A001 Attachment Vendor Q&A Feb 06.pdf

SIR Section Title Vendor Question Date Question Submitted

Government Response

Attachment 1

SOW Section (1.2) Statement of Work

Will vendors be required to have a DoD Facility Clearance at the time of proposal submission?

20‐Jan‐17

We've had positions that require the DD 254; however, access to classified material or facilities is not needed at time of proposal submission. The possibility still exists that classified access may be needed in the future which is the reason for paragraph 1.2 of the SOW. If that occurs, a DD254 and required clauses will be added to the contract.

2 Sections L.12 and L.13 Pre‐proposal Conference Is this Pre‐proposal conference going to be virtually? 20‐Jan‐17

We currently do not have the resources to offer the pre‐ proposal conference virtually or via any video or teleconference means. Nothing will be disclosed or discussed that is not already in the SIR/RFO and applicable attachments. Any questions asked will be recorded and posted with the Q&A on the designated dates specified in L.13.

Section A, Block 9, Section L.11 "Directions for Sending Proposals"

What would be the expected timeline for Part 1 submissions to be notified of their eligibility to participate in Part 2?

22‐Jan‐17

It is not possible to commit a date to notify offeror's for Part 2 eligibility because it’s uncertain how many proposals will be received in order to know how long it will take to evaluate. That being said, we understand that vendors need appropriate time to prepare Part 2 (if eligible) and the due date will be amended and extended if it appears that Part 1 evaluations take more time than anticipated.

4 General If we submit early will the package be reviewed upon receipt or will the government wait to review all Part 1 submissions after the submission due date?

22‐Jan‐17 In order to ensure procurement integrity throughout the evaluation process; Proposal review cannot begin until after proposal due dates as amended.

DTFAAC‐17‐R‐00106

NAS Engineering Services Questions & Answers

5 SIR Section L.14 Factor 1, Engineering Contracts Experience Factor 2, Organizational Management &

Staffing

We noted that a bidder could actually potentially pass through the Part 1 screening to be able to submit for Part 2 but their past performance and organizational staffing may not qualify for use in Part 2 Factor 7 Past Performance. Part 1 Factor 1 engineering contracts experience requires a $100M engineering contract and this could come from one of the teaming partners / JV members.

Part 1 Factor 2 organizational management/staffing requires a contract with 150 or more employees simultaneous for a two year period and this could come from one of the teaming partners / JV members (might not be the same one as for Part 1 Factor 1).

However, Part 2 Factor 7 for Past Performance requires both of these for each PPQ submitted. Meaning a bidder could possibly pass through Part 1 but not have past performance that qualifies for Part 2 (i.e. they may have used a $100M contract where they did not have 150 employees and may have used a contract with 150 employees that is not worth $100). In order to ensure that Part 1 and Part 2 are in synchronization we request that Part 2 Factor 7 Past Performance be changed from the below version to change the requirement from “and” to “or” between the 2nd and 3rd evaluation criteria as noted.

23‐Jan‐17

The intent of the evalaution criteria is for offerors to show they can meet the requirement as a single entity. Factor 7 does not require PPQ's to show one single "partner" of the team can meet all of the criteria. One PPQ can show the entity as a whole meeting all elements of the Factor, or, several PPQ's (up to four) can be submitted that show individual members of the team have past performance that show they are capable of meeting the contract requirements as a whole.

6 Section L.1 General Information

Given the use of Teaming Partners , Teaming Arrangements and work performed by each in section L1, will the government based on the above statement from the SIR, accept a teaming agreement between and 8a Prime and sub‐contractor?

Will the government recognize an FAA Mentor‐Protégé Program approved Mentor‐Protégé agreement as an acceptable teaming arrangement/partnership and recognize the 8a protégé as a certified contactor team entity?

23‐Jan‐17

There is no provision in this solicitation/contract for mentor protégé because the Government requires that the prime perform 100% of contract performance. This requirement is not appropriate to manage as a prime and subcontractor. With regard to the language referenced in section L.1, it also states the following: " If the offeror intends to propose as an SEDB (8(a)) certified business and the 8(a) is structured as a teaming arrangement, partnership, joint venture, etc. then the term "offeror” or “vendor" shall apply to the prime SEDB (8(a)) certified contractor team entity. This arrangement must be registered and corporately identified as a single entity (i.e. single SAM registration, DUNS, CAGE Code)."

7 Sections L.12 and L.13 Pre‐proposal Conference Will the Pre‐Proposal Conference on the 6th of February be broadcast live via a conferencing service for those not able to attend in person?

