ACCOM 2 - Draft RFP Conslidated QA _USG Response_5 Sep 23.pdf

Item # Question Ref Government Response

The language in PWS appears to conflict. Please clarify. PWS 3.1.12.3 3.1.12.3All vacancies shall be filled within 30 days of incumbent’s departure. PWS 9.1.3 states "Key personnel replacements shall be named and in place no later than 28 calendar days from the start of the vacancy. " 9.1.4 states "Non-key personnel replacements shall be named and in place no later than 42 calendar days from the start of the vacancy. In addition to the timeframe discrepancy, the timeframes are not realistic given the timeline for security clearances and general deployment requirements. We request the window be reset to no less than 60 days.

3.1.12.3 and

9.1.3 and 9.1.4

USG Response: PWS will be corrected to ensure no differences in time requirements. Key personnel replacements shall be named and in place no later than 45 calendar days from the start of the vacancy. Non-Key personnel replacements shall be named and in place no later than 60 calendar days from the start of the vacancy

The section notes "Deliverables shall be posted to the MIS identified in para. 2.2.4" The MIS is not noted in 2.2.4, should this refer to the MIS in Para 3.1.13? (3.1.18 notes "Deliverables: The Contractor shall submit all deliverables in accordance with Appendix E, Deliverables. Deliverables shall be posted to the MIS identified in para. 2.2.4" there is no Para 2.2.4. All other refs now refer to Appendix E for deliverables to be posted.

3.1.18 USG Response: PWS para 3.1.18 will be updated to reflect the correct reference which is 3.1.13.

Can the government clarify that there is only one radar approach scope in the tower and is there a place in the facility for the assistant controller to use?

4.2.3.1 USG Response: There is one radar scope in the TRAPCON. Current operations do not require the use of an Assist position.

Can the government clarify if there will be additional scopes being used in the control tower or the TRAPCON for radar approach control services?

4.2.3.1 USG Response: There is currently one radar scope available in the TRAPCON used for approach services.

Will the Ali Al Salem Tower Controllers ever have to work the facility without Host Nation controllers in the facility? Will contractor liaison controllers have to train any Host Nation Controllers?

4.2.7.1

USG Response:

1. Yes the Ali Al Salem Tower Controllers may have to work the facility without Host Nation controllers in the facility

2. No, formal training of HN controllers is not required.

Can the government clarify what equipment is currently at Al Jaber that the contractor would need to check weekly?

4.2.9 USG Response: Weekly operational checks will be conducted on Tower communication equipment, voice switch, and console.

7 Can the government clarify if Al Asad Air Base has Final Control capability? 4.3.11 USG Response: Al Asad does not currently have a Final Control requirement or capability.

8 Can the government explain what is meant by "Aid in the development of host nation controllers"? 4.3.12.10

USG Response: Contractors will be working side by side with HN Controllers. Interactions between Contractor Controllers and HN Controllers shall be professional. Since Contractor Controllers will be working with HN Controllers, as a professional courtesy Contractor Controllers should advise HN Controllers on best practices, procedures, tips and techniques that aid host nation controllers in providing quality ATC services.

Can the government clarify that an Airfield Operations Manager (AOM) is optional at AAAB, Erbil, MSAB, ASAB, and Jaber.

Table 4.3

USG Response: The positions marked as optional in PWS Table 4.3 are for informational purposes and purposes of clarity of scope only. The intent is to identify the potential future need of these labor categories at respective sites. These positions will not be included in base or option CLINS at contract award. The PWS will be edited to better reflect the purpose of Table 4.3.

10 Does the government provide AM vehicles or is that the contractors responsibility? 4.4.7 USG Response: Government vehicles are limited and may not be readily available.

Contractor should field AFMAN 13-204v2 compliant airfield response vehicle(s). Fuel is available via Letter Of Agreement with local LRS.

11 There is a "NOTE 2" annotated at the bottom of the table but no "NOTE 2" annotated in the table Table 4.4 USG Response: Note 2 will be added to Jaber & Cargo City in PWS Table 4.4

As the Para notes the contractor will "utilize…other HN planning programs" will the government or the outgoing contractor provide training on the host nation flight planning systems to be used?

