine. We use the words comments and tags in a generic sense.

25. If a company is a small business, do we need to submit any kind of supporting documents when we claim the Small

Business Goals on the Symphony website? [ref: Para L.5.5.1.18 and L.5.5.1.19] No. This is covered by Reps and Certs.

26. We are submitting two task orders under a multiple award IDIQ for a Navy customer as part of our relevant projects. The customer only issues a CPAR at the IDIQ level and has declined our request to fill out a past performance survey for the task orders we are submitting. Are we permitted to use the IDIQ CPAR in this instance? [ref: L.5.4.1 Past Performance Category 1] Yes.

27. Para L.5.1.6. states that Contractor Team Arrangements under FAR 9.601(1) [e.g. Partnerships and Joint Ventures]

*and* FAR 9.601(2) [e.g. "traditional" contracting of a Prime + Subs or Subs] are allowable.

However, the following verbiage in that paragraph goes on to explain how a "Partnership or JV" (e.g. "type (1)" CTAs) would be scored based upon past work together, but does NOT explain scoring for "type (2)" CTAs - wherein there exists a Teaming

Arrangement between a Prime and one or more subs.

The paragraph beginning "Offerers who are CTA may submit..." appears to focus in on "type (1)" Partnerships but does not appear applicable to "type (2)" partnering. There is typically NO requirement in FAR for "type (2)" CTAs to register with

Page: 6

SAMS or have a DUNS code. Does the government intend to deliberately exclude, or make entry nearly prohibitive, for a group of Small Businesses that want to enter the solicitation as a "typical" (for small business) Prime + Subs teaming arrangement under FAR 9.601(2)?

The final line in L.5.1.6: "failure to provide the Government.... being rejected as being non-conforming" is understandable but alarming in that the requirements - and scoring - for FAR 9.601(2) CTAs are unclear. [ref: L.5.1.6. Please clarify disposition / scoring for companies partnered under FAR 9.601(2). Do FAR 9.601(2) partnerships require a SAMS registration / DUNS code as new / distinct entity? That is not the norm for "(2)" CTAs.] For the purposes of this solicitation, all teams are treated the same. Any and all teams responding to this solicitation must be registered in SAM with a distinct DUNS number. See Section L.5.1.6.

28. Example: We have an ISR project (+ Data Ops Pool) performed OCONUS in which neither the SOW nor the CPARS, for classification reasons, mentions anything beyond the simple term "ISR". Neither the SOW nor the CPARS specify if the ISR was performed to support the list of purposes in L.5.3.2.1.c. [ref: L.5.3.2.1. Data Operations Pool Functional Factors - How can offerers get credit for work done under a classified Task Order?] If an offer cannot validate work performed through contract documentation or a statement of fact from the cognizant contracting officer, the offer will receive no points for those scoring elements claimed.

29. How can offerers get credit for locations (or quantity of locations) that are only specified in classified Task Orders?

Example: We have an ISR project (= Data Ops Pool) in which the SOW specifies a number of OCONUS countries that we may be required to operate within. Our CPARs for this project grades our performance but does NOT specify, for classification reasons, WHERE the work was done. [ref: L.5.3.1.2.2. Relevant Experience Project with Multiple Locations. ] If an offer cannot validate permanent, non-travel work locations or TDY deployment lasting 30 or more continuous days through contract documentation of some sort, then the offer shall receive no points for this scoring element. Locations that "may" be required is insufficient.

30. There is no cost to Contractors to submit for Security Clearances, so can the Government provide a scenario where a

Contractor would be billed for costs associated with a Security Clearance? [ref: Page H-3; paragraph H.7.1, SECURITY

CLEARANCES ]

No specific scenario. This is just a notice that any potential expenses will be handled at the task order level and not the

IDIQ level.

31. The Government states “. . . all Relevant Experience projects and Past Performance submitted in response to this solicitation shall have been performed as a prime contractor.” Can the Relevant Experience projects and Past Performance be submitted as the Managing Member of a Joint Venture who performed as the prime Contractor? Follow-up, in other words, does the Prime Contractor on the SF-33 submitted for Relevant Experience purposes have to match the Prime Contractor on the

ASTRO SF-33 (Instant Contract)? [ref: Page L-6; L.5 PROPOSAL CONTENT ]

Page: 7

Yes. The Prime Contractor on the Relevant Experience Project must be the same as the Prime Contractor on the

ASTRO SF33 unless an Meaningful Relationship Commitment Letter is involved.

