TFM2_SIR-RFO_Industry_Comment_Responses_9-13-2016.pdf

TFM2 SIR/RFO (posted on FAACO 8/2/2016) Industry Comment Response PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE – 9/13/2016

No. Section Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

1 B Tab B-2 CLIN 1 is shown as “Optional 12 month POP” for all sub-CLINs. CLIN 2 is shown as “12 month POP” for all sub-CLINs.

Please explain the rationale for CLIN 1 being listed as “Optional” while CLIN 2 doesn’t have the same “Optional” designation.

The FAA has recently awarded Task Order 001, under e-FAST Contract DTFAWA11A-00185 which includes support for TFMS Technical Operations Level I requirements, and management under the FAA ATO National Enterprise Operations Directorate; however, the FAA has not finalized its transition approach for this work, and until this is established the FAA sees the need to include options for this service in the TFM2 SIR.

2 B Tab B-2 [Excerpt from SIR:] CLIN 1 - First Level Support (CPFF-LOE Completion Form) CLINs 1.1 through

1.12 comprise all first level operations and maintenance services as described in the SOW and attachments. Refer to Tab B-3 for the applicable SOW sections.

As currently written, the specification does not provide sufficient information for a non-incumbent to accurately estimate the cost of First Level Support as defined in the referenced SIR requirements.

The following information on workload drivers for the SOW scope included in this CLIN is necessary to accurately estimate costs that are reasonable and realistic:

C.10.1 First Level Support

Number of help desk contacts (calls, email, or other)

Number of tickets written, and the number of those tickets escalated to SLE support.

Number of TFMS outages, and number of degradations not classified as outages

Number of TFMS modifications implemented

Number of database anomalies experienced

Number of new user/customer/clients Number of thin-client accounts Number of security incidents Number of operational issues recorded in

The FAA considered its requirements for this procurement, and the impact on the competitive environment and with this in mind has structured the SIR and accompanying information to support a robust competition. The FAA has considered industry’s comments and has adopted, in substance if not literally, those comments that improve competition while not sacrificing the FAA’s needs for this procurement.

FAA assumes that “specification” means SIR Section C.10.1. The FAA has considered Industry’s concern and has identified additional information for Offeror use.

Attachment L-1 Size, Scope, and Complexity Supplemental has been revised to add information, and to clarify requirements for CLIN 1.1 – CLIN

1.12 as follows:

1. Number of help desk contacts (calls, email, or other) average 250 per month.

2. Number of tickets written average 105 per month with an average of 10 escalated to SLE support.

3. Number of TFMS outages average 6 per month. Degradations not classified as outages are part of the incident ticket average.

4. Number of database anomalies experienced average 10 per month.

5. Number of new thin client

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response the NTLM log Frequency of TFMS system checks required by the government user/customer/clients average 20 per month.

6. Number of current thin-client user accounts total 2,265.

7. Number of security incidents average 5 per month.

8. Number of TFMS modifications implemented - NTML is not used for tracking/managing TFMS performance issues; the help desk ticket count above accounts for TFMS modifications implemented.

The FAA has revised Attachment L-1, Tables L-1- 2, L-1-3, and L-1-4 to clarify requirements for frequency of TFMS system checks.

3 B Tab B-2 [Excerpt from SIR:] CLIN 2 Second Level Engineering (SLE) (CPFF-LOE Completion Form) CLINs 2.1 through 2.12 comprise all required SLE and support services as described in the SOW and attachments. Refer to Tab B-3 for the applicable SOW sections.

As currently written, the specification does not provide sufficient information for a non-incumbent to accurately estimate the cost of Second Level Support as defined in the referenced SIR requirements.

The following information on workload drivers for the SOW scope included in this CLIN is necessary to accurately estimate costs that are reasonable and realistic:

10.2.2 SLE Operations Support

Number of work requests approved by the government (configuration changes, software/hardware modifications, adaptations, patches/releases, baseline changes)

Number of PTRs implemented

The FAA considered its requirements for this procurement, and the impact on the competitive environment and with this in mind has structured the SIR and accompanying information to support a robust competition. The FAA has considered industry’s comments and has adopted, in substance if not literally, those comments that improve competition while not sacrificing the FAA’s needs for this procurement.

FAA assumes that “specification” means SIR Section C.10.2.2. – C.10.2.5. The FAA has considered Industry’s concern and has identified additional information for Offeror use.

Attachment L-1 Size, Scope, and Complexity Supplemental has been revised to add information, and to clarify requirements for CLINs 2.1 – CLIN

2.12. as follows:

Number of work requests approved by the government (configuration changes, software/hardware modifications, adaptations, patches/releases, baseline changes) – configuration setting changes average 25 per

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

Number of Engineering Changes implemented

Number of user/customer/client requests (other than PTRs and ECs)

Number of tickets opened by the contractor in the En Route and Oceanic Support Ticketing System

Number of SLE tickets opened by the contractor in AIMS

Number of tickets escalated from first to second level

Number of new TFMS sites (10.2.2m)

10.2.3 System and Software Support

Number of ad-hoc problems resolved Number of CRs opened/closed Number of software releases and patches Number of site visits to TFMS required

10.2.4 Aeronautical Adaptation Data

Number of data sets to update Volume of adaptation data (no. data sets, size) to archive and maintain

10.2.5 Root Cause Analysis

Number of RCAs performed month and patches average 4 per year.

