ATSA-I DRFP-QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES-17JUN24.pdf

ATSA-1-DRAFT RFP-QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES-17JUN2024

Questio n #

Section/Reference Discussion Question/Comment Response

1 Section L, II, B.1 page 3 Section L specifies an acceptance period of 180 days. However, the SF 1447, block 18, states 240 days.

Will the Government please clarify if the Offeror's proposal validity period shall be 180 or 240 days?

Proposal validity will be 240 days.

2 Section L, II, B.1 page 3 Clauses and provisions that require "fill-in" information shall be completed by Offeror.

Please confirm the following clauses, specified in the ATSA-I MAIDIQ solicitation, are not required as part the MAIDIQ solicitation "fill-in" requirement.

- 52.247-33 F.o.b. Origin, with Differentials.

- 52.247-57 Transportation Transit Privilege Credits.

Upon review, the Government will remove the two clauses (FAR 52.247-33 & 52.247-57).

3 Section L, II, B.2 page 3 During the August 2023 Industry Day, the Government stated that ATSA-I awardees may only team/subcontract with other ATSA-I awardees.

In response to March 2024 questions the Government responded, “the Government will require all awardees first utilize the ATSA-I awardee pool for teaming/subcontracting. If the awardee elects to utilize outside of the awardee pool, the ordering PCO will review supported rationale documentation why an awardee was not selected from the awardee pool .”

With Volume I requiring all Large Offerors to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 (i.e., “Separate goals, expressed in terms of total dollars subcontracted, and as a percentage of the total planned subcontracting dollars …”) please clarify how Large Offerors can comply with this requirement if, 1) no pricing/total dollars are being proposed and; 2) if teaming/subcontracting is limited to the ATSA-I awardee pool, which will not yet be determined at the time of our proposal submittal?

Until further information is issued from the Government, large businesses will be required to comply with the requirments as setforth in FAR 52.219-9. The Government expects all ATSA-I awardees to make every effort to team /subcontract with other awardees on efforts. However, The Government understands that Industry cannot be accomplished in all instances. The Government will review justification for the offeror not teaming/subcontracting with ATSA-I awardee.

4 Section L, II, B.2 page 3 Offeror understands that the Government is awaiting a response to its deviation request to address FAR 19.702(a)(2).

Since the MAIDIQ Draft RFP does not require Offeror’s to submit pricing with their response and pricing at the task order level is TBD, if the Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement remains in the MAIDIQ RFP, shall it include only goal percentages, no dollars?

As previously stated, until further information is issued from the Government, large businesses will be required to comply with the requirments as setforth in FAR 52.219-9.

5 Section L, II, B.2 page 3 FAR 52.219-9 as supplemented by the DFARS and DAFFARS. The small business subcontracting plan shall include the information required by FAR 19.7, DFARS 219.7, DAFFARS 5319.7, and all associated clauses within this RFP.

Will the Government accept per FAR 52.219-9, and 19.7 a Master Subcontracting Plan since no prices will be established at the basic IDIQ level?

IAW FAR 19.704(b) Contractors may establish, on a plant or division-wide basis, a master plan (see FAR 19.701) that contains all the elements required by the clause at FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, except goals. Master plans shall be effective for a 3-year period after approval by the contracting officer; however, it is incumbent upon contractors to maintain and update master plans.

Changes required to update master plans are not effective until approved by the contracting officer. A master plan, when incorporated in an individual plan, shall apply to that contract throughout the life of the contract

6 Section L, II, C.5 - page

Work Sample Substantiating Documentation - c) Work Sample Artifacts.

Will the Government please clarify what, if any, page limit there is for Work Sample Artifacts per Work Sample?

Government confirms there is no page limitation for the work sample artifacts per work sample within the 30-page Technical Volume submission. The Government will not evaluate any pages beyond the 30-page limit.

6/18/20241 n #

Section/Reference Discussion Question/Comment Response

7 Section L, II, A.b) and Section L, II, C.4 and C.5

"In order to verify the font size and margins utilized, the Offeror shall provide an electronic copy of the technical proposal in Word format."

However, Section L, II, C. 4 says, "The Offeror shall complete and submit one (1) ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix (Attachment 3) in PDF format ..." and Section L, II, C.5 says, "Each work sample including its cover sheet, contract/order front page, and artifacts should be contained in one PDF with an easily distinguishable name—e.g.

the Offeror may use “Work Sample 1 (WS-1). pdf ”.

Will the Government please confirm the Volume II Technical Proposal format is to be submitted in PDF?

Government confirms that the Volume II Technical Proposal is to be submitted in PDF Format. The Governemnt has removed the following verbiage: "In order to verify the font size and margins utilized, the Offeror shall provide an electronic copy of the technical proposal in Word format.