32. Wrt to scoring, if the Offeror has an approved Purchasing System and associated documentation form DCAA or CFA but the contract cited as Relevant Experience does not address or require a Purchasing System, Can the Offeror still take the point value for having an approved Purchasing System? In other words, is having a Purchasing System, approved Provisional Rates, mutually exclusive from the Relevant Experience project? [ref: Attachments C.1 Through C.10 Final ] If you have an Approved Purchasing System, you may claim those points under Other Business Factors regardless of what was involved or required in Relevant Experience Projects.

33. The solicitation states “Government anticipates 45 awards in each Pool.” There are no considerations addressed for

Small Business unlike the “Draft” solicitation where “Bootstrap Bonus Offerors who are less than 10 times the applicable small business size standard (whether dollar based, or employee based) will receive bonus points based upon their total score for a given Pool.” Is it the Government’s intention for Small Businesses to compete head-to-head against large businesses in the same Pool for one of the 45 awards? [ref: Page L-1; FAR 52.216-27 SINGLE OR MULTIPLE AWARDS (OCT 1995) ] Yes.

34. The Government does not address the issuance of Common Access Cards (CAC) or Transportation Worker Identity Card

(TWIC). Will the issuance of these Government-issued identification credentials be addressed at the Task Order level? [ref:

Page H-5; paragraph H.8.1 RIGHTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS ] Yes.

35. The Government is differentiating between Fixed wing and Rotary wing aircraft but not Tilt-rotor aircraft. Will the

Government add Tilt-Rotor aircraft or clarify which category the Offeror should use for Tilt-Rotor Relevant Experience? [ref:

Page L-17; L.5.3.2.3 AVIATION POOL FUNCTIONAL FACTORS ] Tilt-rotor aircraft are considered rotary wing aircraft for this solicitation.

36. Would the Government clarify if claiming credit for a SCIF relates to working in a SCIF or the Offeror maintaining a

SCIF as part of the Offeror’s corporate facilities? [ref: Page L-28; L.5.5.1.15 SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED

INFORMATION FACILITY (SCIF)]

Working in a SCIF is meaningless for this solicitation. We want evidence that you operate and maintain a SCIF(s).

37. states “Offerors may make minor formatting changes to Section J templates used in proposal submission. For example, minor formatting changes include such things as adjusting page breaks, adding corporate identification logos, identifying proposal volume identifiers in the headers and footers, including disclaimers of proprietary information, and adjusting the

Cost/Price template based on an offeror’s actual indirect rate structure.” The paragraph eludes to “volumes”; however, Section L-3 does not address a requirement to organize the proposal response in separate volumes. Will the Government clarify

Page: 8 if separate Volumes are required and if so, stipulate what information is required in each Volume? [ref: Page L-4; L.3

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS ]

The term "volume" is a remnant from the draft solicitation and shall be removed in the next solicitation amendment.

There are no more "volumes".

38. The solicitation states that additional points will be given for Relevant Experience project values over $25 million. Please confirm that one or more of the submitted Relevant Experience projects can have a Total Value of less than $25 Million. [ref:

Page L-14; L.5.3.1.2.1 REVEVANT EXPERIENCE PROJECT VALUE ] Confirmed.

39. Are offerors to submit only a contract's most recent CPAR? Will the Government accept multiple CPAR reports for the same contract? [ref: ASTRO Solicitation Final, L.5.4.1.1] Only the most recent.

40. Both Volume 1 and Volume 5 include requirements for a Subcontracting Plan. Can the Government please clarify the difference between these two requirements? Is the same plan to be counted twice? [ref: ASTRO Solicitation Final, L.5.1.9

Subcontracting Plan and L.5.5.1.19 Subcontracting Plan] There are no more "volumes", but offerors who are other than small must submit a small business subcontracting plan for each Pool being applied for. That can be the same small business subcontracting plan for all Pools or a unique small business subcontracting plan for each Pool. The reference to the small business subcontracting plan in Other Business

Factors is simply identifying how many points you may receive for each Pool based on the plan submitted. The small business subcontracting plan shall only be scored once for each Pool.