23‐Jan‐17 See Response to Question 2 above.

Sections L.8, L.1 (f)

AMS 3.2.2.3‐20

L.8 SUBMISSION, MODIFICATION,

REVISION, AND WITHDRAWAL OF

PROPOSALS

L.10 (f) Electronic Offers

AMS 3.2.2.3‐20 ELECTRONIC OFFERS (JULY

2004)

On page 93 of the SIR, item (f) Electronic Offers, the first lines states “The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to hard copies.” Are hard copies of our proposal required, and if so, how many? 23‐Jan‐17

In accordance with the references noted in column C;

hard copy proposals are not required for this SIR/RFO.

Proposals ARE required to be submitted in electronic format as specified but not submitted electronically (i.e.

via email).

9 Sections L.10 and L.11

Section L.10, Instruction for Organization and Preparation of Proposals Section L.11, Directions for Sending Proposals

On Page 92, section L.10(d) Volume I calls for the submission of Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs; Government format. Page 101, includes section B in Volume IV as well. Section B does not appear to be evaluated as part of the down select process so it may be that inclusion of Section B in Part 1 is in error.

Please clarify whether a completed Section B is required in the Part 1 submission?

30‐Jan‐17

Offeror’s are only required to submit the complete Volume II for Part 1 submittal. However, the FAA will leave to offeror discretion if they choose to submit Vols I, III, IV, and V with the Part 1 submittal or any time earlier than what is stated in the SIR/RFO. That being said, if the offeror chooses to only submit Vol II for Part 1, the FAA request that a title page and point of contact is included in order for the SET to know who to call for questions/clarification during the evaluation of Part 1.

10 Section L.10 Instruction for Organization and

Preparation of Proposals

Is the Business Declaration required to be included with proposal submittals?

30‐Jan‐17

A recent change has been implemented to the Small Business Development Program. Effective immediately, there is no longer a requirement to use “The Business Declaration Form”. AMS Guidance, T3.6.1 has been updated to remove the requirement from AMS. The System for Award Management (SAM) will be used in its’ place.

11 Section L

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND

NOTICES TO OFFERORS

Will you accept our proposals for Parts 1 and 2 in PDF format?

30‐Jan‐17

Offeror’s may submit proposals in .pdf format with exception to the spreadsheets in Attachment 5, T&M Labor Rates CLINs X002‐X003 (Build‐up). This attachment must be submitted in the same Government format as provided in the SIR/RFO. The SET needs to see and understand all computations, cell references, and “roll‐ up” as proposed in this attachment.

12 Section L.10 Instruction for Organization and

Preparation of Proposals

Regarding the Business Declaration Form, Attachment 6 of the SIR, our question is on items # 9 (b) – No. of Employees, and # 11 – Gross Receipts. As a newly formed Unpopulated Joint Venture, our firm has 0 Employees and $0.00 Gross Receipts. Are we required to provide Business Declaration Forms for each of our Joint Venture members or will the Business Declaration Form for just the Joint Venture be acceptable, again showing 0 Employees and $0.00 Gross Receipts?

01‐Feb‐17 See Response to Question 10 above.

13 Section L.1 General Information

Reference: SIR Page 88, L.1 General Information, 6th paragraph. The paragraph in question states “Information submitted by a subsidiary company of an Alaskan Native Corporation (ANC) or Indian Tribal Organization (ITO) specifying performance by a parent or other related subsidiary/sister of the ANC or ITO will be considered for evaluation purposes.”

Please confirm our interpretation that this paragraph relieves ANC/ITO subsidiary organizations from the requirement to meet the experience requirements that the prime must have held NAS Engineering contract(s) valued at over $100M and with 150 employees, and that instead, these companies can use past performance from the ANC/ITO to meet these requirements, whereas 8(a) companies not associated with an ANC/ITO must meet the $100M/150 employee requirements based on their actual past contracts? It would appear that if our interpretation is correct, then this puts companies with revenue less than $38.5 million on an annual basis will in fact be competing with billion dollar organizations.

Is it the Government’s position that by relieving ANC/ITO subsidiaries from the requirements to provide past performance by the subsidiary that all other 8(a) companies must meet still adheres to the spirit and intent of 8(a) contract set‐asides. It appears that even while perhaps adhering to the absolute letter of the law, or past interpretations of similar questions on this issue, this exclusion is outside of the actual spirit and intent of 8(a) set‐aside contracts. Please clarify.

