ATSA-I-Industry Questions-Responses-26MAR2024.pdf

Question # Industry Questions/Comments Government Response

We kindly request to schedule a date and time to hold a capability briefing. If convenient, we are available on Monday (2/19) and Thursday

(2/22) between 10am - 4pm.

No individual briefings are being conducted. Continue to check SAM. gov for postings.

Section L&M allows up to three Work Samples. For each Work Sample, substantiation information must be provided which shows applicability to one or more focus areas. Is it the government’s intention for a “Work Sample” to be at the contract level and then the three artifacts to be documents produced on that contract relevant to the focus areas? If so, is it correct that multiple artifacts can be provided for one Work Sample

(contract) to show coverage of the three focus areas? For example, if the obsolescence study, proposed solution, and system model were all separate deliverables under one contract can we include all three?

Work Samples represent a contract/order where work was perormed for the Government in at least one of the Focus Area Categories. The Offeror may break down the Work Sample into seperate artifacts in order to substaintiate the points being claimed.

The technical volume is limited to 30 pages. However, the Work Sample asks for evidence that “must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered”. Are Work Sample artifacts exempted from the 30 page limitation? Without the ability to trim artifacts, it is unlikely contract artifacts can be provided within the 30 page limit

Work Samples are NOT exempt from the 30-page limitation. Only the relevant portions of

Work Samples artifacts are to be submitted to substantiate self scoring. Offerors may elect to select only those portions from the original artifacts to reflect those portions that substaintiate points claimed on the self-score matrix without altering the original content.

Given the number of cover pages, dividers, and other requirements for work samples, would the government consider an increase in technical volume page limit? If one (1) work sample has three (3) artifacts, then by default cover page(s), contract/order page, and artifact dividers alone will constitute ~5-6 pages of the volume irrespective of the actual work sample itself. If there are multiple work samples with artifacts it could result in nearly half of the tech volume comprised of non-technical, administrative content.

The Government does not intend to increase the technical volume page limit. It will however, remove the requirement in Section L, paragraph II.C.5.c to "insert work sample divider sheets between work sample artifacts". As stated in the previous response, artifacts are not required to be submitted in their entirety.

Question 6 of the posted file ATSA-I_QUESTIONS_RESPONSES (07FEB2024) states “I know teaming is not going to be allowed…”. Can

Government please confirm that teaming will or will not be allowed under the IDIQ future Orders?

Teaming will not be allowed when awarding ATSA-I. However, it will be allowed at the task/delivery order level.

The Draft L-900 – Instructions to Offerors C. Volume II, Technical Proposal 4. ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix: “the offeror shall submit one (1) ATSA-

I Self-Scoring Matrix.“ If NGC teams with other companies, is that still only one (1) self-scoring matrix, or two (2)? NGC assumes just one (1) self-scoring matrix is required?

Since teaming is not allowed to award on to ATSA-I, only one self-scoring matrix will be required.

Has the Government further considered incorporating sample Task/Delivery Orders as part of the solicitation and if so, can we expect to see this in the draft RFP?

The Government will not be incorporating sample task/delovery orders as part of the soliticion or draft RFP.

8 Will there be an IDIQ contract ceiling?

Yes, $980,000,000. This estimated award amount is the shared maximum amount of all orders issued under all multiple awards made as a result of the issued RFP FA8533-24-R-0002.

9 Once awarded, should we anticipate any fees associated with using the vehicle? The Government does not anticipate any fees associated with using ATSA-I.

10 Can we expect any limitations or restrictions outside of the standard FAR clauses, for example, on-boarding or adding subcontractors?

The Government anticipates no limitations. On-boarding and subcontractor (vendors not awarded under ATSA-I) use will be subject to contracting officer review and approval.

Section L, paragraph II.A. – General, Volume 1: The chart indicates Volume I should include a completed RFP and Cover letter. Should this chart also indicate that a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required in Volume I (as required by paragraph B.2)?

Subcontracting Plan is part of the completed RFP as part of Volume I. The chart/table in

Section L-900.II.A has been updated to include a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Section L, paragraph II.B.2. – Small Business Subcontracting Plan: Since a cost/price volume is not being submitted and would be instead completed on each future task order(s), on what basis would the offeror complete its Small Business Subcontracting Plan? Would a Master Plan only be acceptable?

Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements are in development.

Section L, paragraph II.C.2. – Format and Specific Content: The Government mentions a maximum of 3 Work Samples to be submitted. Must the Work Sample for one particular Focus Area contain documentation from an individual effort or may they consist of data from distinct efforts?

Section L-900.II.C.2 has been updated to include:

One work sample equals one contract/order. A work sample may be comprised of multiple artifacts. A work sample artifact represents evidence/information documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) deliverable for its work sample.

