EPICS Draft SIR Comment Response Matrix_final.pdf

Vendor Comments and FAA Responses to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Enterprise Programs, Infrastructure, and Communications Services (EPICS)

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response

1.

B-1 B.5.1 1) T&M Ceiling

Rates To allow bidders adequate time to prepare the required information, please provide the described attachment J-1 Labor Rate Tables.

Attachment J-1, titled "Labor Categories and Rates", will include the winning Offeror's labor categories and rates upon contract award. Attachment L-1 contains cells for Offerors to identify their proposed labor rates for each labor category for each contract year.

Attachment L-1 is being released with the final SIR.

2.

B-2 B.5.1 3) Geographic

Area

Please provide the expectation of the potential locations for non-Washington DC work and the percentage of work performed at each of the non- DC work locations. This is needed to develop labor rates that reflect local cost conditions.

The current breakout percentage between DC and non-DC geographic areas is approximately 60/40 respectively with the majority of non-DC work occurring in the Egg Harbor, N.J., area. This breakout is expected to continue under EPICS.

3.

B-3 B.5.1 6) Materials

(T&M TOs) Paragraph 3)

It is requested that fee be allowed for “subcontracts for incidental services for which no labor category is specified in the contract” in item 1) b) under B.5.1 Paragraph 6. This is consistent with the allowance of fee for subcontracted labor services for specified labor categories. It also compensates for the effort required and risk incurred to manage and oversee subcontracted efforts.

Item 3 within Section B.5.1 (6) has been updated in the final SIR to state that no fee or profit is allowed for materials, except on subcontracted labor.

4.

C-4 C.1.1 Objective

Does the FAA expect other FAA groups to obtain support through this contract?

The EPICS contracts are intended to support the organizations identified in the SOW and will not be used as an Agency-wide ordering vehicle.

5.

C-4 C.1.1 Objective

The EPICS contract is stated to provide the primary technical support to the CINP group. It is understood that this contract will also provide support to DataComm. Is this the primary support for DataComm? If so, please provide additional clarification of the type of support required.

Support to the Data Comm program is covered within the scope of the EPICS Statement of Work. The FAA intends for EPICS to be primary source of support services to the Data Comm program.

Specifically, current support includes:

Systems Engineering and Integration, Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response

Acquisition, Operational and Avionics Planning and Analysis, Trials, and Training, Standards and Procedures Support, Airplane Flight Deck SME Support, Avionics Interoperability Testing, Avionics Interoperability Support, Program Control Support, FAA Flight Standards Support, and Risk Management Support.

6.

C-5 C.1.3 Scope Should the NAS Voice Systems Group/Program name in CINP & Data Communications programs and initiatives (Section C.1.3 Scope) be renamed to Voice Switch & Recording (VS&R) with NVS listed as a system/network in the corresponding row?

No, NAS Voice Systems is the correct Group/Program name. Section C.1.3 has been updated in the final SIR to indicate that one of the programs under NAS Voice Systems is NAS Voice Switching and Recording Systems.

7.

C-20 C.3.2.9 Configuration

Management The last bullet says “Provide executive support for CCBs.” Does FAA want executive support or administrative support?

Section C.3.2.9 has been updated in the final SIR to indicate that the Contractor must provide administrative support and technical support appropriate to the changes under consideration.

8.

I-2, H-10 I.1, H-13 I.1, H-13 Section I references AMS clause 3.14-1, Security

Requirements. Does this mean that in execution the FAA will support the maintenance or acquisition of a security clearance when one is needed to perform tasking?

If there are specific security requirements for a task order, the contractor will be responsible for providing staff with the appropriate security clearance. The FAA does not support the maintenance and/or acquisition of vendor security clearances.

Paragraph H.30 has been added to the SIR to clarify the process.

9.

J-2.1 thru J- 2.18

J-2 Labor Category Descriptions

The J-2 Labor Category Descriptions do not accommodate senior-level experts. Request the FAA add an additional labor category level at the 25 + years of experience.

The current Subject Matter Expert/Consultant labor category Level 5 requires 21+ years of experience which is sufficient to support CINP requirements at that level. The Labor Categories will not be changed.