41. May offerors include a typewritten cover sheet at the beginning of an evidence file to provide a clear explanation of the documentation? [ref: ASTRO Solicitation Final, General] You may. However, please note that any such document shall not be used in any way for validation purposes.

42. Does the Government have a preference or requirement for annotation of evidence documents in Volume 3? Highlighting and text boxes have been used in similar solicitations. [ref: ASTRO Solicitation Final, General] No.

43. We submitted draft artifacts for a number of Pools during the Government's pre-evaluation period. Should we assume that those artifacts marked "verified" by the Government during those reviews can remain "as is," and will be evaluated similarly during the formal Source Selection? [ref: ASTRO Solicitation Final, General] Assume nothing. The ASTRO team provided courtesy, preliminary reviews as part of market research. NOTHING provided as part of that process represents any official evaluation of your proposal. You are responsible for reading and understanding the solicitation and making choices based on that understanding.

Page: 9

44. Section M states awards will be announced after the Top 45 are validated in each pool. Does this mean pools will be announced on a Pool-by-Pool basis? Or does it mean all Pools will be announced simultaneously? [ref: ASTRO Solicitation

Final, M.3] We intend to announce awards for all Pools at the same time.

45. To normalize how offerors calculate their CPARS scores based on the same/standard categories that are also included in

Attachment D Past Performance Form (Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, Small Business Utilization), will the

Government consider limiting CPARs scores in this calculation to only these categories? [ref: ASTRO Solicitation Final, L.5.4.1.1] No.

46. The first sentence allows for a "single" subcontracting plan at the IDIQ level or a "single" subcontracting plan for each pool. But the second sentence discusses an "individual" one. Does "individual" mean "single"? And for which instance does it actually apply? [ref: ASTRO Solicitation Final, L.5.1.9] There is ONE subcontracting plan that will apply to each Pool. That can be a single subcontracting plan that you choose to apply to all Pools being applied for, OR that can be different subcontracting plans that apply separately to Pools being applied for. Whatever plan you upload and indicate you are applying to each Pool is the plan that will be evaluated.

47. To ensure compliance in providing documentation, pg. 79 of the Solicitation states, “The offeror shall substantiate all the information by providing enough evidence within a contract or task order document or other verifiable contractual documents to support each scoring element." Would the Government please confirm that documents that include the Contract Title and/or a Program Title sufficiently show evidence of the link to the provided Relevant Experience Project? [ref: RFP Pg. 79] Titles are insufficient. Project/contract/task order numbers must be present.

48. Will the Government allow QPA-audited systems in lieu of DCMA? Although QPA's cannot approve purchasing systems, their audit and determination of acceptability are based on and in compliance with all 24 elements in the purchasing system analysis in accordance with DFARS 252.244-7001(c). Historically, other IDIQ solicitations such as OASIS Vertical/Lateral On-ramping have allowed for this provision in the interests of greater competition. [ref: ASTRO Solicitation ] No.

49. The NAICS Code listed for the MISSION OPERATIONS POOL is 541990 – All Other Professional, Scientific, and

Technical Services (Small Business Size Standard: $16.5 Million) and the NAICS Code listed for the the AVIATION POOL is

488190 – Other Support Activities for Air Transportation.

However, the majority of the "Functional Factors" described in Sections L.5.3.2.2. and L.5.3.2.3. would fall under a NAICS

Code with the 481 prefix (scheduled or nonscheduled air transportation), for which the most common small business size standard is 1,500 employees (481111, 481112, 481211, 481212). Also, the vast majority of companies who are Commercial

Page: 10

Airlift Review Board (CARB) approved (IAW Section L.5.5.2.2.1) have a primary NAICS code with the 481 prefix (1,500 employee small business size standards) and cannot meet the small business size standards of the 541990 and 488190 NAICS codes.

If a Prime Contractor whose primary NAICS code is 481211 (1,500 employee size standard), for example, submits a proposal in response to the ASTRO Solicitation, will that offeror be considered a small business, even if it's annual earnings prevent it from being considered a small business IAW the 541990 and 488190 size standards, therefore satisfying the small business SubK goals per Section L.5.5.1.19? [ref: B.2 Pools (ref. "MISSION OPERATIONS POOL" and "AVIATION POOL"] No. A company is either small or other than small based on the size standard associated with the NAICS code assigned to the ASTRO Pool being applied for.