Section L, paragraph II.D.1. – General: Paragraph b) requires a detailed narrative with at least three methods identified and explained regarding how the offeror will develop subcontracting goals to meet and exceed Air Force small business goals in all task/delivery orders. Is the Air Force able to share its small business goals?

Small business goals have not been published.

Section M, paragraph I.A.: The Government, on Page 6 of the RFP Attachment, M-900 Evaluation Basis for Award, states that “If more than half of the total number of technically acceptable Offerors are large businesses, the Government may elect to remove the lowest ranking large businesses.” Is it the Government’s intent to have 50%/50% Large to Non-Large Business participation on this contract?

This verbiage has been removed from the ATSA-I Section L and M.

Does Warner Robins plan to provide a contract schedule and/or forecast of upcoming requirements for the MAC. Suggestion to provide first set of delivery orders at the same time industry is bidding the base.

The Government intends to provide industry a forecast of requirements as they become available.

17 Is it the expectation that industry bids on every delivery order or provides reasons for no-bid?

The Government's expectation is for all vendors to bid on solicitations they have interest/expertise in. No-bid response with explanation will be required.

L-900 Proposal Requirements, I Proposal Format, A General

"Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the ATSA-I Multiple Award Contract (MAC) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as the Government will review only one proposal per Offeror."

What consitutes different offerors? One proposal per cage code or per company, when many cage codes are assigned to different business areas of large corporations or wholely owned subsidaries within a conglomerate? Can conglomerates claim experience from all their subsidiaries even when managed as independent companies.

The submitted question "what constitiutes different offerors" is unclear. The Government will only accept one proposal from one Offeror (one company). Companies may claim relevant experience from their company subsidiaries within their own conglomerate, but not their subcontractors.

L-900 Proposal Requirements, I Proposal Format, A General

"The Government intends to award multiple contracts under this solicitation. The Government is estimating to award to no more than 50 awardees with a task order of $1000 to attend a post-award conference as result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to change the total number of contracts awarded, to include no award without prior notice to Offerors."

It appears to conflict with the FAR reference thus the text below.

"Per FAR 15.304 (c)(1)(ii)(A) The contracting officer may choose not to include price or cost as an evaluation factor for award when a solicitation—

(1) Has an estimated value above the simplified acquisition threshold;

(2) Will result in multiple-award contracts (see subpart 16.5) that are for the same or similar services; and

(3) States that the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying offerors (see 2.101). "

Suggested text: The Government intends to award multiple contracts under this solicitation. The Government will award a task order of $1000 to all qualifying offerors to attend a post-award conference as result of this solicitation.

The Government has revised the verbiage to:

The Government intends to award multiple contracts under this solicitation. However, the

Government reserves the right not to award any contracts and may do so without prior notice to

Offerors. The Government will award a task order of $1000 to all qualifying offerors to attend a post-award conference as result of this solicitation.

II.A. ATSA-I Proposal Orgnaization Table, Volume II Page Count

Volume II in the table lists 5 sections that make up the 30 page limit (Technical Proposal; Self Scoring Matrix; Work Sample Cover Sheet; Work

Sample Contract Front Page; and the Work Sample). The self-scoring matrix has a max of 1pg, the work sample cover sheet has a max of

2pgs/WS (6pg total) and the work sample Contract Front Page has a max of 1pg/WS (3pg total) which add up to 10pgs total. Would the

Government provide clarification of how the remaining 20pgs should be populated?

Any remaining proposal pages after the Matrix, Work Sample Cover Sheet(s) and Work

Sample Contract Front Page(s) shall be used for the work sample artifacts.

L-900 Proposal Requirements, B Volume 1, Completed RFP, 2. Formate and Specific Content

"The Technical Proposal which consists of the ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix and a maximum of three (3) recent/relevant work samples (e.g., body of facts, data, proof) as substantiating documentation will be evaluated."

What constitutes a work sample? Are contracts, CDRLs, and/or pictures work samples? Are the work sample included in the Technical Volume

Page count? A statement of work may call out scope or tasking that has not been performed yet or may never be performed. The perfect example is a MAC with a broad scope statement for which the contractor never won a task order. The SOW does not prove the work was done nor does it provide a work sample. Conversly a CDRL Submission would provide a verifiable work sample.

Work samples shall represent contracts/orders of work performed for the United States

Government. A work sample may be comprised of multiple artifacts. A work sample artifact represents evidence/information documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data

Requirements List (CDRL) for its work sample.

Yes, contracts/orders are work samples. CDRLs are work sample artifacts. A picture may be used as a supporting illustration, see Paragraph L-900.II.A.c.

L-900 Proposal Requirements, B Volume 1, Completed RFP, 5. Work Sample Substantiating Documentation: C)

"Provide a work sample divider sheet that identifies each piece of evidence being used to substantiate points for that Focus Area

Category/Categories; examples are illustrated below. Each artifact from the work sample will be placed after its respective divider sheet in the file."