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response

10.

J-2.1 thru J-2.18

The section J-2 labor categories largely all have a top level that requires a bachelor’s degree and 16 or more years of experience. Would the FAA consider either adding a senior (21 plus year) experience level or providing all of the offerors the labor hour estimates eluded to elsewhere in the solicitation that will be used for price evaluation?

The minimum experience and education requirements for each senior/top level labor category in Attachment J-2 are in line with similar existing FAA and GSA contracts. Labor hour estimates are not relevant to minimum experience levels for a particular labor category.

11.

J-2.1 thru J-2.18

In the performance of the ECSS contract and other major engineering and program management support contracts for the FAA, it is our experience that the FAA is best served by having the ability to access senior professionals with experience across many complex and similar programs. This level of experience is generally provided by professionals with more than the 16 years of experience listed as a maximum on J-2. To eliminate any commercial impediments and allow FAA to access the most relevant senior professionals, we request the FAA modify labor category level 5 to reflect 16 to 20 years of experience and to add a level 6 with 21+ years of experience. This additional granularity provides the FAA with added flexibility to obtain the required resources at the appropriate experience levels.

The number of Years of Relevant Experience for the fifth level (highest) of each labor category is the minimum experience required, not the maximum.

The plus (+) means a person must have at least the number of years indicated or more to serve in the position. For example, a labor category that required 16+ years of relevant experience could be filled with someone with 22 years of relevant experience. Increasing the years of relevant experience to 21 years and beyond may unnecessarily limit the pool of available staff who have relevant experience to meet the FAA’s requirements.

12.

J-2 Labor Category

Descriptions If a Bachelor's Degree may be substituted for 4 years' experience, does that mean 4 years' experience also may be substituted for a Bachelor's Degree? Can the Government confirm that years of experience can be substituted for education?

No, the substitutions only apply in terms of undergraduate and advanced degrees substituting for years of experience. Years of experience cannot be applied as a substitute for the degree requirements.

13.

J-2 Labor Category

Descriptions The government indicated in the Draft SIR, "Master’s Degree in a related field may be substituted for a Bachelor's Degree and 3years’ experience"; it currently states, "PhD in a related field may be substituted for 7 years’ experience".

Will the government revise the language to read, Attachment J-2 has been updated in the final SIR to read, “A PhD in a related field may be substituted for a Bachelor’s Degree and 7 years’ experience.”

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response

"PhD in a related field may be substituted for a Bachelor's Degree and 7 years’ experience?"

14.

L-7 L.7 Number of

Awards Regarding the sentence “The FAA reserves the right to award a single contract or more than two contracts or not to make an award.” Is there a possibility the FAA may award more than two contracts?

Yes, if it is determined to be in the FAA’s best interest. Also See AMS clauses 3.2.4-25 and 3.2.4-26 in Section I.

15.

L-7 L.9 Non-Government

Personnel Participation

Indicates expected support from IT Strategy Inc.

Does this include subcontractors to IT Strategy Inc.? If so, who are the additional support subcontractors?

The SIR has been updated to state that ITstrategy subcontractors Trimurti Consulting and Cardinal Northstar Consulting may provide additional support.

16.

L-8 L.11 Participation on

Multiple Teams A key benefit to the government of having multiple teams on an IDIQ is that it provides a broader and more diverse contractor workforce (than a single award). Maintaining a competitive environment among those teams furthers those benefits by enabling the government to achieve best value throughout the period of performance. Allowing a contractor to participate on multiple teams effectively reduces the overall breadth and diversity of that workforce, makes the environment less competitive, and thus detracts from those key benefits to the government. We therefore ask that the government reconsider permitting the participation of contractors on multiple teams.

The FAA does not intend to restrict participation on multiple teams.

17.

L.8 L.11 Participation on

Multiple Teams Are Offerors required to declare if they are submitting their proposal for either the partial small business set-aside or unrestricted full and open portion of the contract award? There was a similar situation and precedence in the FAA’s ETASS procurement. The relevant SIR sections from the ETASS SIR: The FAA anticipates three (3) performance based contract awards resulting from one Screening Information Request (SIR); one (1)

Section L.11 has been updated in the final SIR to require Offerors to specify which portion of the EPICS requirement they are submitting a proposal against.