4.4.13 USG Response: Outgoing contractor will provide training on existing systems and processes.

4.6 l notes "When directed by the Regional Maintenance Center (RMC), the contractor will…" . Is the RMC contractor or military led?

4.6 USG Response: At this time the RMC is military led.

14 Will the government provide a list of equipment that is currently under warranty? 5.1.10 USG Response: Yes. However, equipment under warranty is extremely limited.

Can a contractor use a Doc in a box with non US citizens as the service provider (Nurses, Physician's Assistants) or do all personnel have to be US citizens?

6.1.2.

USG Response: Contractor can use Doc in a box with non-US citizens as the service provider. For visits that issue a Class II Flight Physical, an FAA certified flight surgeon must be seen.

16 CLIN Ceilings: Can the government provide the historical information that the CLIN ceilings are based upon.Table 7.1 USG Response: CLIN Ceilings are based on current Contract CR CLIN ceilings.

Pre-Deployment training may delay a person from deployment while awaiting a date to process. 2.1 may also hinder a contractor from deploying personnel since a company is not allowed to stockpile personnel with clearances if they are not going to deploy immediately.

3.1.12.3

USG Response: Noted: Key personnel replacements shall be named and in place no later than 45 calendar days from the start of the vacancy. Non-Key personnel replacements shall be named and in place no later than 60 calendar days from the start of the vacancy. 2.1 requires all positions to have a secret clearance. Handling strategy is up to the Contractor.

The para notes: "The Contractor shall perform configuration control and develop a configuration control and management plan for all Government Furnished Property (GFP), assigned suites of systems/equipment, and facilities. The Contractor shall document all changes, upgrades, or reconfigurations in the configuration management plan within 10 days of completion. The Contractor shall implement CO or PM requested configuration changes, upgrades, or reconfigurations and provide price and implementation schedules for those changes, upgrades, or reconfigurations. The Contractor shall make no configuration changes to assigned suites of systems and applicable support equipment unless authorized by the CO or PM. (Appendix E, Deliverables Configuration Control and Management Plan)".

Can the government clarify if the contractor is responsible for configuration changes? I understand that our techs would/may be responsible for installing upgrades etc… as we had in the past but…previously the gov provided the upgrade equipment and instructions (and tested to make sure they worked as they did in the BC3 test bed…before anything was sent out to change/upgrade a system

4.5.1.15

USG Response: The contractor is not responsible for developing configuration changes.

Configuration changes, equipment, instructions, etc. will be provided by the Government and the Contractor shall implement those changes. Configuration changes shall be documented in the local/site configuration management plan.

Can a contractor use a Doc in a box with non US citizens as the service provider (Nurses, Physician's Assistants) or do all personnel have to be US citizens?

Table G-2, G-4, G-5

USG Response: Contractor can use Doc in a box with non-US citizens as the service provider. For visits that issue a Class II Flight Physical, an FAA certified flight surgeon must be seen.

PWS notes TERPS site lead in Shaw. Would the contractor have the ability to have their Lead TERPS position based at Langley instead of Shaw?

Table G-11 and Table G-12

USG Response: No, the Lead TERPS position will based at Shaw AFB IAW PWS Par

4.2.14.1 and 4.2.15.1.

Item 4 identifies specific instructions on where to place a LCAT if the offeror is combining a position or having it be a separate position. Does this imply the offeror is to bid to the specific LCATS provided in the price table or is the offeror allowed to add or remove lines on tabs 5 through 12?

Section L and M Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix

USG Response: Tabs 5 through 12 shall be used to establish hourly rates for potential future use, and all Labor Categories must be priced. Tab 3A - Section B Cost Buildup has been added for offerors to include cost build-up details to reflect their proposed approach.

Tab - 3A, is blank to allow offerors flexibility to provide detail in line with their accounting practices.

22 There is no pricing schedule for 4-PMO, is this not a priced element of this offer?

Section L and M Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix

USG Response: Yes, PMO is a priced element of this offer. Tab 4 - PMO is blank to allow offerors flexibility to provide pricing in line with their individual accounting practices.