(1) Is a divider sheet required for each new section of every individual work sample? Do these divididers go towards page count? (3) Suggest providing a sample to industry within the documentation or at pre-solicitation conference.

The Government has removed the divider sheet requirement. No specific examples are planned to be provided, but depending on the Focus Area Category for which points are being claimed on the self-score matrix, an example of a deliverable/artifact might be a portion of an obsolescence study for an automatic test system (ATS) or a portion of a report proposing a replacement for an obsolete part within an ATS

L-900. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, D Volume III Small Business Participation 1)

"1. General: The Small Business Participation proposal is required from all Offerors in a separate volume labeled “Volume III – Small Business

Participation”."

Since Small Business participation requirements will be specified at the individual order level, would it be acceptable for businesses who have

Corporate Comprehenisve Small Business Subcontracting Pans to submit that along with or as their Volume III response as it shows evidence of small business committments but also historical metrics of goals to actuals substantiating not only the committment but the abilty to achieve.

Suggested text: 1. General: The Small Business Participation proposal is required from all Offerors in a separate volume labeled “Volume III –

Small Business Participation”. Large businesses are required to submit their Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan as a separate Annex.

No. A comprehensive plan would not be acceptable for Vol III - Small Busines Participation. A comprehensive subcontracting plan would be acceptable for the RFP Small Business

Subcontracting Plan.

M-900 Evaluation Basis for Contract Award, I. Basis for Contract Award, A. Source Selection Methodology

"The Government is estimating to award to no more than 50 awardees with a task order of $1000 to attend a post-award conference as result of this solicitation."

It appears to conflict with the FAR reference thus the text below. Per FAR 15.304 (c)(1)(ii)(A) The contracting officer may choose not to include price or cost as an evaluation factor for award when a solicitation—

(1) Has an estimated value above the simplified acquisition threshold;

(2) Will result in multiple-award contracts (see subpart 16.5) that are for the same or similar services; and

(3) States that the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying offerors (see 2.101).

Suggested text: The Government willl award to a task order of $1000 to all qualifying offerors to attend a post-award conference as result of this solicitation.

This verbiage has been removed from Section M.

M-900 Evaluation Basis for Contract Award, I. Basis for Contract Award, A. Source Selection Methodology

"In the event that the Government determines that there are more technically acceptable proposals received than can be supported by the resultant contract, overall score will be used to determine rank order of qualified Offerors. Furthermore, the Government reserves the right to make down-select decisions to ensure a balanced awardee base consists of large business, small business, non-profit, and/or educational. If more than half of the total number of technically acceptable Offerors are large businesses, the Government may elect to remove the lowest ranking large businesses. The remaining awardee base will consist of awardees classified as small business, non-profit, or educational."

Appears to violate FAR 15.304. The Government must determine what makes a proposal technically acceptable (perhaps by minimum total points) and award to all offerors that earn that rating or higher.

This verbiage has been removed from Section M.

M-900 Evaluation Basis for Contract Award, II. Propopsal Evaluation, A. General 1 Discussions

"Throughout the course of proposal evaluations and discussions, the Government reserves the right to establish multiple competitive ranges in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3) and FAR 15.306(d)(5)."

The application of competitive range is illusive. It seems discussions would include offerors who are Technically Acceptable or potentially

Technically Acceptable with administrative corrections. It appears that the Government must set a score at the onset of the program that is necessary to achieve Technical Acceptability.

This verbiage has been removed from Section M.

M-900 Evaluation Basis for Contract Award, II. Propopsal Evaluation, C. Volume II, Technical Factor, 1 General, ATSA-I Focus Areas, a)ATS

Sustainment and Logistical Support

"System Contract Logistics Support (CLS) contracts, which would include supply chain management, maintenance management, and sustainment engineering efforts"

CLS, ICS, and PBL contracts should be included.

Suggested text: System Contract Logistics Support (CLS), Interim Contractor Support (ICS), Performance Based Logistics (PBL) contracts, which would include supply chain management, maintenance management, and sustainment engineering efforts

This verbiage has been removed from Section M.

M-900 Evaluation Basis for Contract Award, II. Propopsal Evaluation, C. Volume II, Technical Factor, 1 General, ATSA-I Focus Areas, a)ATS

Sustainment and Logistical Support

"Example activities which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include (but are not limited to) the following:"

Recommend eliminating (but are not limited to) and adding more example activities to avoid being overly broad resulting in everyone being found technically acceptable.

Suggested text: Example activities which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include the following:

The list is an example of acitivites. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list.