2‐Feb‐17

The Government's position is based on GAO precedent set in case law which has held that sister/subsidiary firms of ANC/ITO organization are allowed to propose contract experience and past performance as it was performed by a sister/subsidiary of the respective ANC/ITO; and is to be considered as acceptable submission to be evaluated against the criteria as set in the SIR/RFO.

14 Section L.10

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION AND

PREPARATION PROPOSALS

Section L, Page 91, Paragraph L.10(b)(5) and Page 93, Paragraph L.10(f)Paragraph L.10(b)(5) states that all submittals will be electronic via CD/DVD‐ROM or USB Flash Drive while Paragraph L.10(f) states, “The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to hard copies. Is there any requirement to submit hard copy documents?

2‐Feb‐17 See response to Question #8 above.

15 Section L.14 Proposal Content

SIR Page 95, L.14 Proposal Content, Factor 1/Tab A: Engineering Contract(s) Experience This paragraph states “…engineering contract(s) individually valued at over $100 million involving NAS systems and equipment or other government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity.” This is an overly restrictive requirement that didn’t exist in any of the past procurements. Please clarify the requirement for the $100 million threshold. It would not seem reasonable for a small business with a current 8(a) standing to be able to meet this threshold for any single contract or for multiple contracts and still meet the NAICS code limit. For example, if an 8(a) company had a single 5‐year, $100 million contract, then if they had almost any number of additional contracts, they would exceed the NAICS size standard of $38.5M and not qualify to bid on this opportunity. Can the requirement for NAS Engineering Services contract to have a minimum value of $100M be given relief and to state $50M which mayon dollar organizations.

Is it the Government’s position that by relieving ANC/ITO subsidiaries from the r

2‐Feb‐17

This contract is the 5th in a series of follow on contracts for this requirement. This requirement as been in place to meet through contractor performance for almost 20 years providing the government a long and vast history of sound knowledge and understanding of what is needed for this contract to succeed. Proposal evaluation criteria is based on the nature of historical performance and lessons learned from previous contracts. Market research results and analysis demonstrate a number of industry providers shown to have the capability to perform this requirement as specified in this SIR/RFO. The FAA expects a robust competition based on these results. The criteria and requirements for proposals will stand as intended and specified.

16 Section L.14 Proposal Content

Reference:SIR Page 95, L.14 Proposal Content, Factor 2/Tab B:

Organizational Management and Staffing This section requires the offeror to provide proof that they have managed no less than 150 full time employees (excluding corporate staff) for a continuous 2‐year period within the previous 5 years from the response due date. The exclusion of corporate staff, 2‐ year period and any non‐NAS engineering contracts didn’t exist in any of the past procurements and we don’t understand the rationale of doing so. Corporate staffs and all other contracts require/receive the same level of support given to all NAS engineering contract employees. Also, past procurements required a continuous 1‐year period vice 2‐year. Please help us understand why there are changes in these requirements. There would appear to be more 8(a) companies that have the necessary NAS systems experience, who could meet the 150 employee threshold if the time frame was reduced from 2 years to 1 year for the 150 employees as was used in past procurements for these services. Will the Government consider honoring the same requirements as past procurements and possibly reducing that requirement?

2‐Feb‐17 Please see response to Question 15 above.

17 Section L.14 Proposal Content

Reference:SIR Page 95, L.14 Proposal Content, Factor 2/Tab B:

Organizational Management and Staffing This section requires the offeror to provide proof that they have managed no less than 150 full time employees (excluding corporate staff) for a continuous 2‐year period within the previous 5 years from the response due date “on an engineering services contract involving NAS systems and equipment or other government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity.” This is overly restrictive and past procurements for this same contract did not have this requirement. Is this intended to require that all 150 identified employees have actually been assigned to perform duties on a NAS engineering services type contract, or can the 150 employees have worked on other contracts (IT/IS, training, logistics, etc) also? Please clarify.

2‐Feb‐17

Please see response to Question 15 above. In addition;

the criteria referenced states the following: The offeror must demonstrate it exclusively employed and managed, within the previous five (5) years from the date responses are due for the SIR, 150 or more full‐time employees, (not including corporate staff), simultaneously for a minimum period of two years or more on an engineering services contract involving NAS systems and equipment or other government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity.

18 Section L.14 Proposal Content

SIR Page 101, L.14 Proposal Content, Factor 7/Tab D: Engineering Past Performance This section addresses Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). In reading this section, it appears that PPQs should only be sent if the contract(s) are:

Engineering Contracts Have a value over $100 million Involve NAS systems ( or similar Government systems/equipment) Had 150 full time employees Is our interpretation correct? If a specific contract does not meet all of these requirements, then a PPQ should not be sent out for response? If so, this is an overly restrictive requirement which was not levied in this same procurement in the past. Please clarify.