Are the prices on these tabs 4-12 to be input on an hourly rate basis for each LCAT listed and then extrapolated to FTE and hours needed? Or, is it intended to be completed as total all in costs for each LCAT listed?

Section L and M Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix

USG Response: Tabs 4 through 12 shall be used to establish hourly rates for potential future use. Tab 3A - Section B Cost Buildup will be added for offerors to include cost build up details. Tab will be blank to allow offerors flexibility to provide detail in line with their accounting practices.

ACCOM II - Draft RFP Q&A 05 Sep 2023

The tabs include a column for ODCs, is this for labor driven ODCs such as housing, travel, etc? Where do non labor driven ODC costs belong in the pricing model? The ODC tab is blank, will the government supply an ODC tab and make a distinction for comparative purposes what ODCs are captured on tabs 5-12 versus the separate ODC tab?

Section L and M Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix

USG Response: Tab 13 - ODCs, should include ODC details applicable to each proposed labor category, to include housing, travel, uniforms, phones, vehicles, etc. ODCs must be totaled and calculated into the LCAT fully burdened rates for FFP CLINS. There should be few non-labor driven ODC's and they will be re-imbursed through CLIN 0020 - Materials, (and subsequent option CLINs) as necessary and appropriate.

25 For ODCs the government wants included on tabs 5-12, the formula includes fee, is this allowable?

Section L and M Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix

USG Response: Tabs 5 through 12 are priced on a FFP basis, therefore profit is applicable to associated costs.

There are no direct labor hours requirements stated anywhere in the pricing model. Does the government have a standard workday for each country of operation?

Section L and M Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix

USG Response: Work days for each country are determined by the local labor hours and any applicable AFMANs. Offerors' shall determine direct labor hours based on the above along with their planned site manning and duty schedules. The PWS will be updated to reflect the above statement.

Please identify the types of ODCs that the government anticipates to be included in the cost CLINs of the pricing and the types of ODCs included in the labor tabs 4-12.

Section L and M Attachment 4 Pricing Matrix

USG Response: Offerors are responsible for estimating all costs associated with FFP CLINs, to include costs associated of fielding, sustaining, and retaining personnel, such housing, travel, uniforms, cell phones, vehicles, visas and related costs, location applicable rates, etc. ODC's may vary based on each offeror's technical approach, therefore no all inclusive list will be provided.

For the Cost Reimbursable CLINS, the solicitation will provide NTE dollar figures that will become part of the total overall evaluated TOEP. Please define what types of costs the government will capture in CLIN 0020 so they are not factored in elsewhere.

Section L USG Response: Site consumables utilized to support equipment and operations on an as need basis. Authorized Contractor Procured Materials needed to support equipment/operations/PWS requirements IAW PWS pars 5.1.6 and 5.1.7.

"The breakout of costs for CLIN 0063 and its subsequent option CLINs will include the fully burdened FFP rates strictly used for any future contingency requirements under those CLINs and will be captured in worksheets 4 – 10." Where is CLIN --63 in the pricing file and explain this statement.

Section L USG Response: Section L will be corrected to reflect CLIN0040 (and subsequent options) as Surge CLIN. Pricing provided in the Pricing Matrix Tabs 4 - 10 will be utilized to establish pre-negotiated rates if Surge CLIN is utilized.

Need to compare table 4.5.2 on page 34 of 108 against table 4.5.5 on page 36 of 108 to ensure we wouldn’t be held to perform flight inspection on systems we don’t maintain. Table 4.5.5 shows Regional Maintenance Center (RMC) O&M and Support Equipment as an optional requirement. The RMC is manned by USAF personnel and they typically perform flight inspection on the navigation equipment assigned to them. Table

4.5.2 shows systems at MSAB, Jordan and PSAB, Saudi Arabia as first touch maintenance by contractor, but the people that typically do first touch maintenance are neither trained nor qualified to accomplish a flight check. Clarification is required.

4.5.1.17

USG Response: Flight check will be performed by the RMC for systems were the Contractor has 1st Touch Maintenance Responsibilities. RMC is currently manned by AD Air Force. RMC is also an option on the contract to be operated by the Contractor. In the event the Government exercises the option the Contractor manning the RMC would become responsible for Flight Checks.