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response full and open competitive, one (1) small business set-aside and one (1) 8(a) set-aside. “In a cover letter, the Offeror must state what contract category they are bidding. The Offeror’s one proposal will be reviewed for the one, two, or three contract awards stated in the Offeror’s cover letter.”

18.

L.8 L.11 Participation on

Multiple Teams Will the FAA provide distinct solicitation numbers for the partial small business set-aside and unrestricted full and open portions of the EPICS contract awards? Providing distinct solicitation numbers would make the solicitation and contract awards more clear. During evaluation, the cover page would not be required to understand which award is being evaluated because distinct solicitation numbers would be included on each proposal page.

No. There will be one solicitation number and each awardee’s contract will have its own unique contract number. Section L.11 of the final SIR has been updated to require Offerors to specify which portion of the EPICS requirement they are submitting their proposal against.

19.

L-9 L.12 f) General

Instructions Can files be submitted in PDF format? No. Acceptable proposal files must be compatible with Microsoft Office 2010.

Acceptable file extensions are: MS Word

- .doc, .docx; MS Excel - .xls, .xlsx; and MS Powerpoint - .ppt, .pptx.

20.

L-10 L.12, Table

L-1 Proposal Volume Requirements

Would the FAA consider allowing the proposed key personnel resumes to be three pages in lieu of two pages?

Yes, Section L has been updated in the final SIR to increase the allowable length of each key personnel resume from two to three maximum pages.

21.

L-10 L.12, Table

L-1 Proposal volume requirements

Can the submission be provided via file transfer protocol (FTP), posting to an FAA Knowledge Sharing Network (KSN), or some other efficient means instead of submission via CD-ROM?

Section L has been updated in the final SIR to indicate that Offeror proposals must be submitted via a site within the FAA’s Knowledge Sharing Network (KSN) that has been established specifically for the EPICS source evaluation.

22.

L-11 L.13.1.1 Team

Qualifications, ● Team Capabilities

The awardees will support NAS operations across the FAA. Recommend the FAA include understanding of NextGen and NAS comms and

Factor 1, Team Qualifications, Sub-factor 1.1, Knowledge of FAA Operating Environment requires that Offerors

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response and Experience non-comm programs in evaluation criteria. demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the NAS and NextGen Programs.

23.

L-11 L.13.1.1 Team

Qualifications, Team Capabilities and Experience

In light of the size and complexity of the programs supported by this contract we request that proposers be required to detail their experience in NextGen / NAS programs.

Section C.1.3, Scope, provides a list of CINP and Data Comm programs and initiatives, including three NextGen (NVS, SWIM, and Data Comm) and a number of other NAS programs (e.g. FTI, NEXCOM, ASTI, etc.) that the contract must support. Section L.13.1.1 in part requires Offerors to “demonstrate their experience in delivering the full range and scope of services required.”

24.

L-11; M-

L.13.1.1;

M.5

L.13.1.1 Team Qualifications, ● Team Capabilities and Experience [Page L-11] and M.5 Volume 1 Technical Approach

Given the complexity and interdependency of the NAS and NextGen as well as the CINP and DataComm missions, we believe it is in FAA’s best interests to secure a contractor that has deep experience helping the FAA achieve NextGen objectives across communications and non-communications NAS programs. This deep experience and the resulting relationships with NAS program staff will greatly benefit CINP and DataComm where integration and collaboration are required to achieve mission success. We, therefore, respectfully request the following additions to Sections L and M to reflect this benefit.