Number of PTRs implemented for 2016 – 181.

Number of Engineering Changes implemented

– average 2 per year.

Number of User/customer/client requests (other than PTRs and ECs) – average 25 per month.

Regarding the number of tickets opened by the contractor in the En Route and Oceanic Support Ticketing System, this is primarily used by external customers. The contractor will open SLE tickets in AIMS – relevant numbers are included in the count below.

Number of SLE tickets opened by the contractor in AIMS – average 30 per month.

Number of tickets escalated from first to second level – average 10 per month.

Number of Ad-hoc problems resolved – average 40 per year.

Number of Change Requests (CRs) opened/closed – 5 year average for open CRs is 830 and for closed CRs is 670.

Number of software releases and patches – average 4 per year.

Number of site visits to TFMS remote sites – average of 1 visit to 8 different sites per year (excluding the ATCSCC, DRC, and FAAHQ).

Number of RCAs performed – average 6 per year.

The FAA provides the following responses for the remaining elements of this industry request:

Number of new TFMS sites -- Section L.7.2 Government Pricing Guidance and Constraints has been revised to clarify this

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response requirement. There are no new remote sites planned.

In addition to the adaptation information provided in Attachments J-3.Q, R & S, the FAA added Attachment J-3.Z to provide the adaptation files.

4 C C.5.4 18 [Excerpt from SIR:] The contractor must plan and host a detailed design review for each release.

Please indicate if the contractor can implement a development methodology that uses incremental detailed design reviews.

The SIR does not prohibit incremental reviews.

However, if a schedule incentive is applicable, it will be tied to successful completion of the final increment – see the Detailed Design Review schedule incentive definition in Section H.10.3.a.

5 C C.3.4.2 11 Subsection indicates that the first PMR will be held per the date in Section F.4 K (Key Milestones).

Section F.4 first PMR date is listed as TBD.

Recommend "Within 90 DACA"

The requirement is within 90 DACA, Section F.4 has been updated to clarify this key milestone.

6 C & B C.9.1, C.9.2, C.9.3 & B-3 Appendix A.

C.22, C.23

Multiple subparagraphs indicate that the contractor is responsible for training conduct. Training conduct is mapped as part of CLINs 11.A, 11.B, and 11.C.

Please indicate the number of FAA personnel to be trained by location and/or the number of training sessions that should be planned by location.

The FAA has revised Section C.9 requirements to clarify this requirement; the contractor is responsible for the content but not responsible for directly training all TFMS users.

7 C & B C.10.3.1 B Tab B-3

33 Where should the offeror price costs for renewing the hardware maintenance and support agreements?

The SOW section 10.3.1, "Commercial Hardware Maintenance Services", makes no mention of renewing the support agreements for commercial hardware. Section B, Tab B-3, maps SOW section

10.3.1 to CLIN 6.

Can it be assumed that any hardware support renewal costs be reflected in CLIN 6 as an ODC?

Yet SOW section 10.3.2, "Commercial Software Maintenance Services", specifically mentions maintaining and keeping current software vendor

The FAA is not requesting pricing for HW Maintenance at this time. Section L.7. instructions for CLIN 3 states that pricing is required for commercial software only.

The B-3 SOW-CLIN mapping accurately depicts the government’s intent for both HW and SW requirements. The requirements have different pricing arrangements:

Commercial hardware maintenance logistics support, including renewal of necessary vendor support agreements, will be ordered under CLIN 6 as needed after award using T&M Task Order procedures.

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response support and license agreements.

Section B maps Software support services to CLIN

3. Also in the draft SIR, hardware and software vendor support costs were in CLIN 003.

Recommend having contractors price hardware vendor renewals in CLIN 003.

Section C.10.3.1 has been revised to resolve the inconsistency noted, and to clarify requirements for renewing HW vendor support agreements.

In support of simplified contract administration, the FAA has chosen to price and manage SW and HW requirements separately and will for this reason has not combined hardware and software support costs under CLIN 3

Although not adopting this recommendation, the FAA has considered all of industry’s comments and has adopted, in substance if not literally, many comments that improve competition while not sacrificing the FAA’s needs for this procurement.

8 C C.10.3.2 CLIN 3 (Recurring Commercial Software Cost) is massive effort to price and is information that the incumbent currently possesses. It is likely impossible under the current schedule to receive timely and competitive vendor quotes with such little ancillary data, and extremely risky to propose these software items as Firm Fixed Price.

Recommend Govt provide estimated values for CLIN 3 where the incumbent possesses data whereas competitors do not.

The FAA considered its requirements for this procurement, and the impact on the competitive environment and with this in mind has structured the SIR and accompanying information to support a robust competition. The FAA has considered industry’s comments and has adopted, in substance if not literally, those comments that improve competition while not sacrificing the FAA’s needs for this procurement.

Attachment J-4.B, TFMS Commercial Software List, has been revised to augment the product information details with specifics of version, support type and service level currently being provided.

CLIN 3 has been changed from FFP to CPFF.

Section B, and Attachment L-3 Tab A and Tab C, have been revised to reflect these changes.

9 C & J-4.B

C.10.3.2 All TFMS Commercial Software List doesn’t contain enough details about the product for Offerors to obtain accurate quotes. Missing details include, but not limited to, version/release number, product identification or reference number, and service level (e.g., GoDaddy).