Will Government provide advanced notice and treat any resulting minimal manning coverages as provided in paragraph 1.3.4 relative to supporting Agile Combat Employments (ACE) Exercises?

1.3.3/1.3.4 USG Response: Advanced notice will be provided when available. Expectation is manning coverage will be sufficient to support ACE with effective manpower waivers in place.

As Site 6668, Jordan is not otherwise defined or mentioned in the PWS, will Government clarify if this will b an added location for this contract and provide greater fidelity on overall requirements?

4.2.6 USG Response: Site 6668, Jordan shall be included as an Option under CLIN0051 and subsequent options. See PWS section 4.2.6 (reference to Appendix G will be corrected).

PWS Apendix G, Table G-15 contains location equipment details.

REDACTED served as a small business subcontractor to REDACTED at Al Asad on the current ACCOM contract. There are some lessons learned from the COVID outbreak for consideration regarding staffing impact, travel restrictions, and other COVID related delays and expenses going forward. The “age 60” rule and medical requirements for example. REDACTED was able to develop and implement operational procedures such as the conversion of the VFR tower to a TRACAB/ IFR Tower to ensure staffing requirements were always met to address these new requirements. The operational procedures ensured continuous, uninterrupted operations with no impact to the mission.

Section L&M USG Response: Noted.

Is the requirement to have an "in-theater PMO team" a new requirement, or is this a requirement on the current contract.

PWS Paragraph 4.2.1

USG Response: This is a new requirement.

The PWS does not specify a timeline for Transition-In/Out. The announcement on SAM.gov refers to a "90-day Phase-In/Transition period". Please clarify the expected timeframe for the Transition-In/Out?

PWS Paragraph 9.17

USG Response: There will be a 90 Day Transition-in & 90 Day Transition Out. That language will be added to PWS paragraph 9.17. The Transition-in is 90 days. The incumbent will be transitioning out during that same 90 day period but will continue to have responsibility for full performance until the last day of the current contract period. The ACCOMS II contractor will not be responsible for any performance until day one of the ACCOMS II requirement Base Period.

According to GovWin from Deltek, the government has obligated $140M for the current contract. Please confirm the inception to date funding amount obligated to the current contract.

Current Contract USG Response: Current contract values are available to the general public in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) at https://www.fpds.gov

Will the government please clarify for OCONUS destinations within Muslim practicing countries such as Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Iraq, when local labor law requires an overtime uplift applied to labor hours 49+ at 1.25% , and or Fridays applied at 1.5% , the uplift to normal labor hours is billable to the client.

Sub-Factor 1.4.2 Operating Hours & 3.1.17 Compliance Requirements

USG Response: IAW Draft PWS par 9.8, uplifts are based on local labor laws and can be proposed as part of the FFP labor CLINS. Overtime/uplifts shall be clearly differentiated between regular hours and show the specific uplift percentage.

Will the government please clarify if Middle Easter Sponsorship Airport Meet and Greet total fees are reimbursable within these terms and will be accepted invoiced, or should be included in total visa and sponsorship costs

Sub-Factor

3.2.2.2 & 8.6 Country Requirements

USG Response: The Government is not aware of a HN requirement for Contractors to utilize Middle Eastern Sponsorship Airport Meet and Greet services. Utilization of these services is a business management decision. If proposed total fees shall be included in visa and sponsorship costs for FFP CLINS; they will not be reimbursed as part of Cost Reimbursable CLINS.

Government Life support services suggest Meals and Dining may be awarded and provided based on availability at each base, however table 8.1 suggests no Meals provided. Will the government please clarify availability of this benefit?

Sub-Factor 6.1.3 OCONUS Meals/ Dining

USG Response: Contractors will be authorized to utilize Government Dining Facilities (with the exception of Bahrain). However, the individual Contractor FTEs will be responsible for paying for meals.

Will the government please clarify the contract is to observe 11 paid federal holidays per annum, even within destinations that require observance of local labor law directed Muslim Holiday totals?