50. Please confirm that a prime contractor can leverage the capabilities, certifications and relevant experience/past performance of an affiliate company which is under the same parent company by way of a Meaningful Relationship

Commitment Letter (MRCL) (see Section L.5.1.6). If a Prime submits a Relevant Experience/Past Performance reference from one of its affiliate companies under the same parent company, will that reference still be given the Prime Point Value, and not the CTA Non-Prime Point Value, as specified in the "ATTACHMENTS+C.1+THROUGH+C.10+Final" spreadsheet? [ref:

L.5.1.6 CONTRACTOR TEAM ARRANGEMENTS (CTA), IF APPLICABLE and L.5.1.5 MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP

COMMITMENT LETTERS, IF APPLICABLE]

Confirmed.

51. Does the Program submitted as verification for meeting or exceeding subcontracting goals have to be one of the programs submitted as verification for the relevant experience section? [ref: L.5.5.1.18 “Meeting or Exceeding Subcontracting

Goals” ] No.

52. Is the percentage for this section the percentage of total work on the program or the percentage of work expected to be subcontracted out? Please clarify if you are looking for us to set aside for small businesses at least 23% of the total program revenue or 23% of the work that will be subcontracted out to our subs (small and large). [ref: L.5.5.1.19 “Subcontracting

Plan”] Work to be subcontracted.

53. Please confirm that offerors are permitted to submit bids for multiple pools, and have the opportunity to be awarded multiple contracts for different pools. [ref: General] Confirmed.

54. The draft versions of the solicitations included a Bootstrap Bonus for each of the Pools. The final solicitation does not make reference to the Bootstrap Bonus. Did the Government remove the Bootstrap Bonus? If so, why? [ref: Bootstrap Bonus]

Page: 11

The Bootstrap Bonus has been removed.

55. If the offeror does not possess AS9100 certification, but does possess other relevant and/or equivalent or comparable

Aviation industry-standard certifications, which are directly applicable to the "Functional Factors" described in Section

L.5.3.2, will USG consider awarding points to offerors who can demonstrate that they possess relevant accreditations and/or certifications?

For example, if an offeror's Safety Management System (SMS) is accredited by an entity such as PRISM, which certifies that an airlift provider's SMS is aligned with the ICAO/FAA "Four Components" of Safety Management, could that be considered? Or, if an offeror can demonstrate accreditation with the National Accreditation Alliance of Medical Transport Applications

(NAAMTA), would USG consider awarding points for that accreditation, as it is relevant to the MEDEVAC operations functional factor (see Section L.5.3.2.2.f)? [ref: L.5.5.2.3 and L.5.5.2.5] No.

56. Are offerors required to submit CPARS reports, or simply use the scoring metrics in order to self-score relevant experience/past performance references? [ref: L.5.4.1] If a CPARS exist, you must provide it. If you do not submit a CPARS, Award Fee Determination, or Past Performance

Survey for a given project, you will receive NO points for past performance.

57. Will USG award points to offerors who possess an FCL that is at the SECRET level? [ref: L.5.5.1.14] No.

58. If the offeror does not currently hold an GSA schedules, has never submitted Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs), and typically functions as a small business IAW its primary NAICS code, how is the offeror expected to demonstrate that it meets or exceeds total small business goals? [ref: L.5.5.1.18 -- MEETING OR EXCEEDING TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS GOALS] If you have never submitted an SSR, you will automatically receive those points.

59. Does the GSA have a forecast of upcoming task orders which it intends to solicit under the ASTRO IDIQ pools once awarded? [ref: General] No.

60. Our company wishes for our questions to remain anonymous. Is it a requirement that the offeror include the company name in the reference line? [ref: L.3.5] All solicitation questions remain anonymous. We need to know who submits the questions, but other offerors do not.

61. Does the USG intend to give any preference or additional point value to offerors who are a small business concern, such as Small Disadvantage Businesses (SDB), Women-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB), Historically Under-utilized Business

Page: 12

Zones (HUBZone), Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSB), or Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses

(SDVOSB)? [ref: G.3.1.11 -- INDIVIDUAL SUBCONTRACTING PLAN(S)] No.

62. Outside the Astro Symphony Portal (ASP) training scheduled for September 3rd and September 10th at 1PM EST, does the GSA intend to conduct any formal meeting with potential offerors, such as a kickoff meeting, or anything of that nature?

[ref: Page B-9 - Section B.7 - Paragraph 1] No. These things have already been done.