The FAA considered its requirements for this procurement, and the impact on the competitive environment and with this in mind has structured the SIR and accompanying information to support a robust competition. The FAA has considered industry’s comments and has adopted, in substance if not literally, those comments that

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

There are also ambiguities like the same product listed twice with different quantities (e.g., Tripwire:

1-4 Processors).

Please provide more details on each product and clear ambiguities.

As an alternative, would the government consider providing a “plug” number rather than requesting a quote from the Offeror considering that the Commercial Software List will most likely change over the 12-year duration of the contract.

improve competition while not sacrificing the FAA’s needs for this procurement.

The FAA has revised Section J-4.B to provide additional details. The revised document now includes columns that identify version, service level, and support type for each product. The FAA also resorted the list to group identical products side-by-side and added notes.

To provide offerors greater flexibility in their response, the FAA deleted the requirement to complete Tab C of the L-3 Cost-Price Workbook.

The cost-price evaluation will be based on details Offerors provide in response to the other parts of the Volume III. Offerors may propose combining renewals of license/support for identical products.

Section L.7.2 Pricing Guidance has been revised to clarify instructions for CLIN 3.

10 C & J-4.B

C.10.3.2 J-4.B is a list of commercial software items. The list does not include any TFMS data services. Where are the costs for data services such as these described?

[Recommendation:] Include any TFMS data services in J-4.B.

J-4.B will not be changed to include data services, this list is intended to only include recurring costs for commercial SW license and/or maintenance agreements. Costs for data services/subscriptions must be included under CLIN 2. The requirement for data subscriptions is included in Section C.10.2.2.u and referenced in Section B-3 CLIN mapping.

11 C & J-4.B

C.10.3.2 The VMware vSphere Enterprise (line item #163) license requested went End of Life as of 6/30/16 and is no longer available for purchase. I would also like to verify that new licenses are being purchased for line items 164-167. Gold and Platinum were options for support, in the last 5 years VMware has moved to Production and Basic.

Please confirm if you just need the support or the licenses as well.

The FAA has revised Attachment J-4 .B to address this concern.

The FAA is aware that certain VMWare products are no longer available for future purchase, however the government has obtained market information that indicates “VMware will continue to support versions listed on lines 164 -167 through the "published product lifecycle" support period (March 2020 according to the vendor website).

The FAA requires continued support with the current license unless, and/or until the vendor no longer provides product support.

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

12 C C.11.2 CLIN 9 (Remote Site Technical Refresh) is a massive effort to price and is information that the incumbent currently possesses. It is likely impossible under the current schedule to receive timely and competitive vendor quotes with such little ancillary data, and extremely risky to propose these hardware items as Firm Fixed Price.

Recommend Govt provide estimated value for CLIN 9A where the incumbent possesses data whereas competitors do not.

The Government has considered industry’s concerns which primarily center around the time to respond and the government has agreed to allow for additional time for proposal preparation (see response to comment 34 on proposal due date extension).

The FAA has looked into industry’s concern with ancillary data and given the extra time to respond, considers the existing information adequate to prepare a competitive proposal, e.g. J-4.A, Site Equipment List, and Tab 3 Remote Site Equipment, The FAA considered industry’s concern for risk of pricing CLIN 9A but notes to industry that industry references CLIN 9A as FFP but it is in fact, CPIF.

Given the extra time to respond, and considering that the required products are readily available commercial commodities with low risk of significant cost increase, the FAA determines that CPIF minimizes risk to the contractor while it also serves well in the interest of the agency to meet cost and schedule objectives.

13 C

C.11.2

[Excerpt from SIR]:” The contractor must provide all required services and support for equipment and component updates to all commercial hardware (e.g. workstations, servers, switches/routers, printers) and commercial software components (e.g.

operating system) at all TRS locations, listed in Section F.5.1 Tables F.5-2, F.5-3, and F.5-4 as directed by the Government and per 1st Level maintenance authorization (excludes the technical refresh of large displays covered under C.11.1) The Contractor must integrate all refreshed commercial hardware and software components with the TFMS custom software applications to ensure compatibility (significant changes to user interface capabilities are outside the scope of tech refresh). See Attachment J- 4.A, Site Equipment List, tab “3 -

The FAA has considered industry’s comments and has made the below changes, to improve competition while at the same time not sacrificing the FAA’s needs for this procurement.

The FAA has revised Sections B.9 (Tab B-2), C.11.2 and L.7.2 to clarify that DSP equipment is excluded from the scope of CLIN 9.A Remote Site Technical Refresh. The FAA has also edited the reference to J-4.A Tab 3 in C.11.2 and L.7.2 to clarify requirements for equipment to be replaced at TFMS remote sites.

Further, additional equipment required, but not shown on J-4.A Tab 3, has been added to C.11.2 and L-7.2.

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

B

Tab B-2

Remote Site Equipment” for information on the current inventory.”

Much of the equipment included in Attachment J- 4.A Site Equipment List, Tab 3, is already end of life or will be end of life by the completion milestone for CLIN 9.A. In order to meet the functional and performance requirements of TFMS, this equipment should be replaced with equipment and software currently supported by commercial vendors. In order to provide a detailed estimate of the equipment and software required to refresh the current baseline of equipment with modernized components, it is necessary to clearly identify how each product listed relates to the hardware configurations (HCWIs) and related specifications included in Attachment J-3.I Hardware Architecture Document (HAD) for Traffic Flow Management- Modernization and J.3.K Departure Spacing Program (DSP) Sustainment Hardware Architecture Document for Traffic Flow Management- Modernization.