Sub-Factor 9.13 & 9.14 Host Nation Holidays

USG Response: The contract is to observe 11 paid federal holidays per annum and observance of local labor laws directing Muslim Holiday observance.

41 Will the government please clarify the total Transition-In period from award to fully mobilized, please?

Sub-Factor 9.17 Transition

USG Response: The Contract will allow for a 90 Days Transition In period with full performance starting day 1 of the base period.

Will the government please clarify for each OCONUS country identified in the attachment (including those where government housing is provided on base) whether direct costs include any coverage of:

iv. Arrival Benefits, Per Diem , Temporary Lodging, & Travel

v. COLA

vi. Hardship, Hazard, Danger Allowances

vii. Visa sponsorship

Sub-Factor 8.4.2 HN Licensing / Pricing/ Life Support

USG Response: See response to Question 27.

Will the government please clarify for the personnel assigned to each OCONUS country identified in the attachment if any retention or end-of-service bonuses would apply to the opportunity?

Sub-Factor 3.1.14.1

OCONUS /

Pricing / Transition Out

USG Response: Retention or end-of-service bonuses are at the Offerors' discretion and may be include as part of the FFP Labor CLINs.

44 Will the government please clarify if any R & R travel or fit for duty medical costs are billable to the client?

Sub-Factor 3.1.14.1

OCONUS /

Pricing / Transition Out

USG Response: R & R travel at the Offerors' discretion and may be include as part of the FFP Labor CLINs.

Please clarify what is meant by "Fit for duty medical costs".

Reference is made that a Secret Facility Clearance must be possessed without additional authorization (i.e., NID). Can the Government confirm that proposals will still be eligible for award where a contractor possesses a NID and currently supports either the customer or the agency.

Instructions for Volume I, Paragraph 6.1.1.1

USG Response: Proposals from offerors with a current and approved agency NID will be accepted. Section L, Par 6.1.1.1 will be changed to reflect that pending authorizations are not acceptable.

In PWS para 3.1.4 it states the kick-off meeting with the Government will be held within 5 calendar days of award. Within PWS, Appendix E, item D-004 it states the kick off meeting will be held within 15 calendar days of award.

Question: The 15 calendar days noted in PWS, Appendix E appears to be the time needed for the meeting with lead time for the preparation of the meeting agenda and offeror presentation. Request the Government reconcile these dates.

PWS - Page # 9, Para 3.1.4 & page # 76, Appendix E, Item D-004

USG Response: PWS Para 3.1.4 will be changed to indicate 15 calendar days.

In PWS para 3.1.12.3 it states "All vacancies shall be filled within 30 days of incumbent’s departure." Within PWS para 9.1.3 it states "Key personnel replacements shall be named and in place no later than 28 calendar days from the start of the vacancy." and in para 9.1.4, it states "Non-key personnel replacements shall be named and in place no later than 42 calendar days from the start of the vacancy."

Questions: Can the Government please confirm that PWS references 9.1.3, and para 9.1.4 are correct and that paragraph 3.2.12.3 will be updated/reconciled?

PWS- Page #10, Para 3.1.12.3 & page # 52, para

9.1.3 and para 9.1.4

USG Response: PWS will be corrected to ensure no differences in time requirements. Key personnel replacements shall be named and in place no later than 45 calendar days from the start of the vacancy. Non-Key personnel replacements shall be named and in place no later than 60 calendar days from the start of the vacancy.

Within PWS para 4.5.1.14 it states the contractor will submit their OSHA plan "for review with 10 days of contract award date" and in PWS Appendix E, item D-023 it states the draft plan is due 30 days from award and final plan at contract start.

Question: Can the Government reconcile the due date of the draft OSHA plan and clarify if these are calendar or working/business days?

PWS - Page # 37, para 4.5.1.14 & page # 80, Appendix E, Item D-023

USG Response: PWS will be corrected. The draft OSHA plan shall be due 10 calendar days from Contract Award and Final due at start of Base Period of Performance (after 90-day transition period).

Within PWS Section C, para 2.1 it states "All positions require a secret security clearance.", in para 2.6 the PWS states "Classified performance is not required at the contractor CONUS facility".