63. As the CREST accreditation is an international certification, only a small percentage of companies will be able to earn points for this factor. We recommend that that the point value be decreased or a removed in order for more companies to be competitive. [ref: ASTRO Solicitation] CREST Accreditation shall remain.

64. Will the Government allow the ISO 21508 EVMS certification in lieu of DCMA? [ref: ASTRO Solicitation] The solicitation provides points for both. One may not be substituted for the other.

65. Can the Government clarify that the scoring for the subcontracting plan is based on Small Business being given 50% of the proposed dollars to be subcontracted, not 50% of the total contract dollars? [ref: L.5.5.1.19] Dollars to be subcontracted, not total contract dollars.

66. If an offeror is not considered a small business under a Pool’s NAICS code, but all contracts held (including those referenced) are performed as a small business therefore no SSRs are applicable/available, does the offeror still automatically get credit for this category? [ref: L.5.5.1.18 MEETING OR EXCEEDING TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS GOALS (Pg. L-29)] Yes.

67. Would the Government consider allowing supplemental, publicly-available information to support Offeror annotations?

This would be for the reviewer’s convenience and in addition to required contractual documents. [ref: Technical

Documentation] Yes, but it is not required.

68. Will the Government consider an OCONUS TDY location of more than 30 consecutive days as an OCONUS work location? [ref: ASTRO Solicitation Final, L.5.3.1.2.5] Yes.

Page: 13

69. Is the Government using a three-year average or a five-year average for determining if an offeror is small in a particular pool? [ref: ASTRO Solicitation Final, Small Business Standards] Three Year average.

70. In the Solicitation, the Government states If claiming credit for this scoring element (MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AND

ACCOUNTING SYSTEM [MMAS]), the offeror shall provide verification of its approved material management and accounting system.

Does this scoring element also refer to a company's accounting system verification, or does it specifically have to mean the

MMAS? [ref: L.5.5.1.5 MATERIAL MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM (MMAS)] Specifically MMAS.

71. Will there be any small business set asides in the group of “45” or will small businesses be required to compete directly against large businesses for an award? [ref: Page M-1, Para, M.2] There are no set asides. This solicitation is for full and open competition.

72. Are there specific instructions on how to fill out Attachment C, specifically the CTA Columns which seems to auto populate? [ref: ATTACHMENTS C.1 THROUGH C.10] Offerors do not fill out Section C. Section C is provided to illustrate the point matrix. Scoring is auto-generated by the

ASP.

73. Does the term “Government” include local governments and/or public universities? [ref: Page L-6, Para, L.5, and Page

L-14, Para, L.5.3.1.1] In accordance with Section L.5.3.1.1, "Any combination of U.S. Federal Government, U.S. State Government, International Government, International Public Sector, and Non-Government/Commercial projects can be submitted."

Either of your examples may be submitted for Relevant Experience Projects so long as your company is the prime.

74. These statements appear to conflict, could you please clarify? [ref: Page H-4, Para, H.7.3 (1st Para) and Page L-4, Para, L.3 (4th Para)] There is no conflict. H.7.3 refers to performance at the task order level. L.3 refers to proposal submission at the IDIQ level. If we find the same company in more than one offer in the same Pool as part of the IDIQ evaluation, we WILL disqualify every single offer that company is associated with.

75. For those large businesses who have never been required to submit an SSR or ISR report, can the Government please confirm that such offerors will receive credit for the “Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals” scoring element for each applicable Pool so long as the Offeror provides documentation (such as contract artifacts, an FPDS report, or other government recognized substantiation) demonstrating that they have only performed as a small business for prime contracts

Page: 14 and/or task orders in the past five years (and therefore have not been required to submit SSR or ISR Reports)? [ref: “Meeting or Exceeding Total Small Business Goals” (L.5.5.1.20)] Confirmed.

76. Does the Program submitted as verification for meeting or exceeding subcontracting goals have to be one of the programs submitted as verification for the relevant experience section? [ref: L.5.5.1.18 “Meeting or Exceeding Subcontracting

Goals” ] Section L.5.5.1.18 requires submission of an SSR. SSRs are not generated for individual projects, so the answer is no.

77. There is no question 6 on the Form SF 1408, please clarify? [ref: Page L-8, Para, L.5.1.4, Statement CAUTION:] Question 6 on the 1408 states, "6. Is your organization’s Accounting System ready for a DCAA audit?"