[Excerpt from SIR:] CLIN 9 -- Remote Site Technical Refresh (CPIF) CLIN 9.A and 9.B comprises all required products and services for technical refresh of all TFMS Remote Sites to replace/update commercial HW and SW components in accordance with the SOW.

We recommend the attachments to be updated to include a mapping of each product to be refreshed in J-4.A to the HWCI documented in the GFI to enable non-incumbent bidders to propose a cost effective refreshed remote site infrastructure that meets TFMS2 functional and performance requirements.

Attachments J-3.H, Subsystem Design Document (S/SDD), and J-3.I, Hardware Architecture Document (HAD), provide substantial details on remote site Hardware Configuration Items (HWCI). The HAD has specific information on product make and model numbers which correspond with the make and model information provided in J-4.A Tab 3.

14 C & J- 4A

C.11.2 [Excerpt from SIR:] The contractor must provide all required services and support for equipment and component updates to all commercial hardware (e.g. workstations, servers, switches/routers, DSP equipment is excluded from scope of remote site refresh. The FAA has clarified C.11.2 and the pricing guidance in L.7.2 for CLIN 9A accordingly.

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response printers) and commercial software components (e.g.

operating system) at all TRS locations, listed in Section F.5.1 Tables F.5-2, F.5-3, and F.5-4 as directed by the Government and per 1st Level maintenance authorization (excludes the technical refresh of large displays covered under C.11.1) The Contractor must integrate all refreshed commercial hardware and software components with the TFMS custom software applications to ensure compatibility (significant changes to user interface capabilities are outside the scope of tech refresh). See Attachment J- 4.A, Site Equipment List, tab “3 - Remote Site Equipment” for information on the current inventory.

J-4A TFMS Site Equipment List Tab 3 does not include all of the equipment listed for each site that is included in the other tabs in Attachment J-4.A.

For example, for Site LGA tab 3 does not include the following equipment which is listed in the noted tabs as located at the site:

Tab 15: DSP Hardware

SWITCH 2015dn, SN: FOC1237U3Y1 , Asset Tag: 80048437520000002607

WORKSTATION 3825, SN: 2UA8321404,

Asset Tag: 80048437520000002417

WORKSTATION WS-C2960G-24TC-L, SN:

2UA83213YS, Asset Tag:

80048437520000002428

Should bidders plan to refresh only the equipment types and quantities listed in Tab 3, or should they include costs for site equipment identified in other tabs but not included in the summary quantities in Tab 3?

Further, additional equipment required, but not shown on J-4.A Tab 3, has been added to C.11.2 and L-7.2.

15 F Table F.3-1 3 Table F.3-1 shows the Base Period as starting at CA and ending at 48 MAC. Table F.3-2 shows CLINs with POP 43 MACA to 54 MACA.

Please clarify whether the Base Period should be

No, the contract base period is accurately depicted in Table F.3-1 as ending 48 MACA. The Periods of Performance (POPs) for each CLIN are unique and separate from the contract periods of performance as explained in Section F.3.2.

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response through 54 MACA.

16 F Table F.3-2 3-6 CLIN001 1st level support shows optional in the base period but not in the option periods.

[Recommendation:] Require pricing for all years.

All CLINs in an option period are optional.

However, the government discovered Table F.3-2 and Section B.8.2 (Tab B-1) were not consistent in use of “optional” and has added this word to every CLIN within every Option Period in Table F.3.2.

No change is required to address Industry recommendation to require pricing for all years;

Offerors are required to submit pricing for each CLIN (1.1 through 1.12) as instructed in Section L, and identified in Attachment L-3 Cost/Price Workbook.

17 F F.4 7 Contract Transition Plan acceptance is listed as 75 DACA. Does the FAA intend to wait this long for a plan given the 180 day CLIN 5A PoP?

[Recommendation:] Make Transition Plan due 10 DACA (as in draft). Make approval 45 DACA.

Time consideration for a potential non-incumbent awardee, was the basis for this length of time. The FAA used 75 DACA as the maximum time possible without program schedule risk implications.

CDRL M07 Contract Transition Plan (Block 16) identifies interim submission due dates leading up to final Government acceptance.

18 F & J- 4.A

F.5 9 There are 3 sites that are listed in Attachment J-4.A, Tab 3 that are NOT identified in Section F.5 as places of performance.

Please identify the sites indicated by VINT, MMU, and S56.

Section F.5 has been updated to resolve the inadvertent discrepancy.

Section F.5 has also been revised as follows:

Clarified ATCSCC (DCC) is a.k.a. VINT (Vint

Hill).

Added Morristown Municipal Airport, ATCT

(MMU)

Changed Salt Lake City TRACON ID from SLC to S56.

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

19 H H.2 2 Recommend including a commitment requirement of 12 months to ensure leadership consistency.

AMS Clause 3.8.2-17 includes the following requirements:

(b) Prior to removing, replacing, or diverting any of the specified personnel and/or facilities, the Contractor shall notify in writing, and receive consent from, the Contracting Officer reasonably in advance of the action and shall submit justification (including proposed substitutions) in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the impact on this contract.

(c) No diversion shall be made by the Contractor without the written consent of the Contracting Officer.

The FAA finds the noted AMS provisions are adequate.