Section L.13.1.1 TEAM QUALIFICATIONS under the Team Capabilities and Experience heading:

The Offerer must demonstrate their experience supporting a broad range of NAS and NextGen investment, acquisition, development and implementation programs and operational improvements, helping FAA achieve NextGen objectives through the integration and collaboration

The EPICS contract will serve to provide support first and foremost to the CINP and Data Comm organizations. As currently written, the EPICS SOW describes the support requirements for those organizations. Section L requires in part that “Each Offeror must describe its experience in delivering the full range and scope of services required. Each offeror must provide detailed examples supporting its team’s experience, including a description of the work performed and its relevance to the SOW, problems encountered, innovative and creative solutions applied, and significant accomplishments.” These specific instructions do not limit or in any way or restrict an Offeror’s ability to describe its relevant experience in delivering the full range and scope of EPICS services, including providing examples of their experience in supporting the NAS and NextGen programs. The SIR will not be

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response of communication and non-communication programs.

Section M.6.1 Volume I - Technical Approach Sub- Factor 1.2:

The degree to which the Offerer demonstrates their experience supporting a broad range of NAS and NextGen investment, acquisition, development and implementation programs and operational improvements, helping FAA achieve NextGen objectives through the integration and collaboration of communication and non-communication programs.

changed.

25.

L-12 L.13.1.1 Team

Qualifications, “Key Personnel”

Due to the criticality of continuity of service on EPICS, we recommend increasing the minimum commitment of Key Personnel on the resulting contract from 6 months to 1 year.

The Government considers the existing term to be reasonable.

26.

L-12 L.13.1.2 Problem

Statement Responses

The large weighting to the four problem statements via an oral presentation seems to unfairly advantage current performers and create a barrier to entry or at least limit competition. This is especially true when the very short fifteen day preparation period is considered. Would the FAA consider either replacing the oral response with a written response, or reducing the weighting of the oral presentations?

Oral presentations are key to determining how qualified an offeror is to perform the work, how well the offeror understands the work, and how the offeror will approach the work. It is important that an Offeror demonstrate a detailed understanding of the EPICS requirements and we have found that Oral presentations, in conjunction with written responses, are an important tool to evaluate that understanding. The FAA’s requirements will not be changed.

27.

L-12 L.13.1.2 Problem

Statement Responses Oral Presentation

– Schedule and Logistics

The requirement for a maximum of four presenters from the Offerors team for the oral presentation potentially limits our ability to showcase our small business team. Since the draft SIR requires the PM to be one of the four presenters, we request that the number of problem statements be reduced to

The limitation on presenters is a function of briefing space availability, but does not limit who the offeror chooses to make presentations. To allow for greater presentation across an offeror’s team, Section L.13.1.2 has been updated in the

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response paragraph 6) three? final SIR to increase the maximum number of Offeror participants from 4 to 5.

28.

L-12 L.13.1.2 Problem

Statement Responses Oral Presentation

– Schedule and Logistics

Due to the complexity and broad range of professional services offered in the contract, we request that one of the problem statement responses reflect the challenges assigned to the contractor PMO enabling the contractor to showcase their program management capabilities.

The Problem Statements will provide Offerors the opportunity to demonstrate their program management capabilities.

29.

L-12 L.13.1.2 Problem

Statement Responses

To provide the government with the most complete and responsive presentation to the problem statements, it will be important to have staff resources available during the problem statement response period with expertise in both the problem statement program area and the appropriate functional areas relative to the question. To ensure appropriate staff can be available, it is requested that the FAA release the sample problems with the release of the RFP. At a minimum request that sample problem topics be released with the Final RFP.

The Problem Statements will not be released with the Final SIR; however, the FAA is releasing the sample problem subject areas with the final SIR (see L.13.1.2) that are representative of the subject areas of the Problem Statements that will be issued after the release of the SIR and prior to the Oral Presentations.

30.

L-12 L.13.1.2 Problem

Statement Responses Oral Presentation

– Schedule and

Will the questions asked following the Orals Presentations be related to the Presentations, or will these be questions that could relate to all other CINP areas? If the FAA intends for the questions to be free form, then it seems particularly unrealistic that the depth and breadth of the team across the many complex CINP programs is fairly represented by 4 individuals. (Background: Last time, the FAA followed up Orals with questions that were NOT related to the Orals problems presented. This was not anticipated or made clear in the SIR instructions to Offerors on Orals.)