78. The solicitation references Section J, Attachment 5 “ASTRO INDIVIDUAL SUBCONTRACTING PLAN TEMPLATE.”

We did not find it in the solicitation postings. Please advise. [ref: L.5.1.9 SUBCONTRACTING PLAN] That reference should state "Section J, Attachment E", which was provided with the solicitation documentation. We will correct this in an upcoming amendment.

79. The paragraph states, “Using the SF 33 form, Solicitation, Offer and Award, posted as page 1 of the solicitation in the

Government Point of Entry (GPE), the offeror shall fill out blocks 12 through 18 accordingly.” There is no SF33 form as page

1 or any other attachment posted on beta.SAM.gov. Can the government please provide SF 33 for submission with offer? [ref:

L.5.1.1; 2nd para, pg L-7] The SF33 was originally planned to be in electronic form within Symphony. That is no longer the case. We will amend to provide a pre-filled attachment with the anticipated final amendment that incorporates the solicitation Q&A.

80. I then wanted to go back and Edit the project, but when I click the Edit button nothing happens. I exited the portal and returned with the same result. I am using Chrome.

Any suggestions? [ref: Portal question] Route to helpdesk

81. Regarding uploading files to the ASP, are there file name length (character) limits? Does the Government have a preferred file naming convention? [ref: General] Route to helpdesk

82. Section L.2.6 defines a Small Business Teaming Arrangement as a small business prime with small business subcontractors. This is different from the definition of a CTA found in Section L.5.1.6, which requires the CTA to be a

Page: 15 partnership rather than a prime/subcontractor relationship. Can we assume that if a small business CTA is formed it does not need to be a partnership, but rather a prime with subcontractors who are also small? [ref: [ref: Solicitation # 47QFCA20R0026

- Pages L-2 and L-10 - Section L.2.6 Paragraph (a)(1) and Section L.5.1.6 Paragraph 1]] Duplicate question. Please refer to released questions for the answer.

83. Can the Government please provide a copy of the SF-33? [ref: ASTRO Solicitation Final, L.5.1.1] Duplicate question. Please refer to released questions for the answer.

84. Where in the Symphony Portal do offerors complete the representations and certifications? [ref: L.5.2.2 Representations and Certifications, page L-13] Route to helpdesk

85. Please clarify where the Representations and Certifications are to be found in Symphony.

Under the SAM Data tab, we are able to download our company's SAM Reps and Certs. This does not appear to be the Reps and Certs being requested in the solicitation. [ref: ASTRO Solicitation Final, L.5.2.2] Route to helpdesk

86. In the ASP, Offerors are required to select the Pool for which they wish to compete. If an Offeror inadvertently selects the wrong or multiple Pools, is there a way to de-select the Pool that was inadvertently selected so those Pools are not scored?

As an example, we are bidding only the Aviation Pool but inadvertently selected the Data Operations Pool & the Mission

Operations Pool in error. [ref: Section L.5.1.7 - Pool Selection] Refer to Helpdesk

87. Does the Program submitted as verification for meeting or exceeding subcontracting goals have to be one of the programs submitted as verification for the relevant experience section? [ref: L.5.5.1.18 ] Duplicate question. Please refer to released questions for the answer.

88. Are there any specific file naming conventions for the files that we upload for each section? [ref: Section L] Helpdesk question.

89. The Bootstrap Bonus appears to have been removed from the Final RFP, which provided a major benefit to this solicitation in the draft phase. A change like this is significant and material to the solicitation. Can you please clarify where this bonus can be found? [ref: L.5.1 GENERAL (Pg. L-7)] Duplicate question. Please refer to released questions for the answer.

Page: 16

90. Can you clarify exactly where the SF33 is? I did not see it in the solicitation documents. [ref: Para L.5.1.1 SF 33] Duplicate question. Please refer to released questions for the answer.

91. In the DRAFT dated February 5, 2020, the Government lists L.5.1.10. Bootstrap Bonus in Section L - Offerors who are less than 10 times the applicable small business size standard (whether dollar-based or employee based) will receive bonus points based upon their total score for a given Pool. However, in ASTRO Solicitation Final, dated August 24, 2020, the

L.5.1.10 Bootstrap Bonus has been removed.