Question: Please clarify if the requirement for this solicitation is for each person assigned to the contract to hold a secret security clearance or only key personnel and/or OCONUS personnel?

PWS - Page # 60, Section C, para 2.1 & page #61, para 2.6

USG Response: IAW with Section C, para 2.1, All positions on the contract require a Secret Clearance.

Appendix E, deliverable D-022 has an initial delivery as "Daily on MIS".

Question: Since the data will not be available until the start of full performance, suggest the initial delivery be changed to "Daily on MIS on first day of full performance."

PWS - Page #80, Appendix E, item D-022

USG Response: Appendix E, deliverable D-022 will be updated to "Daily on MIS starting on first day of full performance. However, Awardee is encouraged to start posting daily station master logs as soon as they implement daily station master logs.

In the PWS para 4.7.1 it references Appendix E, Deliverables Configuration Control and Management Plan.

In Appendix E, item D-024 it does not reference paragraph para 4.7.1.

Question: Should PWS para 4.7.1 be added to Appendix E, item D-024 as a PWS Ref para?

PWS - Page # 40, para 4.7.1, page # 80, Appendix E, item D-024

USG Response: Will update the PWS Appendix E, item D-024 to reference paragraph para 4.7.1

In PWS para 5.1.4 it states "Reports are due within three working days." Within Appendix E, item D-026 it states initial submission is due "With 3 days."

Question: Will the Government update Appendix E, item D-026 due date to reconcile with para 5.1.4 of "within three working days."?

PWS - Page # 43, para 5.1.4 and page # 80, Appendix E, item D-026

USG Response: Will update the PWS Appendix E, item D-026 to reflect "Reports are due within three (3) working days"

Within the PWS para 5.1.10.1, 5.1.10.2, 5.1.10.3, and 5.1.11.2 it references Appendix E, Deliverables Warranty Tracking Reports. In Appendix E, these paragraphs are not listed as PW Ref para for item D-028.

Questions: Should these PWS paras be added to PWS Ref para for Appendix E, item D-028?

PWS - Page # 44, para 5.1.10.1, 5.1.10.2, 5.1.10.3, 5.1.11.2, & page # 81, Appendix E, Item D-028

USG Response: Will update the PWS Appendix E, item D-028 to reflect the following references:

5.1.10.1 5.1.10.2 5.1.10.3 5.1.11.2

Volume III - Past Performance (Factor 5), Para. 8.10 Adverse Past Performance.

Questions: Is the Government requesting offerors to address adverse past performance within the past performance volume? If so, is there a page limit for the referenced adverse past performance section?

Section L - Page #10, Para 8.10

USG Response: Contractors should address negative past performance if submitted in their PPI Contract References or if it comes from a source without a formal rating system. This must be included withing the PPI page limits established in section L. 8.1. The Government reserves the right to communicate with offerors if relevant adverse past performance is found IAW Section, Par 8.9. during evaluations.

3.1.2 Factor 2: Small Business Participation states:

“The proposed subcontracting goals shall include proposed goals for Women-Owned Small Businesses; Smal Disadvantaged Businesses; HUBZone Small Businesses and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses. [Note: DoD goals are currently 10.57% for Small Disadvantaged Small Businesses, 5% for Women-Owned Small Businesses and 3% each for HUBZone and Service-Disabled Veteran[1]Owned Small Businesses.]”

Question: Please confirm that the government intends for the minimum subcontract goals for SDB to be 5%, which is the DoD Subcontract goals for FY2023 goals rather than prime contract SDB goal 10.57%.

Section M - Page # 16, Para 3.1.2

USG Response: Confirmed. Section M, Par 3.1.2 will be updated to reflect 5% SDB goal for subcontracting.

56 Are contractors allowed to use the Erbil medical facilities and if so, is there a cost to the contractor? 6.1.2

USG Response:

1. Contractors are allowed to be seen on base if Synchronized Predeployment & Operational Tracker (SPOT) LOA states authorized to be seen for routine care. SPOT LOAs for contractors assigned to Erbil will state they are authorized to be seen for routine care.