M-900 Evaluation Basis for Contract Award, II. Propopsal Evaluation, C. Volume II, Technical Factor, 1 General, ATSA-I Focus Areas, b)ATS

Integration & Development

"Providing ATS solutions at USAF locations for all maintenance levels including Depot or Field (Intermediate or Organizational), as well as developmental testing in systems integration labs"

Specifying only USAF locations is overly prescriptive and limits compitition to existing USAF contractors. Other DOD, and Government contracts may be more indicative of the capability to perform ATS Integration and Development.

Suggested text: Providing ATS solutions for all maintenance levels including Depot or Field (Intermediate or Organizational), as well as developmental testing in systems integration labs

USAF has been changed to Department of Defense (DoD).

M-900 Evaluation Basis for Contract Award, II. Propopsal Evaluation, C. Volume II, Technical Factor, 1 General, ATSA-I Focus Areas, b)ATS

Integration & Development

"Example activities which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include (but are not limited to) the following:"

Recommend eliminating (but are not limited to) and adding more example activities to avoid being overly broad resulting in everyone being found technically acceptable.

Suggested text: Example activities which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include the following:

The list is an example of acitivites. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list.

M-900 Evaluation Basis for Contract Award, II. Propopsal Evaluation, C. Volume II, Technical Factor, 1 General, ATSA-I Focus Areas, C)ATS

Digital Engineering/Innovation

"Example activities which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include (but are not limited to) the following:"

Recommend eliminating (but are not limited to) and adding more example activities to avoid being overly broad resulting in everyone being found technically acceptable.

Suggested text: Example activities which could be used to demonstrate a proficiency include the following:

The list is an example of acitivites. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list.

Is the SOO, Section L & M, and Self Scoring Matrix provided on 7 February 2024, via Sam.gov, the Government’s DRAFT RFP, with the next release anticipated to be the formal RFP or does the Government consider these documents to be a precursor to release of a DRAFT RFP?

The next ATSA-I SAM.gov release will not be the formal RFP. The Government considers all documemts to be draft until the formal RFP release. The Government will release a Draft RFP and hold a pre-solication conference prior to the release of the RFP.

With the recent release of the ATS Government Reference Architecture (GRA), does the Government anticipate release of the formal ATSA-I

RFP via the Government Infrastructure Framework (GIF) or via Sam.gov?

The Government will release the formal ATSA-I RFP via Sam.gov.

Draft ATSA-I INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO):

With the recent release of the ATS GRA, does the Government anticipate Offerors will still be able to submit proposal responses via email or

DoD SAFE?

Proposal responses for ATSA-I shall be remitted in DoD SAFE as identified in L-900.

Will the Government please confirm that the offeror is not required to address any requirements in the Draft SOO or any additional final RFP

PWS/SOW with the offeror’s Work Sample responses for the Technical Proposal?

The Government confirms all responses shall be provided as outlined in the Sections L and M.

During the August 2023 Industry Day, the Government stated that ATSA-I awardees may only team/subcontract with other ATSA-I awardees.

Will the Government please clarify if this is still your position?

If yes, will the Government please confirm such teaming/subcontracting restrictions do not include the purchase of supplies, as FAR 52.219-9

(b) defines “Subcontract” as “any agreement (other than one involving an employer-employee relationship) entered into by a Federal

Government prime Contractor or subcontractor calling for supplies or services required for performance of the contract or subcontract.”?

To encourage teaming in the ATSA-I awardee pool, the Government will require all awardees first utilize the ATSA-I awardee pool for teaming/subcontracting. If the awardee elects to utlilize an awardee outside of the awardee pool, the ordering PCO will review supported rationale documentation why an awardee was not selected from the awardee pool.

Teaming/subcontracting applies to both services and supplies.

Draft ATSA-I INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO). II Volume Organization. A. General: ATSA-I Proposal Organization Table:

Please confirm that the “Work Sample Contract Front Page(s) [1 Page per Work Sample]” is referring to the front page of the applicable contract/task order award document (e.g., SF 33, DD Form 1155).

Yes. The "Work Sample Contract Front Page(s) is referring to the front page of the applicable contract/order award document.

Draft ASTA-I ITO, Section II. Volume Organization, A. General states, “ATSA-I Self Scoring Matrix [1 Page Maximum]”, whereas Section C, Volume II, Technical Proposal.4, states, “The Offeror shall submit one (1) ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix (Attachment X) utilizing up to a maximum of (3) three work samples.”

Will the Government please confirm that the Self-Scoring Matrix is to be submitted in the excel “Attachment X” format and not in the 30 page

Technical proposal?

The Government has revised Section L-900.II.C.4 to require submission of the ATSA-I Self-

Scoring Matrix to be in PDF format.

