Q&A_-_70(Update)-77.pdf

Q70 PWS paragraph 2.2.12.1. Functional Systems Administrator (FSA) / Commander

Support Staff/Cybersecurity Liaison (CSS/CL) duties / Integrated Maintenance

Information System (IMIS) Management / Technical Order Distribution Office

(TODO): and paragraph 3.2.7. Functional Systems Administrator (FSA) /

Commander Support Staff/Cybersecurity Liaison (CSS/CL).

These paragraphs describe several dissimilar taskings and a significant workload for the number of FSA

FTE in the manning requirement depicted in

Appendix 1. With the recent changes to cybersecurity scanning requirements directed by the 366 COMM Squadron

(TASKORD 17-0019):

base-wide requirement to complete a system scan of all computers, populating a log with all findings and making repairs where possible places a significant additional burden on the duties of the

FSAs. Scans on all machines are required quarterly and each scan takes approximately 8 hours per machine to complete the scan and associated documentation

(currently maintaining

300+ machines). This significant addition to the

FSAs’ current workload presents a Very High Risk for failure in the critical area of cybersecurity.

The government is confident in the ability of the specified number of qualified individuals to accomplish the tasks set forth in the PWS.

Regarding TASKORD 17-

0019, the government is consulting with additional

SMEs to determine what action, if any, should be taken to address the associated duty increase.

UPDATE: Please see

Amendment 3 to the RFP, which amends Table 7-2 to add one dedicated (1) TODO position and which reduces the duties described in the paragraph referenced in your question.

Q71 Q6 PWS, Table 7-2 Appendix 1: Manpower Requirement: Q6 PWS, Table 7-2

Appendix 1: Manpower Requirement: displays the government’s PWS manning requirements by FAC Title, OSC Title and AFSC. There is no indication of what

SCA labor category the government deems acceptable for any of the positions listed in Table 7-2 Appendix 1.

New Question to

Response: Since the GOV will not provide SCA labor category and in order for anyone except the incumbent to bid the right

No, the Government will not release IMDS data. The contractor is responsible for preparing an appropriate proposal, consistent with the law, to provide the services as

Question: Is it the government’s intention to allow contractors to bid the SCA rate that they determine is appropriate and if so what metric is the government going to use in the evaluation process to determine price reasonableness to achieve the desired performance?

Response: Yes, contractors should bid the labor rates that they determine are appropriate, consistent with the law, to provide the services as described in the

PWS. The government will evaluate total cost of proposals in line with the process described in Sections L and M of the RFP category and skill level the workload data for each current contract position needs to be released all competitors. Will the GOV release workload data by position from IMDS and if not why not?

described in the PWS. The government will evaluate total cost of proposals in line with the process described in

Sections L and M of the RFP.

Q72 Q58 PWS, Appendix 1 - Manpower Requirements: Question: Can the government provide the wage determination job classification and number that coincides with each of the listed AFSCs?

Response: No, because there is not necessarily a specific, one-to-one correlation between AFSCs and wage determination job classifications for positions described in the PWS.

New Question to

Response: If there is not a one-to-one correlation between AFSC and WD than how can the GOV expect a contractor to accurately classify a position?

The contractor is responsible for preparing an appropriate proposal, consistent with the law, to provide the services as described in the PWS. The government will evaluate total cost of proposals in line with the process described in

Sections L and M of the RFP.

Position classification should take into account the services to be provided as described in the PWS.

Q73 Q58 PWS, Appendix 1 - Manpower Requirements: Question: Can the government provide the wage determination job classification and number that coincides with each of the listed AFSCs?

Response: No, because there is not necessarily a specific, one-to-one correlation between AFSCs and wage determination job classifications for positions described in the PWS.

Question to Response: Is the GOV response the opinion of HQ ACC Office of Manpower and

Personnel or just that of

Mountain Home AFB? If not that of ACC why didn’t the Wing contact for assistance? Many GOV A-

76 efforts over the years were able to make a direct correlation without any problem, what make this more unique than say the conversion of the Nellis

Backshop Contract handled by HQ ACC?

This is not an A-76 situation.

The contractor is responsible for preparing an appropriate proposal, consistent with the law, to provide the services as described in the PWS.

Q74 PWS Page 70: Table 7-2 app 1 Manpower Requirements: What AFSC is currently holding the Training

The current holder of this position is a 2A3X3 AFSC.

Manager/Instructor position? 2A3X3 or

2A6X1? If it is changing from one to the other why?

The AFSC has changed based upon updated base training requirements and RSAF training demands.

Q75 PWS Page 70: Table 7-2 app 1 Manpower Requirements: Since this is a late change that requires three candidates will the GOV extend the due date of the

RFP? If the current position is being filled by a

2A6X1 will the GOV provide contact information?

The government will extend the due date for proposals to

22 Dec 17.

Q76 Amendment 2 - Amendment 2 changes the AFSC of the Maintenance Instructor from a 2A3X3 to a 2A6X1. This significantly reduces the pool from which to hire qualified candidates yet both AFSCs perform engine tasks on the F-15.

Could the AFSC requirement for the

Maintenance Instructor be changed to “either 2A3X3 or 2A6X1” since both of these AFSCs perform engine tasks on the F-15 and this would expand the pool of potential qualified instructors?

Based on past experience under the contract, as well as on recent changes in demand for instructor capability, the government will not change the AFSC under this position.

Q77 RFP Is the RFP

FA489717R0006 for a contract to be performed in

CONUS at MHAFB, or is part or all of the contract to be performed in

Singapore?

RFP FA489717R0006 is for a contract to be performed at

Mountain Home AFB in

Mountain Home, ID. None of these services are to be performed in Singapore.