8 Section L, II, A - Proposal Organization;

Section L, II,C, 2

Section L, II, A -Proposal Organization States Volume II consists of, "Volume II - 30 pages - Technical Proposal •ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix [1

Page] •Work Sample Cover Sheet(s) [2

Page Maximum per Work Sample] •Work Sample Contract Front

Page(s) [1 Page per Work Sample] •Work Sample(s)"

And, Section L, II,C, 2 appears to state that each Work Sample is to be submitted separately (based on the naming convention of the files):

"Each work sample including its cover sheet, contract/order front page, and artifacts should be contained in onePDF with an easily distinguishable name—e.g. the Offeror may use “Work Sample 1 (WS-1).pdf”."

Will the Government please confirm that Work Samples (up to three) are to be submitted within Volume II Technical Proposal as one PDF file and Offeror's are not to submit separate files containing each of the Work Sample responses?

The Government confirms that Volume II shall be submitted as one PDF. Sections L-900.II.C.4 through L-900.II.C.6 have been updated to clarify reflect that requirement.

6/18/20242 n #

Section/Reference Discussion Question/Comment Response

9 N/A N/A Will the Government please provide an expected Final RFP release date, rather than the anticipated quarter the final will be released?

The Government is projecting the RFP to be released towards the end of AUG 2024.

10 N/A N/A Draft Section L limits the Technical Proposal to 30 pages. The primary content of the Technical Proposal is work sample artifacts which “must be submitted in the original format as it was originally delivered”. Are work sample artifact page lengths included in the Technical Proposal limitation?

Work sample artifacts are subject to the general page size limitations stated in Section L-900.II.A.b. Paper size shall be 8.5" x 11", excluding any charts, graphs, drawings, etc. For the excluded items listed in that paragraph, page size shall not be greater than 11"x17. There is no page limitation for the work sample artifacts per work sample within the 30-page Technical Volume submission however the Government will not evaluate any pages beyond the 30-page limit.

11 N/A N/A At the Robins Requirement Conference, I was part of the discussion about how ATSA-I was going to be structured. It is still true that all vendors (large and small) must submit a proposal to be part of the ‘vendor base’ (as I think it was called) and subcontracting outside of the vendor base would not be possible without explicit permission? I do not see any language in the recently released draft outlining this structure. Is the deviation request to FAR 19.702(a)(2) related to this? We are just trying to make sure we are heading down the right path.

The Government expects all ATSA-I awardees to make every effort to team/subcontract with other awardees on all efforts. However, The Government understands that cannot be accomplished in all instances. The Government will review justification for the offeror not teaming/subcontracting with other ATSA-I awardees.

N/ Attachment 3 DRAFT ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix April82024, Definitions Tab (cell B6)

N/A The 5th sub bullet within the definition mentions Contract Logistics Support (CLS). Section M.C.a (page 2) also includes Interim Contractor Support (ICS), and Performance Based Logistics (PBL) contracts. Suggest the government include ICS and PBL in the matrix to align with Section M and to allow offerors to include it within their self evaluation. Industry Rationale:To maximize benefit to the government and to align self scoring to government eval criteria.

Noted. Updated matrix

13 Attachment 3 DRAFT ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix April82024, Definitions Tab, ATS Integration / Development (cell B7)

N/A The 2nd sub bullet within the definition mentions "USAF locations". Section M.C.b (page 2) talks to DoD locations. Suggest the government change USAF to DoD in the matrix to align with Section M and to allow offerors to include it within their self evaluation. Industry Rationale: To maximize benefit to the government and to align self scoring to government eval criteria.

USG acknowledges comment. Matrix revised.

14 FA853324R0002_DRAFT,

pg 3, Period of Performance (PoP) paragraph

N/A The government states that the PoP of the contract is ten (10) years, comprised of 2 five (5) year ordering periods, including one (1) option. Each five-year ordering period consists of a two (2) year base comprised of a 24-month ordering period followed by three 12-month ordering periods. Would the government please clarify which years of the 10 year PoP are base years and which are option years. For instance, is the intent over 10 years to have a 5 year base followed by one (1) 5 year option? Industry Rationale: As currently written, the PoP becomes confusing when discussing base years, option years and ordering periods. Further clarity of the delineation between base and option years would be helpful.

The ATSA-I contract duration will be ten (10) years.

The contract is divided into two (2) ordering phases, each comprised of five (5) years. There is one (1) option, (FAR 52.217-9), Option to Extend the Term of the Contract) between PHASES 1 and 2, IAW DFARS 217.204(e)(i). Each phase contains a 24-month base period, and 3;12-month ordering periods. Expanding the ATSA-I awardee base will occur in on-ramping opportunities in PHASE I, Base Period 1 in between years 2 and 3, at the exercise of option between PHASES I and II, and PHASE II I between years 7 and 8.