Draft ASTA-I ITO, Section II. Volume Organization, A. General States that the page limit for Volume II is 30 pages and Draft ASTA-I ITO, Section II. Volume Organization, A. General State.c states: “The page limitation for Volume II, Technical Proposal is thirty (30) pages. There is no page limitation for Volume III, Small Business Participation. The page limitations include any executive summaries, company introductions, cover letters, charts, graphs, drawings, diagrams, supporting illustrations, spreadsheets, etc. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation.” Whereas

Section C.Volume II, Technical Proposal, 5 Work Sample Substantiating Documentation states: “The overall work sample artifacts should be contained in one electronic file with an easily distinguishable name—e.g. for a PDF file the Offeror may use “Work Sample 1 (WS-1).pdf”.”

Will the Government please confirm that all “overall work sample artifacts” are to be submitted in a separate pdf file outside of the 30-page limit for Volume II?

Will the Government please clarify “work sample artifacts” are a compilation of the work samples provided in the Technical Factor response or the entire artifacts from which the work sample has been extracted.

- The Goverment does not confirm that all "overall work sample artifacts" are outside of the 30-page limit. All "work sample artifacts" will be counted toward the 30-page limit. The

Government will only evaluate the 30 pages submitted in the technical proposal.

- Work samples shall represent contracts/orders of work performed for the United States

Government. A work sample may be comprised of multiple artifacts. A work sample artifact represents evidence/information documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data

Requirements List (CDRL) for its work sample. The Goverment has revised Section L-

900.II.C.2 to reflect this clarification.

Draft ASTA-I ITO, Section II. Volume Organization, A. General States that the page limit for Volume II is 30 pages and Draft ASTA-I ITO, Section C.Volume II, Technical Proposal, 5 Work Sample Substantiating Documentation.c states: “Provide a work sample divider sheet that identifies each piece of evidence being used to substantiate points for that Focus Area Category/Categories; examples are illustrated below.

Each artifact from the work sample will be placed after its respective divider sheet in the file.”

Will the Government please confirm that the “work sample divider sheets are only required in the unlimited pdf for the Work Sample Artifacts” and are not required within the 30-page Technical Proposal?

If required within the 30-page Technical proposal, are work sample divider sheets included in the Volume II page count restrictions? Should they receive page numbers?

The Government has elected to remove the required divider sheets. Section L-900.II.C.5 will be updated to reflect the change. Note, there are no "unlimited PDFs" for the Work Sample

Artifacts.

Draft ATSA-I ITO. C. Volume II Technical Proposal, 5. Work Sample Substantiating Documentation.:

Please clarify what information and or documents the Government requires be submitted for “overall work sample artifacts” via one electronic file? Please confirm the “overall work sample artifacts” are not included in the Volume II page count restrictions.

The Government considers any official documentation that supports work experience being claimed as a Work Sample artifact (i.e. CDRLs). Only the relevant portions of Work Sample artifacts are to be submitted to substantiate self scoring. Offerors may elect to select only those portions from the original artifacts to reflect those portions that substaintiate points claimed on the self-score matrix without altering the original content. All of the submitted PDFs for Volume II should add up to 30 pages or less.

Draft ASTA-I ITO, Section C.Volume II, Technical Proposal, 5 Work Sample Substantiating Documentation, states: “The overall work sample artifacts should be contained in one electronic file with an easily distinguishable name—e.g. for a PDF file the Offeror may use “Work Sample 1

(WS-1).pdf” and then at the end of Section 5 states: “Evidence proposed must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered.

Names that have been manually inserted into substantiating documentation and were not part of the original document will not be used to validate experience.”

Will the Government please confirm that any “work sample artifacts” in the original format other than “.pdf” can be submitted in “.pdf”?

The Government confirms that any work sample artifacts should be converted to .pdf if they are in a different file format. The artifact(s) content should not change, only the file format.

Draft ATSA-I ITO, paragraph A. and Evaluation Basis For Award paragraph A. state, “The Government is estimating to award no more than 50 awardees with a task order of $1000 to attend a post-award conference as a result of this solicitation.”

Section M. paragraph A. states, “If more than half of the total number of technically acceptable Offerors are large businesses, the Government may elect to remove the lowest ranking large businesses. The remaining awardee base will consist of awardees classified as small business or non-profit (including educational).”

Does the referenced language from Sections L and M restrict the Government’s ability to award no more than half of the total awards to large businesses? For example, if the Government determines five small business Offerors are technically acceptable, does that equate to a total of only ten awards (i.e., five to small businesses and five to large businesses)?

The Government has removed the cited verbiage from Section M and has revised the verbiage in Section L-900.I.A to:

The Government intends to award multiple contracts under this solicitation. However, the

Government reserves the right not to award any contracts and may do so without prior notice to

Offerors. The Government will award a task order of $1000 to all qualifying Offerors to attend a post-award conference as result of this solicitation

Draft ATSA-I EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD. C. Volume II Technical Factor:

It is understood that future task orders will be awarded under the specified Focus Area Categories. Will the Government please confirm that an

Offeror may be considered for task order awards under any Focus Area Category for which it received at least one point?