2. The Government will collect payment from contractor for routine care. The Government is looking into average cost for routine care and will provide in follow-on response to this question.

57 Can the government a list of where contractors can eat in the dining facility and the cost per each meal? 6.1.3 USG Response: Bahrain does not allow contractors use of DFAC. All other locations do.

The Government looking into average cost per meal and will provide a follow-on response to this question.

Questions Pending Further Government Response

OCONUS Billeting: The section notes in part "subject to availability and local policy at each location". Can the government provide a list of the stations/sites that the contractor must lease space outside of the base for billeting

6.1.5 USG Response: The Government looking into availability and local policy for each base and will provide a follow-on response to this question.

Controller personnel are required to have annual Class II medical examinations. According to paragraph 6.1.2, "All government-provided medical and dental care is reimbursable to the government." Can the government confirm that at locations not specifically identified as, "Flight Medical Services Needed", that contractors will have access to the government flight surgeon for their annual and non-recurrent flight physical needs.

PWS Paragraphs 4.3, 6.1.2. and Appendix G

USG Response: Contractor can use Doc in a box with non-US citizens as the service provider. For visits that issue a Class II Flight Physical, an FAA certified flight surgeon must be seen. The Government is researching which sites will be able to provide access to the government flight surgeon for their annual and non-recurrent flight physical needs and average costs. The Government will provide a follow-on response to this question.

According to paragraph 6.1.2, "All government-provided medical and dental care is reimbursable to the government." Can the government provide a schedule of services and related costs.

PWS Paragraph 6.1.2

USG Response: The Government is researching average costs. The Government will provide a follow-on response to this question.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear the case of Badilla v. Midwest Air Traffic Control Service, Inc. As a result, the Second Circuit decision stands, and Midwest, a subcontractor performing air traffic control (ATC) work in Kabul under a program resembling ACCOM, was not immune from state law negligence claims related to wrongful death because its ATC work did not, at least in the Second Circuit, arise out of the combatant activities of the military. Does the customer recognize that, in light of this, bidders will now be forced to consider the extensive additional costs of insurance, and of defending potential lawsuits (even where the awardee or its subs are vindicated)? How does the government propose that potential bidders price this into their bids? Will the government be providing any kind of indemnity protection to would-be bidders? If not, will the government take specific steps (like offering plug numbers) to offerors to ensure a level playing field for cost/price evaluation purposes?

Federal Tort Claims Act

USG Response: The Government looking into specific requirements for insurance and any minimum coverage/liability requirements. The Government will provide a follow-on response to this question.

What are the specific experience and training prerequisites for technicians responsible for providing support for Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) equipment?

PWS - Appendix G-2 & G-4

USG Response: The Government is researching specific experience and training prerequisites for technicians responsible for providing support for Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) equipment. The Government will provide a follow-on response to this question.

USG Response: The Government looking into specific requirement for Air Traffic Control (ATC) Liability insurance, General Liability coverage, or Errors and Omissions coverage and any minimum coverage/liability requirements. The Government will provide a follow-o response to this question.

There is no mention of Air Traffic Control (ATC) Liability insurance, General Liability coverage, or Errors and Omissions coverage. Prior solicitations for work covered by this solicitation included government provided costs to cover these critical insurance items, recognizing the importance of the coverage and the various ways contractors might behave if they were not required to include these costs and these coverages.

Each contractor was required to bid these costs and required to procure this insurance.

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 focu 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 liability insurance in the solicitation. Based on our extensive experience in this theatre, we suggest requiring air traffic control liability insurance at a minimum of $100M (non-aggregate, secured through a reputable third party (i.e., no self-insurance). This limit is being recommended due to the requirement of providing positive control (radar) which is dramatically different than “VFR” control and, therefore, imposes an increased risk to the service provider and the government. Companies determining that 100M is insufficient would be allowed to purchase additional, or excess, insurance. However, identifying a minimally acceptable limit of liability allows the government to evaluate all fairly and based upon a specified minimum standard.

We also recommend that the solicitation require that the US Government be added as an Additional Insured, which is common in this industry.

59 Insurance