15 FA853324R0002_DRAFT,

Section K, Representations, certifications, and other statements of offerors or respondents

N/A No Representations or Certifications are included within the Draft RFP; Will Reps & Certs be included with the overall MAC RFP, with each order, or will the Government rely on the Entity Information input into SAM.gov? Industry Rationale: Given the possible volume of active contracts and proposals, it would be recommended that all participants in the MAC maintain their Reps and Certs in SAM.gov and are not required to submit responses with each proposal.

This could assist in expediting proposal turn-around times.

Representations and Instructions was located in Section K starting on page 24.

6/18/20243 n #

Section/Reference Discussion Question/Comment Response

16 FA853324R0002_DRAFT N/A It was noted that there was no custom ordering clause within the DRFP documentation. Will the PCO be entertaining a custom ordering clause in the FRFP? Industry Rationale: There may be reasons, for both speed and conditions within a particular order, where the PCO will want to use a gated process where each offeror will have to meet a minimum requirement in order to submit bid.

No custom ordering clauses are established.

17 N/A/ Industry Day Follow-Up Does the Government still intend to issue some type of TO forecast to Industry for anticipated ATSA-I opportunities as discussed during the Aug 2023 Industry Day? This forecast will be very helpful for Industry planning that includes lining up Small Business subs for specific TOs.

Yes, the Government intends to forecast upcoming work and task orders as information becomes available.

18 Section M - Evaluation Basis for Award The previous Draft Section M indicated up to 50 awardees. This current solicitation omitted the number of potential awardees. Does the Government have an estimated number of awardees for ATSA-I that can be shared with Industry?

The Government intends to award to all Offerors deemed Technically Acceptable.

19 Section L - Instructions to Offerors;Para II.A - Proposal Organization

N/A Tech Proposal - 30 Page Limit. Respectfully request an increase in pages required to substantiate Work Sample scoring. Currently, there are only 20 pages available to substantiate the 3 Focus Areas for 3 Work Samples (allows only ~2 pages per Focus Area). This is in part because 10 of the 30 pages are allotted to the Scoring Matrix (1 page), Work Sample Cover Sheets (6 pages), and Work Sample Contract Front Page (3 pages).

The Government will not increase the Technical Proposal's page limit. There is no page limitation for the work sample artifacts per work sample within the 30-page Technical Volume submission. The Government will not evaluate any pages beyond the 30-page limit.

20 Section L - Instructions to Offerors;Para D - Small Business Participation

N/A 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 can satisfy the Small Business requirements for each of these in the Small Business Participation proposal.

The Governmment's position remains unchanged, the 3 methods in the Small Business Participation remain as defined.

6/18/20244 n #

Section/Reference Discussion Question/Comment Response

21 N/A N/A Is the correct understanding that all documents within Volume II, Technical Proposal should be submitted in PDF format?

From the table in L-900.II.A, the Volume II Technical Proposal will contain:

•ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix [1 Page] •Work Sample Cover Sheet(s) [2 Page Maximum per Work Sample] •Work Sample Contract Front Page(s) [1 Page per Work Sample] •Work Sample(s)

Meanwhile, L-900.II.C.5 says each work sample including its cover sheet, contract/order front page, and artifacts should be contained in one PDF. So, perhaps the table in L.II.A (cited above) actually could organize Volume II contents as:

•ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix [1 Page] •Work Sample(s) oWork Sample Cover Sheet(s) [2 Page Maximum per Work Sample] oWork Sample Contract Front Page(s) [1 Page per Work Sample] oWork Sample Artifacts: Evidence/information to substantiate points claimed on the self-score matrix.

It appears the Government wants all submitted material within Volume II, Technical Proposal to be in PDF format. If so, some materials (including materials delivered in the Draft RFP package) will have to be converted to PDF, then combined.

•The Self-Scoring Matrix was delivered in the Draft RFP package (24 April 2024) as an Excel file (.xlsx format). But L-900.II.C.4 says to submit the Self-Scoring Matrix in PDF format.

•The Work Sample Cover Sheet was delivered in the Draft RFP package as a Word file (.docx format). Apparently, it should be converted to PDF as part of the one PDF Work Sample file requested in L-900.II.C.5.

•Question 41 Response says Work Sample artifacts should be converted to PDF if not already

PDF.

•Contracts typically are in PDF format, so the Contract Front Page will be PDF.

Yes, all documents shall be submitted in PDF format. The table in Section L-900.II.A has been revised to further clarify PDF submission.