All task/delivery orders will not be categorized for solicitation based on the Focus Area

Categories. Focus Area Categories are to ensure a healthy vendor base for the ATSA-I contracting vehicle. All Offerors are encouraged to propose on any/all orders that fall under

ATSA-I contract once awarded.

Draft ATSA-I EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD. I. Basis of Contract Award. B.1. Factors states the Government’s evaluation will be based on Factors – 1. Technical and 2. Small Business Participation. However, paragraph II. Proposal Evaluation, B. 1 & 2 “Completed RFP” and

“Small Business Subcontracting Plan” state the Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s Completed RFP and Small Business Subcontracting

Plan.

Will the Government please confirm the Completed RFP and Small Business Subcontracting Plan are only evaluated for completeness, and are not used in determining an award?

The Government does not confirm that the completed RFP and Small Business Subcontracting

Plan are only evaluated for completeness and are not used in determining an award. As stated in Section M, for an award, a completed RFP shall conform with all terms and conditions, to include all representations and certifications, and meet all requirements set forth in the RFP.

An acceptable Technical Proposal and Small Business Participation Plan is also a part of the

RFP that will be evaluated for award.

Draft ATSA-I EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD. C. Volume II, 1. ATSA-I Focus Areas Categories.:

Is paragraph c) “ATS Digital Engineering/Innovation” intended to be “ATS Digital Engineering AND Innovation” or “ATS Digital Engineering OR

Innovation”?

ATS Digital Engineering/Innovation is intended to be understood as ATS Digital Engineering

OR ATS Digital Innovation. This statement is true for the other Focus Area Categories that have been revised in the updated Section M. Please refer back to Section M-900.II.C.1 ATSA-I

Focus Area Categories and review the bulleted elements listed below the paragraph for further clarification.

DRAFT ASTA-I, EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD, II.C.Volume II, Technical Factor states: “The Offeror must show experience in at least one element of a Focus Area Category in order to get a point on the self-score matrix. The maximum self-score that an Offeror can claim for any given work sample is three (3) points: one for each Focus Area Category. If the Government determines that an Offeror’s substantiating documentation is insufficient to support the self-score in a Focus Area Category, the Government will decrement a point for any Focus Area

Category found to be insufficient. Consequentially, the total work sample self-score could potentially be decremented to zero (0) points.

Will the Government please confirm that the offeror is not required to cross reference their Work Sample responses to the Draft SOO or any additional PWS/SOW with the final RFP?

The Government confirms that the Offeror is not required to cross reference their Work Sample responses to the Draft SOO or any additional PWS/SOW with the final RFP. The Offeror is only required to follow the requirements in Sections L&M.

48 Will the Government issue individual IDIQ Focus Area Contracts? The Government will not be issuing individual IDIQ Focus Area Category contracts.

C. Volume II Technical Factor. 1. General states “The Government reserves the right to contact the Government POCs identified in the work samples, or any other resources deemed necessary for any or all evaluation criteria during validation of self-scores.” If an Offeror, who has demonstrated experience in element (s) of a Focus Area Category as a subcontractor to a prime for a Government contract, will the Government consider the prime’s reference along with documented evidence of task accomplishment as acceptable justification?

The Government still requires Government POCs in the work sample cover sheet. "Other resources" may also be included such as a prime's reference with the Government POCs.

“Substantiating documentation” is mentioned in Section L-900.II.C.2 and elsewhere in Section L. It is not clear what constitutes “substantiating documentation.” The term “evidence” is also used frequently in the context of substantiation. How do these terms/concepts relate?

"Substantiating documentation" merely speaks of documentation that is used to substantiate the Offeror's self score. This is accomplished through the requirements described in Sections

L&M to submit Work Samples. Work Samples shall represent contracts/orders of work performed for the United States Government. A Work Sample may be comprised of multiple artifacts. A Work Sample artifact represents evidence/information documentation submitted as a deliverable to a Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) for its Work Sample.

Section L-900.II.C.5.c says “Evidence must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered.” Please explain the possible nature of substantiating evidence and the possible formats envisioned by the Government. How should Offerors address the possibility that complying with this requirement might exceed the 30-page limit for Volume II Technical Proposal?

For clarification on substantiating evidence, see response above. Only the relevant portions of

Work Sample artifacts are to be submitted to substantiate self scoring. In order to remain within the 30-page limit, Offerors may elect to select only those portions from the original artifacts to reflect those portions that substaintiate points claimed on the self-score matrix without altering the original content.

