Atch 11 - QA - MC-12 TSO Spt Svs (24 August 22).pdf

SOLICITATION #: FA002122R0008

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

MC-12 Tactical Systems Operator (TSO) Training Support Services

12 August 2022

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS:

1. Question: “Who is the incumbent for the contract currently? Through research I saw where this contract was awarded to Oscar Deuce LLC (ODL Services) in Sept 2019, but I have also seen where the contract was protested”.

2. Question: “Were any services performed on this contract by ODL Services or are services being performed currently by any other company?”

3. Question: “What is the current contract value?”

4. Question: “What is the current contract period of performance?”

Government Response (1-4): The current contract number is FA002119CA005. The Government recommends utilizing the search features on the Federal Procurement Data System website https://www.fpds.gov to assist with these types of questions. The most recent modification may not be accessible to the public immediately, which extended the period of performance through 20 March 2023.

5. Question: “What was the reason that the contract was protested after award?”

Government Response: Protest information can be found utilizing the search feature on the Government Accountability Office website. https://www.gao.gov.

6. Question: “Reference Section L, Para. 2.5.3 requires offerors to “provide a copy of the Small

Business Administration (SBA) approved Joint Venture certification documentation.” The SBA does not issue certifications to pre-approve Joint Ventures unless the procurement is an 8(a) sole source procurement.

“Where the offeror is a Joint Venture of an SBA-approved Mentor Protégé relationship, may the offeror provide proof of SBA approval of the Mentor-Protégé Agreement to satisfy this requirement?”

Government Response: Proof of SBA approval of the Mentor-Protégé Agreement is sufficient to meet this requirement. Section L, Para. 2.5.3 has been revised accordingly.

7. Question: “Reference 13 CFR 125.18(b)(5) provides in relevant part “A procuring activity may not require the SDVO SBC to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications necessary to perform the contract.”

“In the case of an SBA-approved Joint Venture, may the Mentor provide evidence of Financial Responsibility?”

Government Response: If the JV alone cannot provide sufficient evidence of financial responsibility, the Government will consider the aggregate of the two or more entities that comprise the JV.

https://www.fpds.gov/ https://www.gao.gov/

8. Question: “Reference 13 CFR 125.18(b)(5) provides in relevant part “A procuring activity may not require the SDVO SBC to individually meet the same evaluation or responsibility criteria as that required of other offerors generally. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems, and certifications necessary to perform the contract.”

“Can the Government confirm that relevant submissions from only one Joint Venture member will be considered compliant, regardless of whether the Joint Venture itself or an individual Joint Venture member has a past performance record?”

Government Response:

RFP Section L, Para. 4.2 was amended to state “If a Joint Venture is contemplated, include any relevant and recent performance information on previous Joint Ventures with the same partner or as this entity (CAGE). If this is a first-time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of no more than three (3) contracts each. The total page limit is three pages per contract.”

RFP Section M, Para. 5.8.4 states “Consideration will be given to the business relationship between the offeror and teaming partners and subcontractors listed on the Offeror Summary Table (Volume I). Teams that have demonstrated successful performance together in the past will be considered more relevant than a contract performed by the offeror alone, subcontractor alone or either with different teaming partners and subcontractors. The past performance information and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.”

Failure to provide relevant past performance information from all members of the team arrangement is not an issue of compliance. A proposal will not be determined to be incomplete;

however, as stated in Section M, Para 5.8.4, the evaluation team will consider lone past performance less relevant when evaluating a proposal submitted under a team arrangement. The evaluation team will take into consideration the aggregate past performance when assigning the Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings found in RFP Section M, Table M-4. If a member of the team arrangement has no past performance please provide notification in accordance with RFP Section L, Para. 4.2.5.

9. Question: “Reference Section M, Para, 5.8.2 provides that not all services need to have occurred on a single contract in order to achieve a rating of relevant.”