20 H H.2 2 The key personnel title and labor category name are different in Section H then J-7.

Operations Manager in Section H seems to be equivalent to Operations & Maintenance Manager in J-7 description. Which is correct?

[Recommendation:] Change J-7 to be Operations and Maintenance Manager

The title in Section H has been changed to “Operations Manager” to resolve the discrepancy.

21 J-5, E07-

CDRL

Block 13 1 Block 13 reflects "Final" as 60 DA WSAT completion. However, the prerequisite (traceability) system documents all state 60 DA KSAT.

Modify E07 DID to be consistent with other "E" DIDs (SSS, IRS, SSDD, HAD, SDD, DBDD, ICD) for "final" as 60 DA KSAT.

The FAA agrees with the recommendation, CDRL E07 has been revised to incorporate the change.

22 J-6.A 3.1.4.4.3 & 3.1.4.4.4

26-27 Two TFDM-TFMS requirements have the same exact SSD identifier (FA-SSD542). This is an issue for requirement traceability.

The FAA agrees with the comment; Attachment J- 6.A has been revised to incorporation the correction. This discrepancy has been corrected in revised SSD dated 8/19/2016.

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

[Recommendation:] Change one of the requirement's unique identifiers to be unique (other than FA-SSD542: e.g., possibly FA-SSD1011).

23 J-6.A 1.1.1.2 3 Is it a valid assumption that the SSA Display would be deployed to every CONUS TFMS Remote Site (TRS) with currently deployed TFMS hardware?

Recommending deploying to every remote site with TFMS hardware.

Yes, industry’s assumption is consistent with the FAA’s intent to minimize the number of different configurations.

24 J-6.A 1.1.1.2 3 Will the TFMS SSA display be required to be deployed to any towers that are not currently designated as TFM Remote Sites (TRSs)?

If so, can the FAA provide an approximate number of those towers and their locations?

No, the contractor will only be required to deploy TFMS SSA displays under this contract at TFMS locations identified in Section F.

25 J-6.A 1.1;

1.1.1.3.1;

3.1.1.1

1; 4; 9-

The SSD implies that TFMS will obtain data directly from ASDE-X, ASSC, and STARS. It does not identify STDDS.

Is it implied that TFMS must obtain data directly from airport or TRACON locations that have ASDE- X and/or ASSC and/or STARS that have not yet been STDDS subsumed?

Or can we assume that TFMS will only acquire surface data from STDDS subscriptions?

Recommend indicating that TFMS will only acquire surface data from STDDS subscriptions.

No, the Offeror must not assume that any method is implied. Attachment J-6A identifies the current sources of the data only, not the method of obtaining it.

In addition, Attachment J-2.E, Interface Requirements Specification, section 3.37 provides information on existing TFMS connections to some STDDS services, however surface data may not be limited to this source, therefore the government will not accept industry's recommendation to mandate the method for acquiring surface data -- Offerors must propose the method(s).

The FAA updated Subfactor 3B in Sections L&M to further clarify the FAA’s expectations for the offerors proposal response to this subfactor.

26 J-6.A 1.1.1 1 Testing between the TFMS and TFDM vendor will be required. Can the FAA provide a target schedule for the TFDM Build 1 Test Cycle?

[Recommendation:] Provide TFDM contract Build schedule.

The FAA has provided the target Ready for Operations (RO) key milestone date of Release 1 and typical release timeline in Section F.4. The FAA will not provide additional schedule information.

27 J-6.A 3.1 Is it implied that TFMS must meet infrastructure/ performance TFMS or TFDM requirements in the specification (e.g., for design workload, data

The CLIN 11.A solution must ensure the TFMS continues to meet the existing minimum performance requirements as defined in the J-2

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response archival, etc.); or is the expectation that TFMS only meet those requirements that are specifically identified in the TFDM-TFMS FA-SSD specification?

Recommend FAA identify whether we are required to maintain a 14/365 day archive for surface data, or if that will be the responsibility of the source interface system (e.g., STDDS, TFDM)" attachments and must also meet the TFDM performance requirements in J-6.A

FAA added the following to the pricing guidance in L.7.2 for CLIN 11.A, “The offeror should assume incoming surface data is not be retained beyond 14 days in the TFMS archive.”

28 J-6.A 3.1.1.1 9 A requirement specifying where TFMS will obtain airport layout adaptation data is not specified. Will the FAA provide this direction? (e.g., will it be from Airport GIS program?)

[Recommendation:] Provide access to Airport GIS program.

FAA added the following to the pricing guidance in L.7.2 for CLIN 11.A, “The offeror should assume the FAA will provide ASDE-X airport layout map data as GFI in XML format.”

29 J-6.A 3.1.1.1 9, 10 When will the FAA provide the GFI ICD specifications for STDDS, ASSC, and ASDE-X?

[Recommendation:] Provide as part of SIR amendment.

The FAA has revised to the SIR to add the following attachments:

J-3.U STDDS Airport Data Service (APDS)

Java Messaging Service Description Document

(JMSDD).

J-3.V STDDS Surface Movement Event Service (SMES) JMSDD

J-3.W STDDS Tower Departure Event Service

(TDES) JMSDD

J-3.X STDDS Web Service Requirements Document.

J-3.Y ASDE-X Data Distribution to End Users

ICD.

JMSDD is equivalent to an ICD. An ICD for ASSC has not been baselined yet but is not needed since the messages are the same as ASDE-X.