Section L-900.II.C.2 instructs Offerors to substantiate their self-score from the matrix by providing, as specifically as possible, the actual deliverables for the accomplished work detailed in work samples. What are “actual deliverables” for the accomplished work? Is it an actual deliverable provided to our customer in some digital/document format ... or simply a report/listing that enumerates actual results provided in performing the Work Sample? How might such an actual deliverable impact the 30-page limit for Volume II Technical Proposal?

Question answered in above 2 responses.

An earlier question from ATSA-I Industry Day which does not appear to have been specifically addressed in this DRAFT SOO / L&M, with respect to the AFLCMC / WNKAB Industry Day initial intent to ensure competition, was that if awarded to the Base IDIQ Contract, the awardee would be expected / required to propose against every opportunity (DO/TO). Recalling significant concern expressed from Industry at the

Industry Day was that the indirect cost in developing proposals, especially from Small Business(es), could become prohibitive.

Industry recommended establishing a defined minimum of DO/TO or letter of intent to establish competition. Has there been a determination to a defined minimum of DO/TO’s which a base contract awardee is required to bid?

Given the Industry Day CLINS identified, there is concern that there may be DO/TO which are sought that are outside of the lane of awardee expertise and not biddable. An inherent challenge to today’s manufacturing is that obtaining material quotes inside a 90 day, much less a 30 day

DO/TO objective award (verbally referenced at Industry Day) turnaround period is often not achievable, contributing to the challenge in making a determination of bidding or no-bid.

Recommend establishing a minimum number of DO/TO per annum / qtr being sought, per base IDIQ contract awardee.

Slide 11 from the Industry Day states “Sole Source where appropriate.” This contradicts a premise that all awardees must bid all DO/TO. This then creates the question as to why an awardee would bid something that is already predetermined to go to another awardee?

What % of DO/TOs are anticipated to cross the TCPD Threshold? Is EVM required for all DO/TO or just those >$20M?

Longer Approval timeline for TDCP and setting up EVM would help validate advance notice.

- The Government's expectation is for all vendors to bid on solicitations they have interest/expertise in. No-bid response with explanation will be required.

- The Government intends to provide industry a forecast of requirements as they become available.

- The CLINs provided at Industry Day were just samples of CLINs that could be selected from at the order level. They were not to be considered as the sole CLIN template going forward.

- The Government does not intend to establish a minimum number of DO/TO per annum/qtr being sought per awardee.

- If the entire requirement for the order is not sole source, there would be opportunity for portions of it to be competed within the vendor base and only awarding the true sole source portion to the one vendor.

- The Government has not established any percentage and EVM, if required, will be identified at the order level.

Recommend a Base Award portal for general posting of future DO/TO work, min of 6 months in advance to facilitate securing vendor / material quotes.

The Government acknowledges your recommendation and will review for potential implementation.

55 Recommend individual base awardee portal for upload / xfer of company specific documents.

The Government is reviewing options regarding a cloud-based system to support the ATSA-I effort and execution.

Industry day discussion implied that other USG opportunities could use this IDIQ vehicle for award, beyond Automatic Test Systems products / services identified in DRAFT CLINS (Slide 19 of USG briefing package). As stated in the Purpose of the SOO, “This contract will subsume existing contracts as they expire and satisfy any future contractual needs of the Agile Combat Support (ACS) ATS Division, AFLCMC/WNA and any other ACS WN Divisions geographically located at WR-ALC.” Given this DRAFT SOO language, are boundaries under consideration which limit the IDIQ to ATS related activities more specifically, vice the implication conveyed of a broader application of the contractual vehicle to non-

ATS related activities?

The Government has elected not to broaden the application of ATSA-I at this time. The contract vehicle will support only ATS-related activities.

Participation off ramping vs participation on ramping definition – what is the expectation of how many DO/TO opportunities can be waived, before being off-ramped from the base IDIQ contract? Likewise, what are the gate criteria which must be achieved to be considered for a future on-ramp?

The Government currently has not established how many DO/TO opportunities can be waived before being off-ramped. On-ramping criteria will be established prior to the on-ramping phase.

What criteria defines whether Best Value / LPTA / other selection criteria is used for DO/TO award? Do the criteria vary according to the

DO/TO?

The criteria will vary according to the requirement and will be identified at the order level.

In the DRAFT SOO, it was stated that a task was to, “Develop a Contractor Reference Architecture (CRA) based on the Government Reference

Architecture (GRA) IAW the DE/MBSE Plan”.

Does AFLCMC / WNKAB have a Government Reference Architecture for Automatic Test Systems (ATS)? If so, can this be provided?

Is there a DOD Government Reference Architecture for Automatic Test Systems (ATS)? If so, can this be provided?

- The Government has posted the ATS GRA information on SAM.gov with points of contact for additional information.

- The DoD does not currently have a GRA for ATS.