“Can the Government clarify whether relevancy is determined on a contract-by-contract basis or in the aggregate? For example, where one past performance reference meets the definition of very relevant, and a second reference meetings the definition of somewhat relevant, would the past performance record be considered very relevant overall?”

Government Response: Recency and relevancy is determined on a contract-by-contract basis;

however, the aggregate past performance will be a consideration of the evaluation team when assigning the Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings found in RFP Section M, Table M-4.

10. Question: “Reference Section L, 5.1 requires offerors to submit proposals via DoD SAFE. DoD SAFE instructions state that file drop-offs require a request code from the recipient. Please provide a Point of Contact for offerors to receive a request code.”

Government Response: The points of contact for SAFE drop off requests are First Lieutenant Steffanie David (steffanie.david@us.af.mil) and/or Mr. Todd Martinez (todd.martinez.1@us.af.mil).

11. Question: “Reference PWS, various references are made to contractor-provided transportation.

Please clarify the vehicle, maintenance, and transportation requirements. Are all other costs to support the vehicle such as fuel, oil, maintenance, registration/inspection, insurance, etc.

considered cost reimbursable?

Government Response: Transportation for contractor employees and all costs associated with transportation is the responsibility of the contractor. A firm-fixed-price contract will be executed.

There is no separate mechanism for cost reimbursement.

12. Question: “Reference PWS Appendix B, indicates that OPFPR/MRT personnel will drive an estimated 80 miles per sortie. Will the contractor have access to government vehicles while in performance of the contract?

Government Response: Transportation for contractor employees and all costs associated with transportation is the responsibility of the contractor. A firm-fixed-price contract will be executed.

There is no separate mechanism for cost reimbursement.

13. Question: “Reference PWS Appendix B, If the government does not provide vehicles for the performance of the contract requirements and the contractor must provide vehicles, are there any special requirements for contractor provide vehicles?

Government Response: This requirement is performance based; the Government is not dictating the means of transportation to be used. However, the Government uses 4-wheel drive SUVs (GMC Acadia) for its own use as the primary vehicle for this function. The Government also uses 4-wheel drive Crew Cab pickup trucks as secondary options. This is provided for information purposes only.

14. Question: “Reference Section L, Para. 2.7.1 Send Financial Responsibility Questionnaire (Attachment 6) to one or more banking/lending institutions the Offeror does business with and have a representative complete the questionnaire and return to the POC of this solicitation no later than proposal due date”.

“May the offeror submit the Financial Responsibility Questionnaire with the proposal instead of the banking/lending institution representative return it?”

Government Response: No. The Financial Responsibility Questionnaire shall be provided by a representative of the financial institution.

mailto:steffanie.david@us.af.mil mailto:todd.martinez.1@us.af.mil

MC-12 Tactical Systems Operator (TSO) Training Support Services

15. Question: “Reference Atch-9, Price Proposal Worksheet - There are no instructions for Column

P/I for “Person Hours” other than as a “fill in” where the number of “man hours” is to be input by Offerors. The only mention of “man hours” is in the PWS/Appendix B where the Scheduler and

Registrar and shown with 1,912 “man hours”, and PWS 4.4.1 which mentions a “40-hour work week”.

The RFP states minimum manning in Appendix B or contractors should propose manning sufficient to meet the estimated workload if a greater level of manning is proposed to meet the aggressive operational schedule. This is the first time we have seen a pricing template provided within an RFP that specifies a head count but leaves Offeror the option to specify man hours in each year for each LCAT/head count.

In order to make a fair and balanced assessment of proposed pricing across all offerors, will the Govt define a man year for each position as was the case for Scheduler and Registrar? This will level the playing field for comparison purposes.