30 J-6.A 3.1.4.1.1 14 Will the FAA provide the FAA Design Standard FAA-E-2493, National Airspace System (NAS) Visual Specification for Airport Surface Applications (VSASA), Sections 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.2?

[Recommendation:] Provide FAA-E-2493 as part of SIR amendment.

FAA accepts Industry’s recommendation and has added the requested information as Attachment J- 3.T.

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

31 J-7 & L-

In J-7 Junior labor Categories are used as a Title but in L-3 equivalent Labor Categories, Entry is used as the title. Same for Immediate and Mid labor Categories.

[Recommendation:] The labor category names in the two documents need to match so no assumptions are made by contractors.

FAA accepts Industry’s recommendation and has revised Attachment L-3 Tab D “Entry” to “Junior” and “Mid” to “Intermediate” as to be consistent with J-7.

32 J-7 & L-

J-7 Junior labor categories requires 2 years experience but in L-3 the labor category name is "Entry". Entry level labor categories would imply no years of experience.

[Recommendation:] Need to be consistent.

Recommend allowing no years experience for Junior/Entry so able to hire college graduates.

FAA has considered Industry’s recommendation however does not agree.

Given that the TFMS is used to perform NAS efficiency-critical functions; it is in the interest of minimizing risk that the FAA requires candidates in this category have some work experience.

33 J-9 2.1 1 Requirements state that the contractor will develop TFDM Build 1 to conform with the J6 TFDM spec dated July 29, 2015. However, SIR attachment is dated February 10, 2016.

[Recommendation:] Modify J9 Task Order reference February 10, 2016.

The FAA agrees with Industry’s recommendation;

J-9 has been revised to incorporate the change.

34 L L.3 10 There were significant changes to the Technical and Management Volume and Past Performance Volumes. It is surprising that given the number and complexity of the changes only 43 days were allocated for proposal development. The incumbent has a significant advantage in responding to these changes due to their intimate knowledge of the TFMS and its components. The predecessor contract, TFMM, allowed for 90 days to respond.

Recommend the Government follow a traditional procurement timeline for proposal preparation (i.e., 90 days).

The FAA considered its requirements for this procurement, and the impact on the competitive environment and with this in mind has structured the SIR and accompanying information to support a robust competition. The FAA considered 6 weeks to be a reasonable time for proposal preparation given the amount of advance information that has been provided to industry. In addition to the October 10, 2014 Draft SIR, the FAA has released GFI information incrementally beginning in January 2016.

FAA notified industry of its intent to use the 6 week timeline in Section L.2.1 of the draft SIR; there were no comments from industry challenging this timeline until after the RFO was released.

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

However, the FAA has considered industry’s comments and agrees to an extension to improve competition while not sacrificing the FAA’s needs for this procurement.

Section L.3 has been updated to reflect a revised proposal due date.

35 L L.4.3.4 14 Section states that all pages in all volumes are to be 8.5” by 11”. Paragraph 2 of the same section states that foldouts may be used for paper size up to 11” by 17”, and must be secured within the binder and that charts, figures, or tables may be in printed in either portrait, or landscape orientation. Is it intended that we use landscape and portrait orientation for 8.5” by 11” AND 11” by 17” pages within all volumes as necessary?

[Recommendation:] Allow the use of 8.5x11 as well as 11x17 pages in all volumes

FAA agrees and has revised Section L to correct the inadvertent discrepancy.

Offerors may use a combination of 8.5 by 11 or 11 by 17 pages per page count limitations as identified in Section L.

Section L has also been revised to clarify the use of figure/chart orientation. The SIR provides that if a chart, figure, or table covers a complete 8.5” by 11” page, then the page may be printed in landscape orientation. In addition, the SIR identifies that all 11” by 17” pages must be printed in landscape format.

36 L L.4.3.4 14 Section states that charts, figures, or tables may be printed in either portrait, or landscape orientation, and will be counted against page count limits. The font size for these inserts must not be less than 10 point. Is Arial Narrow considered an acceptable font type for charts, figures, or tables?

[Recommendation:] Allow Arial Narrow for charts, figures and tables.

The FAA does not agree with this recommendation, the Offeror must comply with font and format requirements as identified in Section L.

4.3.4.

37 L & M L.5.6, M.6.2

Factors that reduce a bidder’s ability to provide a competitive proposal and for the FAA to conduct a meaningful evaluation against the SOW include:

Factor 1 (Operations and Maintenance) and

Factor 2 (Security) are the most heavily weighted factors and they are the areas that require the most insight and domain knowledge which favors the incumbent contractor.

Factor 3 (Engineering, Development, Test and

The FAA considered its requirements for this procurement, and the impact on the competitive environment and with this in mind has structured the SIR and accompanying information to support a robust competition. As written, the technical factors' relative importance structure is aligned with the agency's best interest.

The FAA considered that while the development requirements may potentially exceed operational requirements in terms of cost, the need to ensure

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

Implementation) has been reduced in significance, yet CLIN 11 (TFMS Development and Future Enhancements) accounts for an overwhelming portion of the TFMS efforts and cost.

the system continues to meet its current mission efficiency-critical requirements is more important than adding enhancements. The Factor(s) relative importance structure is aligned with this determination.

Although not adopting this recommendation, the FAA has considered all of industry’s comments and has adopted, in substance if not literally, many comments that improve competition while not sacrificing the FAA’s needs for this procurement.