60 Will teaming be allowed now with potential primes?

Teaming will not be allowed when awarding ATSA-I. However, it will be allowed at the task/delivery order level.

61 Will teaming be allowed for work samples?

No teaming will be allowed for work samples. All work samples should only reflect the work accomplished by the Offeror submitting the RFP.

62 Will teaming be allowed at the task order level? Teaming will be allowed at the task/delivery order level.

63 Does the Government intend to use the systems models as part of the proposal process? The Government does not intend to use systems models as part of this proposal process.

Is the Government expecting contractors to respond to this solicitation or any resulting task order solicitations using the implementation model?

If so, what level of detail would be desired?

The Government will not be requesting an implementation model to award ATSA-I. Once awarded, any orders placed on ATSA-I may request models and would identify level of detail at that time.

65 Are there page limitations to the work samples?

Refer to the table in Section L-900.II.A. While there is no page limit for work samples themselves, the Technical Proposal (to include work samples) cannot exceed the 30-page limit.

Why propose Small Business Participation narrative with at least three methods regarding: 1) How the Offeror intends to ensure small businesses have equitable opportunities to compete on all task/delivery orders, and 2) How the Offeror will develop subcontracting goals to meet and exceed Air Force small business goals in all task/delivery orders? Seems like one method could satisfy the Small Bussiness requirements for each of these in the Small Business Participation proposal.

Comment received. Small Business Participation criteria remains unchanged.

M-900, Vol II, Technical Factor

Given that activities for the sustainment/integration/development of testing systems does not differ significantly between automated test systems and non-automated test systems, and that there is a limited number of vendors with automated test system experience that spans all three

Focus Area Categories, can the Government confirm that Vendors may use relevant technical/engineering non-automated test system experience to substantiate their self-score matrix without being penalized?

The ATSA-I contract is to support the ATS division, therefore, all experience referenced by the

Offeror should reflect how it relates to ATS.

68 Can bidders submit non-prime work samples (i.e. DCS relevant work samples)?

An Offeror's provided work sample(s) can be from work performed by the bidder as a subcontractor to a prime with a Government contract. The Government requires Government

POCs in the work sample cover sheet. "Other resources" may also be included such as a prime's reference with the Government POCs. The Government must be able to clearly understand how the Offeror provided ATS support indirectly to the Government.

As a small business we have produced ATSs for the government under subcontract. Are subcontracts where the Government is the customer acceptable references?

An Offeror's provided work sample(s) can be from work performed by the bidder as a subcontractor to a prime with a Government contract. The Government requires Government

POCs in the work sample cover sheet. "Other resources" may also be included such as a prime's reference with the Government POCs. The Government must be able to clearly understand how the Offeror provided ATS support indirectly to the Government.

70 Are work samples "Prime only"? If Teammate work samples are allowed, how many of the three work samples must be from the Prime?

An Offeror(s) provided work sample(s) can be from work performed by the bidder as a subcontractor to a prime with a Government contract. Teaming partner work samples will not be evaluated. The Government requires Government POCs in the work sample cover sheet.

"Other resources" may also be included such as a prime's reference with the Government

POCs. The Government must be able to clearly understand how the Offeror provided ATS support indirectly to the Government.

M-900, Source Selection MethodologyDoes the self scoring matrix only apply to the Prime, meaning that only the Prime's work samples can be used to substantiate the self score. Or, can Primes include Work Samples from small business subcontractor(s) to help substantiate the self score?

An Offeror's provided work sample(s) can be from work performed by the bidder as a subcontractor to a prime with a Government contract. Teaming partner and/or anticipated subcontractor work samples will not be evaluated. The Government requires Government

POCs in the work sample cover sheet. "Other resources" may also be included such as a prime's reference with the Government POCs. The Government must be able to clearly understand how the Offeror provided ATS support indirectly to the Government.

Section C. Volume II, Technical Factor

"This technical factor is met when the Offeror’s self-score matrix with a maximum of three (3) recent/relevant work samples (e.g., body of facts, data, proof) are validated and determined by the Government to substantiate the Offeror’s self-score. The work samples shall meet a recency period within the past five (5) years from the proposal due date and represent contracts with the United States Government."

We are a small business with experience repairing ATS equipment on behalf of Robins AFB. All of our work has been done via purchase orders from larger companies that have direct contracts with the government. Since we do not have direct contracts with the government, would our submission be considered insufficient or ineligible because we do not have direct contracts?

The Government requires Government POCs in the work sample cover sheet. "Other resources" may also be included such as a prime's reference with the Government POCs. If the purchase order with the larger company was for ATS support on a Government contract, the

Government would not consider such a submission as insufficient as long as information on the larger company's contract was provided as proof. The Government must be able to clearly understand how the Offeror provided ATS support indirectly to the Government.