2‐Feb‐17

This requirement stands as specified. Please see response to Question #15 above.

19 Section L.14 Proposal Content

Reference: SIR L.14, Factor 2/Tab B: Organizational Management and Staffing This section, combined with other references within the SIR indicate that the table required, as exemplified on page 96 of the SIR, should be in portrait format. We respectfully submit and request that the Government consider providing more detailed guidance in preparing this table.

2‐Feb‐17

Please reference Question #15 above. The evaluation criteria stands as specified.

Section H

AMS Clause 3.8.2‐17 Key Personnel and Facilities

Section H, Page 36, Paragraph AMS 3.8.2‐17 Key Personnel and Facilities.

AMS 3.8.2.17(d) identifies 3 labor categories as Key Personnel:Contract ManagerTechnical ManagersProcurement Analyst Please confirm that these are all Key Personnel and that names for individuals to be utilized to fill those positions are to be entered on this page. This paragraph identifies 3 labor categories as key personnel while Section L, Page 100, Paragraph 5(C) and Section M, Page 118, Paragraph Subfactor 5(C) only indicate the Contract Manager as key. In previous SIR/RFPs for this contract, only the Contract Manager was identified in this section as the Key Personnel.

Requiring the Technical Managers and Procurement Analysts by name is bordering on personal services. Please clarify.

2‐Feb‐17

Please reference Question #15 above. The evaluation criteria stands as specified.

21 Section L.10

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION AND

PREPARATION PROPOSALS

Page 92 ‐ L.10 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION AND PREPARATION PROPOSALS ‐ paragraph (d) Contract Documentation – Part I, SIR/RFO Sections A – K/Business Declaration specifically refer to completing (1) Section B, (2) Section K and (3) Business Declaration. Can the government please clarify if they expect the following submitted with Part 1 in addition to the 3 items that were specifically called out on page 92.

a. Section A – Completed and signed SF33

b. Section B – Completed section B with the offerors price. If so, can the government please clarify why this should be completed at the time of part 1 since completed pricing is due with the part 2 submission. (Pages 3‐

16) If the offeror is not to complete Section B, what is the offeror to include when submitting Section B with part 1?

c. Section H – Completed AMS 3.8.2‐17 KEY PERSONNEL AND FACILITIES (MAY 1997) naming the key personnel the offeror will use for the contract. (Page 36)

d. Section I – Completed AMS 3.1.7‐6 DISCLOSURE OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS (page 43)

e. Section I – Completed AMS 3.2.2.3‐39 REQUIREMENTS FOR

CERTIFIED COST OR PRICING DATA OR OTHER INFORMATION ‐

MODIFICATIONS (JULY 2010) (page 47). If so, can the government please clarify why this should be completed at the time of part 1 since completed pricing is due with the part 2 submission.

f. Section I – A completed OCI plan per AMS 3.1.7‐4 Organizational Conflicts of Interest‐Mitigation Plan Required (Apr 2012) – (Page 71)

2‐Feb‐17

See responses to Questions #8 & #9 above

22 Section L.10

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION AND

PREPARATION PROPOSALS

Page 93 paragraph f “Electronic Offers” – states “The content and page size of electronic copies must be identical to hard copies.” Can the government please clarify this as there are no instructions regarding submitting hard copy proposals.

2‐Feb‐17

See responses to Questions #8 & #9 above

23 Section L.10

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION AND

PREPARATION PROPOSALS

Page 93 paragraph f “Electronic Offers” – states “Each volume should be submitted in separately marked electronic files.” Can the government please clarify that this means each volume should be a separate file burned to one CD/DVD and not one CD/DVD per volume.

2‐Feb‐17

The proposal can be submitted on one CD/DVD however the files on the CD/DVD must be in the format as specified in the SIR/RFO, Section L.10 (f) and Table L.1, Proposal Organization.

24 Section L.10

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ORGANIZATION AND

PREPARATION PROPOSALS

Page 93 paragraph f “Electronic Offers” – states “The electronic copies of the proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Word 2010, MS Excel 2010, MS Project 2010, and MS Power Point 2010 as applicable.” Will the government accept PDF files for any pages that require signatures or completion from the offeror? For example, the SF33, business declaration form, Reps and Certs etc.