Government Response: The Government provided the ‘man year’ for the scheduler and registrar positions because the person hours are more readily estimated/standardized for these types of administrative roles. There are various reasons the person hours and/or man year would vary for the other labor categories on this contract effort. Therefore, providing the man year was not considered prudent for these labor categories, and could potentially limit innovation and/or proposal flexibility. Regarding the reference of a ‘head count’ the Government has provided informational data only and not expected staffing levels. The Contractor's unique solution shall address the staffing approach and how to handle contingencies such as surge requirements.

16. Question: “RFP states, Primary/Secondary POCs as S. Rawcliffe and K. Miller. Atch-7 is addressed to A. Maher.”

“Please confirm that Atch-7 is to be addressed as shown and not to S. Rawcliffe or K. Miller as POCs listed in the RFP?”

Government Response: The solicitation has been amended to incorporate revised points of contact for this effort. Section L, Table L-1 has been revised subsequently Atch-6, Atch-7, and Atch-8 were also revised.

17. Question: “Reference Section L Para 4.2 appears to lump teaming and Joint Ventures into the same category (though they are vastly different in scope and legal structure) and states “If a teaming arrangement/Joint Venture is contemplated, include any relevant and recent performance information on previous teaming arrangements/Joint Ventures with the same partner or as this entity (CAGE). If this is a first-time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of no more than three (3) contracts each.”

“Please confirm if teaming/joint venture as a “previous teaming arrangement/joint venture” would only include work for AFSOC in order to be considered as a “previous arrangement” under this RFP?”

Government Response: Section M, Para 5.8.1. provides additional relevancy descriptions.

MC-12 Tactical Systems Operator (TSO) Training Support Services

18. Question: “If current teaming arrangement is not the first effort by 2 or more partner firms, please confirm that only three (3) past performance references are required and that the Prime may submit two x 2) and major Sub may submit one x (1) reference/citation?”

Government Response: Section L, Para 4.2 has been revised to provide additional clarity. The only exception to providing more than three (3) past performance efforts is in the event of a first-time joint venture, which provides each party the opportunity to provide no more than three (3) contracts each.

19. Question: “Reference Section L, Para 4.6 states: “If the contractor received a CPARS rating for the past performance effort being submitted, the contractor may attach a copy of the finalized CPARs in lieu of the PPQ.”

“Please confirm “finalized” as related to CPARs and if in this instance it refers to a “closeout” type of CPAR issued at contract completion or if an interim CPAR may be used (especially if effort cited is ongoing and is in compliance with Section L/M criteria for an ongoing effort)?”

Government Response: Finalized refers to a CPARS evaluation, that has completed all coordination and is readily available for review in the system to external clients. All annual interim evaluations are acceptable that meet the recency definition.

20. Question: “Reference PWS Para. 2.1 For the base year of the contract, the Government requires sufficient contractor support for 80 sorties per month in accordance with the workload estimates in Appendix B of this PWS”.

“For the purposes of this PWS, does “sortie” mean an event scheduled and flown, OR do sorties scheduled and not flown for common reasons (Weather, Maintenance, TSO Student availability) count in the 80 sorties per month? Oftentimes cancelled sorties require nearly the same LOE for the contractor to support as flown sorties when cancelled late in the process”.

Government Response: For the purposes of this PWS, “sortie” does mean an event scheduled and flown. Should flights be canceled, it is typically early in the process (i.e., the day prior or prior to show/brief time). The Government has provided additional sortie data below for offeror consideration:

OY1 (2021); Tasked Flights: 887 OY1 (2021); Sorties Flown: 632

OY2 (2022); Tasked Flights: 487 OY2 (2022); Sorties Flown: 425 as of 9 August 22.

Note: This data is provided for informational purposes offerors are reminded to propose based on the requirement to support 80 sorties per month.

21. Question: “Reference PWS Appendix B, Sufficient MC-12 Pilots, MC-12 Sensor Operators/CSOs and OPFOR/MRT personnel to meet the following sortie requirements: 80 sorties per month / Up to 6 sorties per day / Up to 3 simultaneous sorties per go”

“How long in advance are the monthly, weekly, and daily schedules finalized to outline the planned sortie flow to support 80 sorties per month?”

MC-12 Tactical Systems Operator (TSO) Training Support Services

Government Response: In conjunction with the ANG at WRANGB, the flight schedules are built weekly. Sortie times are typically released Wednesday with names being assigned to sorties on Thursday for the upcoming week. A typical schedule is a two turn two. It is rare that more than 4 sorties are scheduled per day but can happen based on mission requirements.

22. Question: “Reference, PWS Para 4.4.1.2. Mission aircrew and OPFOR/MRT. Hours of performance will vary. Flights may be accomplished outside of normal business hours or on weekends. Aircrew and OPFOR/MRT may support more than one sortie per day provided the schedule allows sufficient time between sorties to accomplish pre-/post-mission requirements as defined by local operating procedures and the duty day requirements outlined in DCMA 8210.1C.”

“Is the contractor required to support nearly 24-hour a day operation (or multiple widely disparate fly windows in a 24-hour period) or is a single daily sortie fly window of 14-16 hours the norm for resource planning? We understand that flight windows can occur outside of normal business hours or on weekends.”

Government Response: While subject to change based on mission needs (aircraft availability, etc.) most flights occur between 0800 and 1900. Flights can occur outside that window, but the squadron maintains a consistent flight schedule whenever possible. Weekend flights have been executed in the past, but only on rare occasions.

23. Question: “Reference PWS Para. 2.3, Provide a minimum of two (2) qualified OPFOR/MRT personnel for each sortie. Deviations from these personnel/transportation requirements will be at the sole discretion of the government as allowed by specific mission requirements.”

“In reference to ‘deviations’ from the above – (1) What advanced notice is given for a ‘deviation’? (2) What is the ‘maximum’ deviation in terms of number of OPFOR / Transportation for a single sortie? (3) As Appendix B states each sortie is supported by 2xOPFOR, does additional OPFOR ‘deviation’ on a mission count as additional ‘sorties’, i.e., if the Gov’t required 6x OPFOR and 3x Vehicles for a single sortie, would that count as the contractor supporting 3 simultaneous sorties and 3 sorties for that day, since they had met 3 x the amount of support required per Appendix B?”

Government Response: The contractor would typically be notified the week prior to execution of the ‘deviation’ as the schedule is being created. The ‘maximum’ deviation from the normal tempo is 6x OPFOR and 3x vehicles; the Government is aware that this decision may come at a cost of availability for other sorties.

24. Question: “Reference, PWS Para 4.5.4, Personnel Approval: The contractor shall provide to the Government evidence of personnel qualifications for all positions and ensure qualifications are current throughout the contract performance period. Submissions shall clearly identify the labor category and location for which personnel are to be assigned and shall contain enough information for the Government to assess the proposed employee’s qualifications as they directly relate to the tasks described in this PWS. The contractor shall submit resumes for all proposed contractor personnel to the CO and the COR no later than five business days prior to the start of performance, and in the event of out of a vacancy. The government flight representative (GFR)

MC-12 Tactical Systems Operator (TSO) Training Support Services will be included in resume review to verify aircrew qualifications. The CO and/or COR will provide the Government’s response to the resumes within five business days.”

“What accommodation / process / recourse occurs if the government fails to respond to personnel approval / resumes within five business days? Additional days beyond 5 added to the backfill time listed in 4.6.3?”

Government Response: The awardee can submit a request for consideration of a reasonable accommodation to the backfill timeframe to the Contracting Officer in the event of a government delay.

25. Question: “Reference PWS, Para 4.4.1. Duty Hours. The Government shall utilize contract support to the maximum extent but shall not exceed the constraints of a 40-hour work week.

Overtime is not authorized under the terms of this contract.”