38 L L.5.6.4 20 SIR request resumes for key personnel but no restriction on page count of individual resumes or where they should be located in the SIR response.

Recommend Key Personnel resumes be outside of response page count and be submitted as an Appendix to the Volume vice embedded in the narrative text.

Offerors must comply with the page limit of 225 for Volume I as identified in Table L.4.1; only Parts A- Table of Contents, and B-Abbreviations and Acronyms are excluded from this limitation.

The FAA has considered requirements and information requested for Volume I resumes supporting Factor 4, Sub Factor A- Program Management and Key Personnel and determined 225 as a reasonable limit for the volume.

39 L & H L.5.6.4 H.2

The Final SIR adds three more Key Personnel (from four to seven). The Draft SIR stated that only four Key Personnel would be evaluated and additional Key Personnel would NOT be evaluated. The Final SIR contradicts that approach and in fact allows for seven or more Key Personnel. This favors the incumbent because they already have personnel in place for the new positions.

The FAA has considered comments and industry input since release of the Draft SIR/RFI and believe it has been used collectively to improve the quality of the final SIR/RFO.

The three positions that were added since the draft SIR/RFI are: System Engineering Manager, Software Engineering Manager, and Aeronautical Adaptation Data Lead.

For the selection of Key Personnel positions, the FAA considered which roles are most critical for program success. The FAA determined the three additions are very important to maintaining current system performance as well as implementing enhancements efficiently and effectively. The FAA determined the additional key positions are appropriate for the SIR requirements. Including these roles in the evaluation provides the Government with the ability to factor this into the

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response selection decision.

The FAA has also considered the competitive environment and intends to conduct a robust procurement. Given the proposal due date extension (see response to question 34), vendors will have adequate opportunity to obtain the necessary resources to support this procurement.

40 L, L-1, M

L.6, M.6.3 A significant change in the relevant past performance. “Relevant” relates to services performed for the government or private industry customers of essentially similar size, scope, and complexity as compared to the requirements of this SIR (see Section L Attachment L-1, TFMS Size, Scope and Complexity) where the size of the system is given at 3,781,585 DSI’s.

We believe that using DSI’s as a criteria for size is not reflective of a potential contract reference’s true relevance to TFMS. This places any competitor at a disadvantage due to our inability to cite what we consider to be highly relevant references.

Section L-1 defines size, scope, and complexity based upon very specific FAA-type criteria. Lines of code (or DSI’s) are not really relevant in today’s software development environment. Further, if O&M and Security are the highest evaluated Factors (according to SIR Section M), then why is the past performance “size” determined by a development criteria (i.e., lines of code).

Recommend making the past performance criteria more aligned with the evaluation criteria; promote more O&M capabilities and delete the DSI reference. Redefine scope and complexity in past performance to be broader mission-critical systems.

The FAA has considered comments and industry input since release of the Draft SIR/RFI and believes the feedback has been used collectively to improve the quality of the final SIR/RFO. The Past Performance evaluation was improved in the RFO by simplifying the evaluation requirements and approach from what was in the Draft SIR/RFI, which also simplified the proposal development for offerors.

L-1 was not intended to limit the understanding of size, scope and complexity for Past Performance examples, e.g., lines of code. To clarify this, the FAA renamed L-1 as Size, Scope and Complexity Supplemental and also revised language in Section L’s Past Performance to make it clear that L-1 is intended to assist Offeror’s in choosing their past performance examples, but does not limit them.

The FAA also provided more information in L-1 regarding O&M information requested in comments #2 & 3.

41 L & M L.6.1

“Recent” means that the past performance must have been completed within the last three years of the date of proposal submission.

FAA agrees and has revised Section L.6.1 to correct the inadvertent discrepancy.

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

M.6.3 11 “Recent” means that the instance of relevant past performance must have been performed for more than the last 12 consecutive months, or completed within the last three years of the proposal submission.

The definitions for “Recent” are different between Final SIR Sections L and M. The Section L definition implies that current contracts are not considered “Recent”. Please clarify the definition for “Recent”.

42 L L.7 Only the first three releases (11.A, 11.B, 11.C) can be priced; all of the remaining releases use government provided costs. This removes a major ability of a competitor to offer a more cost-competitive proposal and to propose cost-efficiencies.

Future release capabilities beyond Release 3 (CLIN 11.C) are not yet defined and prioritized.

43 L & J-3.I L.7.2, CLIN

5.A

24 [Excerpt from SIR:] The Offeror must include all costs associated with the any equipment, material or property needed to facilitate transition, e.g., adequate platforms for development, test and implementation activities.

The J-3.I Hardware Architecture Document Section

3.2 lab diagrams are not sufficiently detailed to assess processing capacity and equipment capacity, nor location. Please provide the full set of equipment, software licenses, and locations for existing FAA owned laboratory assets that can be included as part of the transition plan.

In addition to assets in FAA facilities, FAA-owned assets at the current contractor ‘s location will be transferred to the new contract. For a list of these HWCI quantities, please see: Table D-1, columns labeled STIF, SST and SST2; and Table E-1 rows labeled STIF.

Offerors should assume all software and licenses, listed in J-4.B, needed for the equipment to operate will also be transferred to the new contract. Section L.7.2 has been revised to clarify pricing guidance for CLIN 5A.

44 L L.7.3.1.6 28 Section L.7.3.1.6 cost/price data detail, Detailed cost/price data by labor categories, labor-hours, cost elements, including all direct and indirect costs, and fee that equate to the price by CLIN and correspond to the lowest applicable level of the Program Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) as identified in Section J-8, and display the information in monthly increments for each CLIN period of performance.

With FAA asking for price data by cost element by

The FAA has considered Industry’s comment, and while the FAA appreciates the concern regarding the volume of proposal information required, the information is necessary for evaluation and the FAA is not able to remove the monthly breakdown requirement entirely.

To address Industry’s concern, FAA has excluded CLINs from this requirement, where it was not necessary for evaluation. This allows for some relief for the Offerors while providing the necessary

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response month for each WBS for prime and subcontract, the amount of data will be overwhelming. The BOE requirements is be organized by CLIN and WBS, not by month.

Recommend removing the by month requirement because it adds complexity both for the generation and evaluation of the pricing data.

information for cost/price proposal evaluation.

As such, Section L has been revised to limit this requirement to the following CLINs only: 5,A, 9.A, 11.A, 11.B and 11.C

45 L L.9.5 Part E

33 Section L.9.5 Part E – Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Issues says Offerors must review FAA contract clause 3.1.7-2 and provide information on potential OCIs. Section I.1 references FAA contract clauses 3.1.7-2, 3.1.7-4, and 3.1.7-5.

Neither Section L.9.5 nor the FAA contract clauses specifically state that an OCI Mitigation Plan is required with the proposal if potential OCIs are identified, despite clause 3.1.7-4 being named “Organizational Conflict of Interest – Mitigation Plan Required.” Please clarify whether an OCI Mitigation Plan is required with the proposal if the Offeror identifies potential OCIs. If a Plan is required, please specify the specific elements that an OCI Mitigation Plan must address.

Submission of an OCI mitigation plan is not required with the Offeror’s proposal in response to the SIR. If, within the proposal, the vendor identities a potential OCI, the FAA may request a mitigation plan of them later. For SIR response, please refer to clause 3.1.7-4 section (d) and clause 3.1.7-5, sections (a) (b) & (c) on what to provide to the FAA.

46 L-3 Tab B Given the Governments required cost formats as outlined in the L-3 TFM2 Cost-Price Workbook, specifically the Tab B Cost CLIN Summaries, and the requirement for subcontractors to provide the same level of cost detail as Prime Contractors, how shall the Prime propose T&M type subcontracts as part of the Primes CPFF or CPIF CLINs? Does the Government require all contractors, Prime as well as subcontractors, to be proposed as CPFF or CPIF under these CLINs?

[Recommendation:] Allow Prime contractors to propose T&M type subcontractors for cost plus work and not require subcontractors the same level of cost detail.

The FAA increased offeror flexibility by adding, “If subcontract type is cost reimbursement,” to last sentence of all Tab B instructions (“Offeror's subcontractors are also required to use this summary template if submitting their cost separately from the Prime”).

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response

47 L-3 Tab B The columns in CLINs 9A and 11 don't match the rest of the Cost CLINS. Specifically, CLINS 9A and 11 include a column called "Direct/Subcontractor Labor", while the other Cost CLINs appropriately ask for just "Direct Labor"

Request that the Govt update CLINs 9A and 11 to match the format of the other CLINs.

Tab B sheets for CLINs 9 and 11 have been corrected to remove the “Direct/Subcontractor Labor” column.

48 L-3 Tab D Only 28 of the 37 labor categories that are listed in J-7 are represented in the J-3 workbook. Does the FAA intend to limit T&M levels to these 28?

[Recommendation:] Include all 37 labor categories to be priced for T&M.

The FAA did not intend to limit T&M labor categories those listed in Attachment L-3 Tab D and agrees with the recommendation. The additional categories in J-7 have been added to L-3 (except for Aeronautical Adaptation Lead which is equivalent to senior software engineer) to resolve the discrepancy.

L-3 is strictly for proposal evaluation purposes and is not applicable post-award. L-3 Tab D instructions have been revised to clarify the government’s intent.

Also see the note at bottom of J-7, “This is not an all-inclusive list of potentially acceptable labor categories.” Offeror wishing to propose different category titles must either map them to the equivalent titles provided by the FAA or clearly indicated proposed additions.

49 L-3 Workbook instructions say that Offerors must not add columns.

Request that the Govt allow Offerors to insert columns to facilitate contractors populating the workbook according to their disclosed accounting structures.

Attachment L-3 Summary worksheet is a mandatory template. Offerors must provide all of the information requested in the summary worksheet for evaluation purposes.

The FAA has already provided flexibility by allowing Offerors to use their own format for the detail documentation that must accompany the summary worksheet in accordance with Section L.7.3.1.6.

In an effort to provide additional flexibility, the FAA will allow additional columns, but not in lieu of required information -- existing columns must not

Paragraph or Sub-section #

Page Questions, Comments & Recommendations FAA Response be changed, or deleted. Attachment L-3 has been revised to reflect this change.

50 L-4 All Tabs All tabs contain "Clin 1" in the Header.

Update tab headers to correspond to the CLIN addressed in that tab.

FAA has considered industry comment and agrees, correction is reflected in L-4.

51 L-4 Tab L-4

CLIN 3

Matrix

Row 1 Instructions State "Offerors must add and complete a separate table/sheet for each corresponding CLIN (3.1 through 3.12) L-3 TAB C CLIN Sheet…