The FAA may ask questions to clarify information presented in the Offeror’s response to the Sample Problem. The scope of questions will be limited to the sample problem responses.

The FAA has updated the final SIR to increase the number of Offeror participants to five.

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response

31.

L-12 L.13.1.2 Problem

Statement Responses Oral Presentation

– Schedule and

Section L.13.1.2, Oral Presentations establishes the maximum number of presenters at 4. Would the FAA consider reducing the number of problem statements to three, allowing three technical experts and the PM as oral presenters?

Oral presentations are key to determining how qualified an offeror is to perform the work, how well the offeror understands the work, and how the offeror will approach the work.

The FAA believes that it is important that the problem statements reflect a broad spectrum of the SOW requirements and, as such, four problem statements were considered to be a reasonable number for the FAA to assess an Offeror’s understanding of the requirements. While the number of problem statements will not be changed, Section L.13.1.2 has been updated in the final SIR to increase the maximum number of Offeror participants from 4 to 5.

32.

L-13 L.13.1.2 Problem

Statement Responses

Per Draft SIR, "The Offeror must submit a written slide deck in electronic form to the Contracting Officer no later than 24 hours prior to the scheduled presentation." To ensure all vendors have equal time to prepare briefing slides, will the Government amend its language to read "all Problem Statement responses must be submitted by X date?

Per Section L.13.1.2, each Offeror will have at least 14 calendar days to prepare its briefing slides since the problem statements will be provided no later than 15 calendar days prior to the scheduled date of the Offeror’s oral presentation.

The > 14 calendar days is derived by subtracting the 24-hour advanced submission requirement from the > 15 calendar days advanced notification.

Each Offeror will be provided the sample problems based on the scheduled date for their oral presentation so that all Offerors have the same amount of time to prepare.

33.

L-12 L.13.1.2 Problem

Statement Per Draft SIR, "The combined page limit for the Problem Statement responses is 80 pages." Is the

Section L.13.3.2(c)(5) in the final SIR no longer refers to a Problem Statement price

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response

Responses pricing response included or separate from the 80 pages? If separate, what is the Pricing response page limit?

response. That requirement has been deleted. . Subparagraph L.13.1.2 has been updated in the final SIR to require submission of the proposed level of effort by labor category, labor-category level, and labor-category hours for the Problem- Statement response as part of the Problem-Statement Staffing Plan.

34.

L-15 L.13.2.1 Program

Management Does the government require resumes for technical acceptability?

The resume requirement has been removed from this section.

35.

L-16 L.13.2.2 Staffing, Recruitment, and Workforce Development

How many employees are currently performing on the contract?

There are approximately 350 full-time equivalents supporting the ECSS requirement.

36.

L-18 L.13.2.5 Transition

Descriptions of all Enterprise Management Tools would need to be provided to allow a transition approach and schedule to be developed. This should include the GFP Enterprise tools, hosting needs, as well as tools currently provided by the incumbent critical to the on-going mission support. Will the FAA provide a list of all Enterprise Management Tools to be transitioned?

A description of the Enterprise Management Tools identified in SIR sections C.3.5.1 is provided as follows:

Telecommunications Enterprise Management Tool (TEMT), - Supports FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) engineering activities including service requirements definition, pre-order reviews, and costs/funds tracking.

Budget Planning and Management System - BPMS provides a “cuff record system” for tracking financial transactions initiated by the FAA CINP Group against the allocated budget for a given fiscal year. BPMS provides single-entry accounting, support for electronic (paperless) approvals, and multi-year tracking of allocation and transactions associated with Detailed Obligation Plans (DOPs), along with expenditures across

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response various programs and contracts.

Service Implementation Tool (SIT) - The SIT contains information on FTI services and their current implementation status along with other relevant data, (New Site Information or if the service is on Customer Time and the reason why), that can be used to gauge the delivery of services and their impact on related programs and projects.

Quote Order Tracker (QOT) - Supports the management of telecommunications quote documents. It serves as the FAA Contracting Officer’s repository for all quote documents and order information for “standard” telecom services and facility orders.