2‐Feb‐17 See responses to Question #11 above

25 Section L.14 Proposal Content Page 95 ‐ VOLUME I – Part 1/Title Page and Executive Summary (Tab A). Can the offeror submit this entire volume as a PDF since it will require contract documentation or do we submit the contract documentation as attachments to Volume I?

2‐Feb‐17 See responses to Question #11 above

26 Section L.15 Proposal Content Page 95 ‐ VOLUME II – Part 1/Evaluation Factors 1 – 3 (Tabs i, ii, A‐C) Part I, Tabs A‐C states that, “One page equals 1 side of a sheet of standard 8.5 by 11 inch paper. No fold out pages will be considered.” Will the government accept landscaped pages?

2‐Feb‐17

Offeror discretion if this is not specified in the SIR/RFO.

27 Section L.1 General Information

Part IV, Section L.1, entitled, “General Information,” states, “This acquisition will be set‐aside exclusively for competitive award among Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Businesses (SEDB (8(a)) that are expressly certified by the Small Business Administration (SBA) for participation in the SBA’s SEDB (8(a)) program.” Under a final rule (Rule) that became effective on August 24, 2016 (see 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(h)), the Small Business Administration (SBA) changed the requirements for an “expressly certified” joint venture participating in the 8(a) program. The Rule provides that, on 8(a) set‐aside procurements, an offeror that is a joint venture “may not be populated with individuals intended to perform contracts awarded to the joint venture…” (emphasis added). In other words, SBA will not certify populated joint ventures for participation in the 8(a) program.

Question: Since, under the Rule, a populated joint venture may not be expressly certified by the SBA, will the Government please confirm that it will not make award of a prime contract under this procurement to a populated joint venture?

2‐Feb‐17

Offeror's will be required to verify 8(a) status via SBA 8(a) certification letter. Language in Section L.1 has been added (Amendment A001) to clarify this requirement.

28 Section L.14 Proposal Content

Part IV, Section L.14, Volume II, Factor 2/Tab B, states that, “The offeror must demonstrate it exclusively employed and managed, within the previous five (5) years from the date responses are due for the SIR, 150 or more full‐time employees, (not including corporate staff), simultaneously for a minimum period of two years or more on an engineering services contract involving NAS systems and equipment or other government agency systems and equipment considered similar in complexity” (emphasis added).

Question: Does the phrase “an engineering services contract” mean that the offeror may only use the employee population on a single contract to satisfy the 150‐employee requirement?

2‐Feb‐17

In response to the question, the answer is “no.” The offeror may use more than one engineering contract to meet the 150‐employee requirement. The language will be clarified in an upcoming amendment.

29 Statement of Work

Section 1.2 of the statement of work states: “During performance of work under the contract, contractor personnel may be required to have access to information that is classified as “Confidential”, “Secret”, or “Top Secret”. Personnel in positions that require access to classified information shall possess or obtain a security clearance appropriate for the access required. TheContractor shall be responsible for providing personnel qualified to perform all required work, including obtainingsecurity clearances as necessary, and complying with the terms of the Acquisition Management System (AMS)clauses found elsewhere in the contract.”

Question: Given that a clearance requirement is implied, will a DD‐ 254, Contract Security Classification Specification, be issued for this contract? If so, will facility security clearance verification be required at proposal submission?

See response to Question #1 above.

31 Section L.1 General Information Is there a time frame for notifying offerors of eligibility to participate in Part 2?

06‐Feb‐17 See response to Question #3 above

32 General Will questions submitted for Part 2 be included with the Q&A posing on February 8.

06‐Feb‐17

Yes. All questions submitted by Feb 2 and at the pre‐ proposal conference will be provided on the Q&A posting on Feb 8. There will also be another Q&A posting on March 10.

33 SIR Section I AMS Clause 3.6.2‐29 How should offerors consider Section I, AMS Clause 3.6.2‐29 ‐ Statement of equivalent rates

06‐Feb‐17 This clause is for information only.

34 SIR Section L.14 Factor 1, Engineering Contracts Experience Will the FAA please clarify the submission for Factor 1, Engineering Contract Experience, the required experience to show contracts "indvidually valued at over $100 million" is a single contact dollar value?

06‐Feb‐17

This is correct. Offerors experience must show performance for individual contracts valued over $100 million.

35 General Will the FAA publicly release the pre‐proposal sign in sheet including attendee names?

06‐Feb‐17 No. This was determined based on the contract requirement 100% Prime Coontractor performance with no sub‐contracting opportunities.