FA489024RACCM ACCOMS II Q and A_6 Feb 24.xlsx

Sheet1 FA489024R0008 Aviation Command and Control Operations and Maintenance Services (ACCOMS) II Questions and Answers - 6 Feb 2024

Yes for CUI.

and Appendix G:

Tables G-14, G-15, & G-16 PWS sections 4.2.8.2, 4.2.15.2, and 4.2.20.2 call for TPS-75 services as optional. Corresponding Appendix G site tables G-14, G-15, and G-16 appear to call for a required onsite TPS-75 SME for 2 systems and optional 24/7 support for one or two systems.

and living arrangements in Iraq have changed significantly in recent years. Resources traveling to Al Asad must go through Erbil and stay in an unguarded local hotel to await a military flight to Al Asad. This military flight is not conducted daily and the waiting period changes from week to week. This uncertainty wreaks havoc in managing the duty schedules to ensure the facility is fully staffed, operating within AFI and FAA regulations, and that personnel receive their allocated annual vacations per their employment agreement.

When personnel are trying to schedule leave or departures, the lack of scheduled milair transport creates issues for personnel as they have no real idea of when their forecasted vacation or repatriation to the US will be and their plane ticket prices are far higher than they would be if they could be scheduled in advance.

In addition, resources stationed at Erbil have experienced such risk while living in tents on the Erbil military base that the current contractor has chosen to move them all to unguarded hotels in downtown Erbil. Erbil of course is in northern Iraq which is specifically referenced in current US Travel Department warnings as an area that US Citizens should avoid due to “continued threat of attacks by terrorist groups, armed conflict, aerial bombardment, and civil unrest”. (US State Department Iraqi Travel Advisory, 10/22/2023). The situation in Erbil makes recruiting and retaining quality personnel an even greater challenge.

We are gravely concerned about these travel and living scenarios and hope that AMIC can offer some guidance on travel options and force protection for the contract employees that would be assigned to Iraq under the next contract. While we have operated in war zones and in extremely dangerous scenarios for decades, our employees have always been properly protected by US military resources. We would greatly appreciate AMIC’s input on alternatives to the Iraqi travel and housing scenarios outlined here. On base lodging is the only option for Al Asad. On base lodging is authorized at Erbil, and although facilities are not permanent structures, contractors are provided the same security and protection as Military members. Offerors have the option to secure lodging outside of Erbil at their discretion (to include sites that offer private security); however, this decision is within the discretion of potential offerors to determine in developing their proposed approach to satisfying the PWS requirements.

There are no forecasted changes to the availability of military travel modes in/out of the area. Commercial flights are available into and out of Erbil, Iraq. Travel between Erbil and Al Asad is MilAir only, with an average wait time of 3 days. Wait times are dependent on personnel arrival date and the next available MilAir flight. The Government will continue to engage on this; however, potential offerors will need to include this variance in their proposed approach. Travel for mobilization/demobilization, R&R, and other travel costs associated with the FFP CLINs need to be included as ODC's in the FFP rate for each labor category.

The Government acknowledges the challenges of recruiting and maintaining qualified personnel at these locations. However, potential offerors must provide a proposed approach that will ensure success in meeting the PWS requirements. Travel Advisories are not directive guidance, and potential offerors should take this into consideration. However, it is noted that Iraqi travel advisories are not rare—in fact, they are rather common. As such, on-base housing authorized to contractor personnel affords the same security and protection as Military members.

17 Solicitation Section L & M Pricing Matrix The Section L & M Pricing Matrix appears not to have a CLIN for the C2 Equipment/Maintenance/Technical Representative/SME position.

Where should this labor be captured? The Pricing Matrix has been revised to include the MOC Tech Rep/Liaison labor category in Tab 12. Additionally, CLIN X012 and worksheet 12 have been renamed CONUS Core Rates.

Cost for this position shall be captured in worksheet "3 - Section B", and worksheet "3A - Section B Cost Build Up" against CLIN X012 - CONUS Core Rates. Additionally, hourly rate shall be captured in worksheet 12 - CONUS Core Rates.

18 Solicitation PWS Solicitation Section B and PWS Table 7.1 The Period of Performance dates by contract period references in the Solicitation FA489024R0008 and PWS do not match.

General Liability, while appropriate and generally required for non-air traffic specific functions (and we recommend for this solicitation), does not cover claims or litigation arising out of air traffic control services or an accident or incident on contracts of this nature. The vast majority (if not all) of U.S. government contracts (FAA, NIWC, AFCAP, Air National Guard, US Air Force Reserve, US Coast Guard, etc.) for air traffic control require ATC Liability insurance. Absence of such coverage places the government, contractors and their employees at increased risk.

As contractors and their employees are not covered by the TORTS Act, they may face litigation should a claim or claims occur while providing service under this contract. Not requiring minimally acceptable insurance will create an unfair competition as prudent companies who work in this space will provide the necessary coverage, which may result in a higher price that is not based upon an equal evaluation of cost. A company who does not purchase an adequate insurance policy will subject its employees, as well as the government, to the risk of claims and litigation.