Contract Letter Processing Tool (CLPT) - Supports the FTI Contracts Office in processing FTI contract letters for issuing requests for proposal (RFPs), task orders, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN)-based orders not supported by the FTI Integrated Business System (IBS), and other initiatives requiring the exchange of contacting correspondence between FAA and the FTI vendor.

All enterprise tools are hosted on FAA-owned servers and no specific tools are provided to the incumbent contractor.

37.

L-18 L.13.2.5 Transition

A list of current projects and task order’s will need to be provided to allow a transition approach and schedule to be developed. This should also include

Attachment J-0 has been added to the SIR. For general information and transition planning purposes, the

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response the project schedule of active projects at the time of award. If it is the intent for the awardee to assume the current projects, please provide a list of ongoing projects to be transitioned when the final SIR is released.

attachment lists the current task orders and provides a short description of each.

Attachment J-0 is not meant to be a projection of future EPICS requirements.

This SIR Attachment will not be part of any awarded contract. Note that not all current task orders may be transitioned to the new contracts.

38.

L-19 L.13.3.2 Price Proposal

Bid Model

Section L.13.3.2, Price Proposal Bid Model, states that the bid model (future attachment L-1) would be provided. Section M.6.3 states that the contractor response to the cost model will be input into a FAA cost model that includes estimated labor hours.

There also is significant educational and technical overlap between the Labor categories provided in attachment J-2. The current incumbent has an advantage as they know the current buying practices of the CINP organization as they relate to the section J Labor Categories. This places a large burden on small businesses as there is one price to the FAA for each Labor Category. Would the FAA consider providing all the Offerors the labor hour estimates?

The FAA is seeking each offeror’s most competitive prices for each labor category and level. Labor category rates should be based upon the knowledge, skills, experience, and education required for a position rather than an estimate of future FAA business. The FAA’s cost model is not based on historical labor hours but on future requirements and thus minimizes any incumbent advantage. The FAA’s cost model is solely an evaluation tool for developing a proposed Total Evaluated Price and comparing offers against each other and, potentially, other sources of information for purposes of price analysis. The model will not be released to offerors.

39.

L-19 L.13.3.2 General Does the Government have an estimated Level of

Effort for the overall project?

The maximum cumulative dollar ceiling value of all contracts awarded under the EPICS SIR is $803,000,000. As a result, the contracts awarded under the SIR are subject to a joint, pooled ceiling equal to $803,000,000, which equates to approximately 5.3 million labor hours based on the EPICS projected level of effort.

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response

40.

L-21 L.13.4 Past Performance

To allow the FAA to fully understand the broad capabilities of the Offeror to address the complex technical challenges of CINP, we request that the FAA require three full Past Performance references for the Prime as well as one for each major subcontractor as defined in Section L.

The FAA’s experience has been that three past-performance references have been sufficient to assess the quality of an Offeror’s past performance. Requiring more than three references also may place an undue burden on small businesses.

41.

L-21 L.13.4 Volume IV – Past

Performance “At least one past performance must be from the Prime.” If a Joint Venture (JV) is proposed, and the JV has no past performance of its own, please confirm that the JV will receive a neutral rating for Past Performance.

Section L.13.4 has been changed in the final SIR to reflect that if the Joint Venture has no past performance of its own, it must submit past-performance references for at least one of the firms that comprise the Joint Venture.

42.

L-21 L.13.4 Volume IV, Past

Performance This section requires at least one reference from each major subcontractor (defined as performing at least 10% of the effort). If a team has more than 2 subcontractors that will perform at least 10% of the work, is it left to the prime contractor’s discretion which references will be provided from the subcontractors, since at most two subcontractor references can be included?

Yes, Section L has been updated in the final SIR to clarify the requirements if an offeror proposes more than two subcontractors, each expected to perform 10% or more of the effort.

43.

L-21 L.13.4 Volume IV – Past

Performance In lieu of PPQs, can we submit CPARS? No.

44.

L-21 L.13.4 Volume IV – Past

Performance

Past Performance (Section L.13.4) states that past performance summaries must be provided for all subcontractors performing at least 10% of the effort (major subcontractor) and limits the number of past performance submittals to three (with an additional requirement for at least one past performance summary to be from the prime). We request the threshold for a major subcontractor be increased to 20% to allow us to meet the required three past performance summaries.

