A4.Question-Comment_Matrix (30Nov23) FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MQ9 CAT/CWD and ISR Training Support Consolidation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA489023R0065
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding solicitation number FA489023R0065 from the Department of the Air Force Air Combat Command for MQ9 CAT/CWD and ISR training support consolidation. Offerors had questions about workforce requirements and workload distributions at different locations. The government responses clarify that proposed staffing plans must demonstrate effective processes for daily scheduling to mitigate risks of workload fluctuations and ensure all work is accomplished according to performance work statement requirements. Specifically, the government expects one full-time employee per position outlined in the workload tables unless offerors explain how risks of an individual performing multiple full-time equivalents will be managed.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| A4. Question-Comment Matrix - Government Responses (29Nov23).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FA489023R0065 Amendment 0003.pdf | ||
| A4. Question-Comment Matrix - Government Responses (21Nov23).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FA489023R0065 Amendment 0002.pdf | ||
| MQ-9 ATS Combo and Appendices 16Nov23.pdf | ||
| MQ-9 ATS PPC Slides - 7Nov23.pdf | ||
| Question-Comment Matrix with Government Responses 7Nov23.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MQ-9 ATS PPC Attendees 7Nov23.pdf | ||
| Revised A2. Pricing Schedule 6Nov23.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MQ-9 ATS PWS Appendices 6 and 7.pdf | ||
| FA489023R0065 MQ-9 ATC Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| A1. MQ9-ATS PWS (FY24-28) 1Jul24 v2.pdf | ||
| A5b. FA489019C0003 CBAs (Final).pdf | ||
| A5a. FA489016C0011 CBAs (Final).pdf | ||
| MQ-9 ATS Combo and Appendices.pdf | ||
| A2. Pricing Schedule.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| A3. MQ-9 ATS DD-254 (Draft).pdf | ||
| A4.Question-Comment Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 18
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A 30Nov23
| FA4890-23-R-0065 - MQ-9 ATS | |||||
| Offeror | |||||
| Q# | Doc | Pg # | Para # | Comment/Question/Recommendation | Government Response |
| 72 | QnA, PWS | Question 72; PWS pages 32 & 58 | PWS 4.2.1.4, 4.2.1.4.1 | Thank you for your time in responding to questions. We would like the opportunity to follow up on question 72. The existing response is inconclusive and ambiguous. To clarify, can the Government please answer the following questions as “yes or no” so that industry will clearly understand the Government’s intent: |
Will the inclusion of a Performance Technician in Support Teams at Creech in lieu of a JTAC Specialist be considered unacceptable to meet PWS requirements?
| Will the inclusion of a Performance Technician in Support Teams at March in lieu of a JTAC Specialist be considered unacceptable to meet PWS requirements? | During the PWS coordination process, Performance Tech's were not requested at either of these locations. The intent is to meet the PWS as written, not meeting the location specific requirements would be unacceptable. Additional bodies are allowed; however, not meeting the minimum requirement is not. A clarifying note in an offeror's proposal about potential advantageous changes to workload can be included, which could be addressed after award. | |||
| Follow-on response to Question #74 85 | PWS | 50, 52, 55, 57 | A1.4.2.2, |
A1.5.3, A1.6.3.4, A1.7.3.2 The government’s workload tables appear very straightforward with the expectation that 8 hours a day equals 1 FTE, 16 hours a day equals 2 FTEs, and so on. And it appears the government sees a lot of risk in lowering FTE to meet requirements.
As such, will the government consider removing, "Any buying of risk should be explained within the plan provided with proposal" from the government’s answer?
If not, how is industry going to “buy risk” and “explain it” without being given a very detailed workload analysis for every position in ATS. Said another way, only the government and the incumbent know exactly what “buying risk” entails. Original Response to 74: "The PWS workloads were intended to have positions filled at each location by a single individual. Combining workloads within a proposal is at the risk of the contractor since any combining of positions opens risk up to the Government if individuals are tasked with more than 1.0 FTE. Any buying of risk should be explained within the plan provided with proposal."
Follow-on Response: "The workload tables for ATS support positions are a standard 8 hour a day office job for 1 individual. For example 1 registrar body or 1 GTIMS body. To try and have 1 individual cover both those duties could create a situation where workload is missed. Revising the Government's initial response would reduce the ability of industry to provide additional solutions."
Clarification: Per note 2 of PWS Appendix 1 Workload Table A1.4.2.2., the Government is prioritizing an 8-hour workday with a flexible start time between 0600 - 0900. Therefore if 8 hours of work is required of a position, it follows that the Goverment expects 1 FTE. If offerors are considering combining positions (so that a single individual would perform more than 1 FTE), the Government continues to emphasize that combining positions may create too great a risk for the Government to accept since it would lead to a higher chance of unsuccessful contract performance. Per the combo page 12, para 6.2.7.2, "Proposal demonstrates effective processes for daily and long-range scheduling that mitigate the risks associated with workload fluctuations or other factors to ensure all work is accomplished meets PWS para 1.2.3, 4.8, and A1.4, A1.5, A1.6, A1.7." If an offeror does not provide effective processes for mitigating risks associated with potential workload flucuations or other factors to ensure all work is accomplished per the PWS, the offeror will be found deficient and therefore unawardable. Example: IAW the PWS workload table (A1.4.2.2.) the offeror needs to provide 8 hours of work for the CSA. If the offeror desires to combine that position with another position (i.e., the lead scheduler) to reduce costs, the offeror would have to explain how they believe 16 hours of work can be accomplished within an 8-hour workday. As the Government does not believe this is possible, it is unlikely the Government would be willing to "buy" this risk since that is 1 person = 2 FTEs. However, for example, if an offeror has extra workload of .2 FTEs so their total workload is 1.2 FTEs the Government, after being provided a proposal that demonstrates effective processes for daily and long-range scheduling that mitigate the risks associated with workload fluctuations or other factors to ensure all work is accomplished IAW the PWS, then the Government may be willing to "buy" that risk.
&"Arial,Bold"SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104
&"Arial,Bold"SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 Page &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .