ATSA-I-FA853324R0002-Industry Questions-Response-31OCT2024.pdf

Q# REFERENCE QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 Section L - Instructions to Offerors;Para D - Small

Business Participation. Ref: ATSA-I DRFP- QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES-17JUN24 - Question #11

Based on the Government response to the refereenced question which states "The Government expects all ATSA-I awardees to make every effort to team/subcontract with other awardees on all efforts", will the Government provide sufficient information on the competencies/areas of expertise of Small Business awardees to enable timely task/delivery order outreach?

No. The Government does not intend to provide information on the expertise or competency areas of the ATSA-I awardee base for task/delivery order outreach.

2 Section M - SECTION M EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD - D. Volume III, Small Business Participation Factor. The Government specifies that each element is met when the offeror present 2 to 3 methods that demonstrates the offeror's intent locate, utilize and meet USAF small business goals.

Can the Government confirm that the provisions of DFARS PGI 215.304 Evaluation factors and significant subfactors don't apply to the evaluation of the Small Business Participation Factor?

The evaluation criteria is in compliance with all regulatory and statutory requirements, to include

DFARS PGI 215.304.

3 Section L - Instructions to Offerors; Para.C. Volume II, Technical Proposal - Section 3. What Not to Submit.

The Government states "Elaborate brochures or documentation, detailed artwork, or other embellishments are unnecessary and are not desired" however, many of artifacts that demonstrate our capabilities in the focus areas are in the form of engineering reports, data analysis, GUI development, system architecture diagrams and other visual content to include CDRL driven presentations and reporting.

Can the Governemnt confirm that these relevant artifacts will be accepted when substatiated?

The Government cannot provide an acceptability determination prior to proposal evaluation.

However, if the stated artifiacts were not part of the formal / official CDRL deliverables, then it would not be considered as an artifact for the purposes of work sample substantiation.

4 Section L, Paragraph C. Volume II, Technical Proposal, 1. General, states "The Offeror needs only to include the relevant portions of artifacts from the Work Sample that clearly show the Government that the Offeror has experience in the Focus Area Categories for which points are claimed.", yet, the final paragraph of Section L, Paragraph C.

Volume II, Technical Proposal, 6. Work Sample Substantiating Documentation, 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."

ATSA-I DRFP-QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES-

17JUN24 - Question #22

ATSA-I-RFP-FA8533-24-R-0002-

Industry+Questions+with+Responses-22OCT2024 - Question #23. These two statements in Section L seem to conflict, and they are repeated in the Government's response to the questions also referenced.

Will the Government please clarify the proposal requirement regarding artifact submission?

If only relevant portions of an artifact need to be shown, then would a screenshot of the relevant content of a document be acceptable? If not a screenshot, what would be acceptable an acceptable approach to showing only the relevant portions?

Some artifacts can be many pages long. If artifacts are to be submitted in their entirety, would the Government consider allowing these to be a separate appendix (not part of the Tech Volume page count) to Volume II, with relevant screenshots contained within the Volume II narrative?

For example, if a report was in the format of a Microsoft Word document and the relevant portions of a 100-page document were pages 52- 53, the Offeror is expected to extract pages 52-53 as a PDF and combine those pages with the other PDF artifacts in the appropriate location within their technical proposal. The Government will not accept screen shots or separate appendices.

ATSA-I RFP-FA8533-24-R-0002 - RFP Questions / Responses - 31 OCT 2024

ATSA-I RFP-FA8533-24-R-0002 - RFP Questions / Responses - 31 OCT 2024

5 Artifact Submission We have some deliverables (CDRLS) that specify Software Source Code, or software executables as the end product of reverse engineering/studies, etc. A sample of such CDRL is attached.

Would the Government please offer a suggestion on how to submit source code as an artifact?

For Source Code CDRL deliverables used as Work Sample Artifacts, screenshots/images are not permitted. If an Offeror is intending to submit content from Source Code, the Offeror must export the relevant portion(s) into PDF format, similar to the way a Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc might be converted to PDF. The Offeror should explain, in the substantiation section of their work sample cover sheet, the relevancy of the source code.

6 RFP Section L,Chapter II - Volume Organization, paragraph A - General, section (a)

The government indicates "Each volume shall be marked with the RFP number, Offeror’s name and address, the number of the Volume, i.e. I, II, or III. Each volume with the proposal shall be separately tabbe and identified."

Will the government clarify what is meant by each volume being "Separately tabbe[d]." since this is an electronic submission and each volume is submitted separately? Must each volume contain Tabs in between sections? And if so, are the Tabs excluded from the page count for all Volumes?

Since the Offerors are submitting separate volumes as PDFs, the intent behind tabbing is met. Each volume is a stand-alone PDF.