The US Government has previously been named in litigation cases (as well as employees, individually) where the air traffic control service provider had low or insufficient limits of liability. Further, plaintiffs tend to focus upon the defendant(s) with the greatest opportunity for collection of any potential for monetary award. If a company should receive a contract that is not properly or adequately insured, the focus of any claim or judgement will turn on the US Government and the presumed collection of any judgement against the Government.

The FAA has been contracting ATC services for decades. There have been a significant number of claims under that program since its inception. Even when the insurance requirements were specified in a solicitation, they have had companies win contracts that did not properly bid adequate (or any) insurance in an effort to keep their costs low. The FAA has been attached to multiple claims under the FAA Contract Tower Program and continues to increase its focus on adequate insurance coverage. In fact, the FAA feels so strongly about the need for ATC liability insurance that they now purchase a base policy for any contractor who receives a contract under the FAA Contract Tower Program. Moreover, based upon loss runs at “VFR only” facilities contracted by the Federal Aviation Administration throughout the U.S. legislative efforts were undertaken in recent years to significantly increase limits of liability coverage. There have been multiple litigation cases arising out of accidents within the AOR - and some are on-going. Fortunately, a proper insurance policy and adequate coverage has been in place. The absence of adequate liability coverage places the government and the entire program at increased risk. We provide this reference to stress the importance of this critical insurance coverage.

We respectfully request that you consider a requirement for both general liability insurance as well as aviation

And Table 8.1 - SPOT LOA Authorization Government Life Support

However, the pricing matrix Sheet "2 - Summary" has a "TOTALS" row (row 25) that sums all CLINS including the Optional CLINs for the entire period of performance and is included in the sum for the TOEP in cell C27.

Will the Government please clarify if the Optional CLINs listed below will be evaluated in Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP)?

(OPTIONAL) - Det 5 - Iraq - Core Labor - CLINS (0050-6050) (OPTIONAL) - Det 9 - Jordan - Core Labor - CLINS (0051-6051) (OPTIONAL) - Det 3 - Qatar - Core Labor - CLINS (0052-6052) (OPTIONAL) - Det 4 - UAE - Core Labor - CLINS (0053-6053) (OPTIONAL) - Regional Maintenance Center - AUAB - Core Labor - CLINS (0054-6054) Yes, costs for CLINS X050 Det 5 - Iraq, X051 Det 9 - Jordan, X052 Det 3 - Qatar, X053 Det 4 - UAE shall be included in worksheet 3 - Section B, and worksheet 3A - Section B Cost Buildup.

Pricing Matrix worksheets 4 - 12 will be evaluated for use in future contingency requirements as per Section L-9.1, and will not be included in the TOEP.

Rates from worksheets 4-12 shall only be used to established pre-negotiated rates for use with CLIN X040 - Overtime/Surge, or contingency situations. These rates shall not be linked to worksheets 3 - Section B, and 3A - Section B Cost Buildup.

NOTE: Each table in Appendix G provides information on equipment and maintenance requirements. An asterisk "*" denotes equipment/systems where the contractor will have "First Touch Maintenance" responsibilities.

Discussion: In 2019, we encountered many challenges when assuming the current ACCOM contract from previous incumbents. Previous incumbents engaged in what could be deemed as malicious activity such as refusing to provide or destroying training records, taking all supplies on site, emptying the contents of first aid kits, etc. These actions not only put the mission at risk, but also the health and safety of site personnel.

Discussion: Some anticipated offerors are known for arbitrarily cutting tens of millions of dollars out of their bids during discussions without adequate support or rationale other than to make their TOEP more attractive to evaluators. Although a large, last minute price cut may look attractive at first, this approach almost always invalidates the technical approach and places mission execution at extreme risk.

PWS Table 4.5.6 Pricing Matrix Spreadsheet Table G-19 lists the service requirements for the Main Operating Base, Jordan.

Table 4.5.6 shows the Main Operating Base, Jordan requirements are "required" and not "optional".

PWS Table 4.5.6 Pricing Matrix Spreadsheet Table G-20 lists the service requirements for the Main Operating Base, Kuwait.

Table 4.5.6 shows the Main Operating Base, Kuwait requirements are "required" and not "optional".

PWS Table 4.5.6 Pricing Matrix Spreadsheet Table G-21 lists the service requirements for the Main Operating Base, Saudi Arabia.

Table 4.5.6 shows the Main Operating Base, Saudi Arabia requirements are "required" and not "optional".

PWS Table 4.5.4 Pricing Matrix Spreadsheet Table G-18 lists the service requirements for Det 6, Iraq.

Table 4.5.4 shows the Det 6 Iraq requirements are "required" and not "optional".

JRE, 400 hz generators, AMMPS generators, 60 hz generators, automatic transfer switches, and HVAC.

The pricing matrix spreadsheet, tab 3 - Schedule B, lists Det 3 and Det 4 as OPTIONAL locations (CLINs X053 and X054). Is it the Government's intention that bidders include the "required" support items from Table 4.5.4 for Det 3 Qatar and Det 4 UAE in the Pricing Matrix tab 3 - Schedule B and exclude the "optional" items for these CLINs?

The Pricing Matrix, tab 3 - Section B, lists CLIN X054 as being the Regional Maintenance Center (RMC) at the AUAB location as being OPTIONAL.

a) Request clarification for whether all RMC requirements are OPTIONAL and should not be priced or whether only some requirements are optional?