Is it the Government's intention to eliminate the Bootstrap Bonus points from the solicitation? [ref: L.5.1.10. Bootstrap Bonus ] Duplicate question. Please refer to released questions for the answer.

92. Is the percentage for this section the percentage of total work on the program or the percentage of work expected to be subcontracted out? Please clarify if you are looking for us to set aside for small businesses at least 23% of the total program revenue or 23% of the work that will be subcontracted out to our subs (small and large). [ref: L.5.5.1.19] Duplicate question. Please refer to released questions for the answer.

93. Is the percentage for this section the percentage of total work on the program or the percentage of work expected to be subcontracted out? Please clarify if you are looking for us to set aside for small businesses at least 23% of the total program revenue or 23% of the work that will be subcontracted out to our subs (small and large). [ref: L.5.5.1.19 “Subcontracting

Plan”] Duplicate question. Please refer to released questions for the answer.

94. When will ASP (Symphony) Training - as indicated in B.7 (Page B-9) of the solicitation - be provided in order that

Offerors submit their proposals accurately, thoroughly, and timely?

B.7 ASTRO SYMPHONY PORTAL (ASP)

The ASP is a software application the Government intends to use for ASTRO proposal submission, proposal evaluation, and contract management. Training will be provided to contractors regarding the use of ASP for proposal submission and post award requirements.

[ref: RFP No. 47QFCA20R0026 / B.7 ASTRO Symphony Portal] Please check the latest ASTRO Interact post for ASP training announcements.

95. Section L.5.3.1 states ,“All validation documentation submitted shall be highlighted and contain comments (“tags”) indicating the specific reference for validation purposes. Failure to highlight and tag validation documentation shall result in the offeror being disqualified.”

Section L.5.4 also requires validation documentation “for each of the Relevant Experience Projects submitted for each Pool in

Page: 17 accordance with Section L.5.3”. Please advise if offerors are to also highlight and tag these documents (CPARs, Award Fee

Documents, Past Performance Surveys) or confirm if highlights and tags are only required for compliance for L.5.3 proposal verification documentation.

[ref: Page L-13, Section L.5.3.1, Paragraph 1. Section L.5.4, Paragraph 1] Duplicate question. Please refer to released questions for the answer.

96. Section L.5.3.1 states, “All validation documentation submitted shall be highlighted and contain comments (“tags”) indicating the specific reference for validation purposes. Failure to highlight and tag validation documentation shall result in the offeror being disqualified.” Many Section L.5.5 OBF proposal scoring elements require that we provide reference to page number and paragraphs for validation documentation. Will the Government advise if we are to also highlight and tag the OBF verification documents for the L.5.5 proposal scoring elements to be compliant, or confirm if highlights and tags are only required for compliance for L.5.3 proposal verification documentation? It is currently unclear in the ASP if we will be provided question prompts for the Business Factors to provide this information or if we should tag and highlight the documentation to provide this information for compliance. [ref: Page L-13, Section L.5.3.1, Paragraph 1. Section L.5.5, Paragraph 1] Duplicate question. Please refer to released questions for the answer.

97. Will the Government please clarify how to score Past Performance for a “Collection of Task Orders”? For Past

Performance Category 1 and 2 scoring purposes, we recommend that if an Offeror provides a “Collection of Task Orders” that includes concurrent task orders performed under the same master agreement, the Offeror use in order of precedence: a) the

CPAR from the master agreement, if available;; or b) a Past Performance Survey for the collection of task orders. [ref: ASTRO

Solicitation Final, L.5.3.1.1, page L-14 : If an Offeror chooses to submit a “Collection of Task Orders” all minimum requirements and scored evaluation criteria are based on the entire Task Order collection submitted as a whole.] Duplicate question. Please refer to released questions for the answer.

98. Should the referenced attachment be Attachment E instead of Attachment 5? [ref: ASTRO Solicitation Final, L.5.1.9 : For the Subcontracting Plan the RFP references Section J, Attachment 5 “ASTRO INDIVIDUAL SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

TEMPLATE.” ]

Duplicate question. Please refer to released questions for the answer.

99. Within the Symphony system when entering a corporate structure, that utilizes resources from a Parent Company Affiliate

Division, the system requires the entry of the DUNs number for that Affiliate Division, and/or Subsidiary. For a Global organization when the Affiliate organization is not based in the US and not registered in SAM.gov, Symphony is unable to find that Corporate entity. How are MRCL to be entered for these affiliations? [ref: L.5.1.5 MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP

COMMITMENT LETTERS]

The affiliates in question need to register in SAM.