22 N/A N/A Is the correct understanding that each Work Sample is to be submitted in its entirety?

According to the Government’s Response to Question 41, it implies that each Work Sample is to be submitted in its entirety – with only the relevant portion(s) used to substantiate self-scoring counting against page limit. Relatedly, the Question 65 Response says, “While there is no page limit for work samples themselves, the Technical Proposal (to include work samples) cannot exceed the 30-page limit.” It appears that the reason the Work Samples can be submitted in their entirety is because, per Question 41, only relevant portions of each Work Sample will be submitted to substantiate self-scoring. Only the substantiation material will count against page limit.

This understanding that each Work Sample is submitted in its entirely is bolstered by the Question 41 Response which says, “All of the submitted PDFs for Volume II should add up to 30 pages or less.” The phrase “All of the submitted PDFs” implies multiple individual files can/will be submitted collectively as Volume II.

The Government did not imply that each work sample is to be submitted in its entirety. The work sample itself (contract/delivery order) should have produced one or more work sample artifacts as deliverables. Only relevant portions of work sample artifacts are to be submitted to substantiate self scoring.

6/18/20245 n #

Section/Reference Discussion Question/Comment Response

23 N/A N/A Would the Government consider submitting the Self-Scoring Matrix as an Excel file (the format in which it was delivered in the Draft RFP package), rather than converting it to a PDF file?

If it is a correct understanding that all of the submitted Work Sample PDFs are separate digital files – why not similarly leave the Self-Scoring Matrix as a separate Excel file and simply ensure that all of the collected files (or portions thereof for Work Samples) do not exceed 30

The Governmment's position remains unchanged that the self scoring matrix shall be submitted in PDF. The Government revised Section L-900.II.C.4 so that Volume II shall be submitted as one PDF.

24 Section L,Para. II.B.2 and

N/A Section L;Paragraph II.B.2; and 5 indicates that work samples may be comprised of multiple artifacts which represents evidence/information documentation submitted as a deliverable. Is the Government expecting the actual submission/relevant portion of the actual submission or would evidence of the submission i.e., letter of transmittal suffice? If the actual submission is required, are these artifacts part of the 30-page limit?

The Government requires only relevant portions of actual deliverables to be submitted as work sample artifacts for the technical proposal. A letter of transmittal would not suffice as a work sample artifact. Yes, the work sample artifacts are part of the technical proposal's 30-page limit.

25 Section M,Para. I. N/A Section M Paragraph I.A indicates that a hybrid Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTR) and technical-only source selection methodology will be utilized. Paragraph II.C.2 Technical Rating explains that the technical rating is assessed as either Acceptable or Unacceptable, with a minimum score of one (1) being acceptable. The maximum points an offeror can achieve is 9-points (maximum 3-points for each Work Sample). Although Paragraph I.A indicates that a hybrid HTR and technical-only source selection methodology is used, as currently written, Section M appears to evaluate technical ONLY on the Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. In other words, it appears that the Government will technically assess the offeror who achieves the maximum 9-points the same as the offer who achieves only 1-point due to its rating methodology of Acceptable/Unacceptable. Considering this pass/fail type methodology, will every offeror who achieves an acceptable rating in both technical and small business participation along with a complete Volume I RFP submission receive award?

Yes, every offeror who achieves an acceptable rating in both technical and small business participation along with a complete Volume I RFP submission receive award. However, as mentioned in Section M- 900.II.C.1, the Government will decrement a point for any Focus Area Category where an Offeror's substantiating documentation is insufficient to support the self-score. The Government recommends that each Offeror strives to maximize their self-score in order to minimize their chance of being decremented to zero (0) points.

26 DRAFT ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix APR 2024 Does the Government require all offerors to satisfy the criteria in ALL three areas to be eligible for an award?

No, the Government does not require Offerors to meet the criteria in all three areas of the Self-Scoring Matrix to be eligible for award. Per Section M- 900.II.C.1, each Offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the ATSA-I self-score matrix, to determine if the Offeror demonstrates experience in any of the three (3) identified Focus Area Categories as detailed in the ATSA-I Focus Area Categories section below. Also, Section M-900.II.C.2 states that the total score on the self-score matrix must result in at least one (1) point to be considered technically acceptable.

27 DRAFT ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix APR 2024 Given the complexity of ALL award criteria for the three areas in combination for a prime small business may make small business offerors less competitive, will the Government consider awarding individual areas to small businesses?

The Government does not require Offerors to have expertise in all Focus Area Categories in order to be considered Acceptable for the Technical factor.

Please see Section M-900.II.C.2. No, the Government will not consider awarding individual areas to small business.

28 DRAFT ATSA-I Self-Scoring Matrix APR 2024 Can the Government provide a minimum score required to qualify based on the self-scoring matrix already identified for both large and small businesses?

See Section M-900.II. C.2. For all Offerors, the total score on the self-score matrix must result in at least one (1) point to be considered technically acceptable.

6/18/20246