Past performance surveys for major subcontractors need only be submitted if a major subcontractor will be performing at least 10% of the effort. If there are no subcontractors on the team that meet that criteria, Offerors should submit three past performance references for the prime.

The SIR language in L-13.4 has been clarified in the final SIR to require at least one Past Performance reference from a major subcontractor team member rather than each major subcontractor team member.

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response

The percentage definition of a major subcontractor will remain unchanged.

45.

3 Attachment

L-2 Attachment L-2 Past Performance Summary and Customer Survey

The instructions for the Customer Survey state, “For Government references, the Customer Survey must be provided to the Contracting Officer (CO) or CO’s Representative (COR).” On some large IDIQ contracts such as eFAST, the TOR provides significant value to the CO and COR in conducting an informed evaluation of contractor performance.

We recommend including the TOR as an acceptable Government representative.

Attachment L-2 Part B, has been changed in the final SIR to require at least two references (one from the program staff and one from the Contracting Officer) for each of its proposed past-performance examples. Program staff should include individuals with firsthand knowledge of the Offeror’s performance such as the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) or a Task Order Manager or Representative.

46.

3 Attachment

L-2 Attachment L-2 Past Performance Summary and Customer Survey

The instructions for the Customer Survey state, “For commercial references, the Customer Survey must be provided to an individual with duties similar to those of the Government CO or COR.”

This statement refers to instances where a subcontractor would submit the Customer Survey to their prime contractor. For instances in which the subcontractor and prime contractor are proposed teammates on EPICS, it is recommended that the survey be completed by the Government CO or COR of the prime contract to reduce bias, real or perceived.

The statement does not refer to situations in which the offeror or offeror’s team member functioned as a subcontractor and is asking the prime contractor to complete the survey. The referenced statement in Attachment L-2 allows for the possibility that the offeror provided support to a commercial entity that does not use the terms “CO” and “COR,” which are commonly used by Government organizations. Attachment L-2 has been updated in the final SIR to clarify that the surveys should be completed by the entity that issued the prime contract.

47.

M-8 M.5 Management

Volume, Factor 1 Program Management

There is no mention of the Key Personnel (including Program Manager) that Section L requires be discussed in this section. We recommend, “The degree to which the Offeror’s proposed key personnel who has CINP and Data

Section L.13.2.1 has been updated in the final SIR to remove the requirement to address the qualifications of Key Personnel in the Management Volume.

Draft SIR dated January 4, 2016

Comment # SIR

Page(s)

SIR

Section Paragraph Comment/Question FAA Response

Comm experience will promote the effective management and performance of the EPICS contract.”

48.

M.11 M.5 Volume III - Price The Draft SIR does not mention how the pricing will be evaluated for the Problem Statements. How will the pricing of the Problem Statements be evaluated?

Section L.13.3.2 has been updated in the final SIR to remove the requirement for pricing information specific to the Problem-Statement responses. As such, pricing of the Problem-Statement responses will not be evaluated. The proposed labor categories and the associated level of effort will be considered as part of the technical evaluation of the Problem-Statement responses under the Staffing criterion.

49.

M-12 M.5 Volume IV Past

Performance Please clarify and correct as needed the references to Volume II on page M-12. It is expected that the references should be to Volume IV rather than Volume II.

The references to “Volume II” are incorrect and have been updated in the final SIR to “Volume IV.”

50.

M-14 M.5 Volume V

Subcontracting plan.

Our DCMA approved master subcontracting plan exceeds 10 pages, will the government remove the page count restrictions on the subcontracting plan to allow Offerors to submit their approved subcontracting plans in their entirety?

Yes, Table L-1 has been updated in the final SIR to remove the page limitation on the Subcontracting Plan.

51.

N/A N/A General Who is the incumbent? Noblis Incorporated for the ECSS

“Large” (i.e., Full & Open) and Veracity Engineering for the ECSS Small Business Set-Aside.