100. RFP Section L.5.3.1 under L.5.3 Relevant Experience states "all proposal documents shall be in Adobe (.pdf) format".

The passage's location in L.5.3.1 would indicate that this requirement pertains exclusively to L.5.3 Relevant Experience, but "all

Page: 18 proposal documents" could lead to the assumption that all proposal documents associated with Section L are to be in Adobe

(.pdf) format. Please clarify if this requirement for proposal documents to be submitted in pdf format pertains exclusively to

L.5.3 Relevant Experience, or to all proposal documents associated with Section L.

[ref: RFP Section L.5.3.1] All proposal documents shall be in .pdf format. We will address this in the next amendment.

101. Page 98, Section M.4.1, Paragraph 2 states “if the offeror’s accounting system is determined unacceptable, the offeror is ineligible for an ASTRO MA-IDIQ contract award.”

Page 72, Section L.5.1.4, Paragraph 6 states “if the answer to Question 6 is “NO,” (Is your organization’s Accounting System ready for a DCAA audit?), the offeror may be ineligible for award.”

Page 25, Section F.4, Paragraph 3 states “approved accounting systems are mandatory for all contractors on ASTRO.”

Page 36, Section G.3.1.3, Paragraph 1 states “the contractor shall maintain an approved accounting system...for the entire duration of the Master Contract.”

All 4 of the above references imply that an approved accounting system is mandatory for a contractor to be eligible for award with no exceptions. However, the following paragraph in Section G.3.1.3 states that “approved accounting systems do not apply to task orders for the acquisition of commercial items or when the task orders are firm-fixed price or fixed-price with economic price adjustment provided that the price adjustment is not based on actual costs incurred.”

Does this sentence imply that an offeror without a currently approved accounting system can still be awarded a Master

Contract and only bid on and be awarded Task Orders that are FFP or FFP-EPA?

Offeror is a small business and does not currently have the internal infrastructure set up to hold an approved accounting system. The above reference language would suggest that small businesses unable to meet these requirements are ineligible to participate in the solicitation. [ref: G.3.13] No. All offerors must either currently possess an approved accounting system, or be eligible for approval of their accounting system based on a DCAA audit.

102. Section J, Attachment A states, “In accordance with Section B.2.1, the contractor shall identify both Prime and

Subcontractor labor using the ASTRO Labor Categories, as well as the corresponding SOC number and title that applies.” As

B.4.1 indicates the Labor Categories are defined for both the Master Contract and any Task Orders, is there a requirement for an ASTRO Multiple Award IDIQ (MAIDIQ) proposal response to provide designations for Prime/Subcontract as indicated in paragraph 7 of Section J, Attachment A? Section L does not address this proposal requirement. Is this instruction only for any resultant ASTRO Task Order solicitations? If the requirement applies to the ASTRO MAIDIQ proposal response, please provide

Page: 19 instructions to address the Section J, Attachment A direction. [ref: Page B-6; Section B.4.1; Paragraphs 2 & 5 and Page 1;

Section J, Attachment A; Paragraph 7] There are no labor category related submissions required at the IDIQ level.

103. Section L.5.3.1.2.4 states that additional points are received if the contract type for labor is Cost – Reimbursement.

However, the ASP asks if the project includes Cost Reimbursement as the Predominant Contract Type and does not appear to specifically address labor. For relevant experience, to receive additional points for Cost -Reimbursement contract types, please describe which description (or any other) is correct. [ref: Page L-15; Section L.5.3.1.2.4; Paragraph 1] Offerors will receive additional points if the contract type for labor is Cost-Reimbursement type.

104. The 25 August 2020 Amendment 1 was issued by SF30. Instructions provided in L.5.1.1.b. only list acknowledgement of amendments by block 14 of the SF33. Please provide instruction addressing acknowledgement of amendments by SF30, SF33, or both. [ref: Page L-7; Section L.5.1.1; Paragraph 4] Acknowledgement of amendments will be addressed in the SF33 that will be provided after the final amendment is issued (incorporation of the Questions and Answers).

105. Section L.5.1.4 states that the SF 1408 template shall be signed by the individual responsible for the design of the offeror’s accounting system.