“If the government flight schedule, mission requirements, sorties (both flown and cancelled), and other government required activities (command functions, meetings, safety stand downs, etc) utilize all the available work hours in a week for contractor staff, does that relieve the contractor of having to provide the support / flight metrics listed in PWS 2.1 and Appendix B for the time-period that occurs?”

Government Response: The Offeror is expected to have personnel available to meet the sortie requirements outlined in Appendix B to ensure mission coverage. The number of sorties flown on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis varies significantly. There are various reasons for this (student throughput, weather cancellations, maintenance, and aircraft availability). The contractor should be prepared to ebb and flow as necessary to ensure personnel are available to support mission requirements.

The statement found at PWS Para. 4.4.1. is a reminder that there is no mechanism in the contract to provide additional cost reimbursement if overtime is required. Offerors are reminded to consider all potential scenarios when developing their cost proposal and approach to supporting these requirements.

26. Question: “Reference Section M, Para 5.8.1, would the government allow for services performed under our corporate umbrella that meets the requirements satisfy as relevant past performance?”

Government Response: Only performance of the prime and/or its teaming partners will be considered relevant.

27. Question: “Has there been any changes to the total scope of work currently being performed by the incumbent and this current PWS? If yes, what are those changes?”

Government Response: There has not been any major changes to the scope of this requirement since its inception. Offerors are reminded to bid based on the scope of work provided in the PWS attached to the solicitation.

MC-12 Tactical Systems Operator (TSO) Training Support Services

28. Question: “Reference PWS Para 2.2, personnel indicated as “onsite contractor instructors and evaluators”, are these positions in addition to the key personnel outlined in the

PWS?”

Government Response: This requirement is performance based; the Government is not dictating how the offeror intends to maintain qualifications for its personnel. The requirement outlined in the PWS is that the contractor has sufficient on-site personnel to ensure qualifications are maintained in accordance with the applicable guidance, regulations, and/or instructions. For example, a pilot performing these services maybe qualified to provide instruction/qualification to other members of the contractor team.

NOTE: The following questions were provided after the Q&A period closed. The questions and responses did not require an amendment to the solicitation, these responses are provided and have been uploaded as a courtesy to industry, an extension to the response date was determined to be unnecessary.

NOTE 1: Question 10: “Reference Section L, 5.1 requires offerors to submit proposals via DoD SAFE. DoD SAFE instructions state that file drop-offs require a request code from the recipient.

Please provide a Point of Contact for offerors to receive a request code.”

Government Revised Response: The points of contact for SAFE drop off requests are First Lieutenant Steffanie David (steffanie.david@us.af.mil) and/or Mr. Todd Martinez (todd.martinez.1@us.af.mil).

29. Question: “Reference Q&A, Question 22. “Most flight hours occur between 0800 and 1900”.

Will there be any nighttime flight requirements that will require nighttime currency?”

Government Response: As stated, most flight hours do occur between 0800 and 1900; however, there may be times that nighttime flights are scheduled and/or required to meet mission/training requirements.

30. Question: “Reference PWS, Appendix B, how many aircraft are available and what is the turn-time for an aircraft for multiple sorties per day?”

Government Response: The 306 IS has two tails assigned for squadron use and access to a spare as needed. L3 MX asks for one hour turn time.

31. Question: “Reference the PWS Para. 2.4.1.2, Does the USG provide FCIF, PEX, and iPad updates for the contractor?”

Government Response: The government does provide PEX access which includes FCIF updates. iPad are available to be issued to the contractor for use as an EFB. Once the contractor has cHUB access, the iPad can be sync’d and updated by the individual.

mailto:steffanie.david@us.af.mil mailto:todd.martinez.1@us.af.mil

32. Question: “Reference PWS Para. 2.3. Will TSO instructors provide training level expectations for scenario development?”

Government Response: TSO instructors will work closely with the contractor during scenario development. The TSO MQT Syllabus dictates Required Proficiency Levels for each item during each phase that dictates training level expectations.