TSA IV Draft RFP Q-As - 31Mar21.docx

TSA IV – FA8621-21-R-0030

Questions/Answers Regarding Draft RFP Documents

Questions and Answers – 31 March 2021

M, 2.1

Will the Government re-evaluate the double spacing requirements between paragraphs and replace with single space between paragraphs to accommodate addressing the requirements of the RFP?

We use double-spacing between paragraphs for ease of reading. This has become a best practice for proposal submission since the majority of proposals are submitted electronically now. TSA IV will remain with double-spacing between paragraphs.

Please advise whether the Government will retitle Section L 4.3.1.d to “Technology Insertion” to match the wording of the paragraph.

L, 4.3.1.d is titled, “Technology Integration”. It will remain with this title. Although, we are asking for processes for identifying, evaluating, and integrating new technologies, as a whole it is about technology integration into the simulator environment.

Please clarify the phrase, “two or more families of simulator”. Is it correct to interpret this phrase as referring to more than one aircraft Mission Design Series (MDS) for a given training device type (e.g., the B-1 WSTs as the first family and the KC-135 OFTs as the second family)? Alternatively, is it correct to interpret this phrase as referring to more than one training device type for a given MDS (e.g., the B-1 WSTs as the first family of trainers and the B-1 CPTs as the second family of trainers)?

See Q17 from the 12 November Q&As where this question was originally answered. A “family of simulators” refers to a single program (KC-10 TS, KC-135 ATS, C-17 TS, C-130J MATS, etc.) training system devices. What is being stated here is when you use two or more of these programs or “families”.

L, Attachment 8 Section L5.3 requires Offerors to provide a “roadmap” describing all organizational changes of the company within the last five years, and to include it in Volume III Past Performance. Attachment 8, indicates Offerors will generate reports for the Business Relationships and for the three Past Performance citations, to then combine the two reports as our Past Performance Volume.

Will the Government confirm that in addition to the Business Relationship report and the Past Performance report (that contains the three citations) generated from the PPI tool, Offerors are also to include the Organizational Structure Change History “roadmap” within the Past Performance Volume, but not something that is generated through the PPI tool?

Yes, that is correct. The PP volume shall contain the organizational change history and all information generated from the PPI tool (Business Relationships page and contract citations).

The volume has a 20-page limit. This count is based on an estimate of 5 pages per contract (i.e., 15 pages), 1 page for the Business Relationships printout from the tool, which leaves 4 pages for introductory information (which includes the organizational change history). However, the offeror may use the page limit as necessary to fit its contract information as long as all information required is submitted within the 20 pages.

Will the Government remove or increase the character limit, so information does not get truncated?

Offerors must work within the character limit constraints of the PPI tool. A new tool is being developed with a new version of EZSource, which will not be available for TSA IV and the developers of the current tool is not doing any more modifications to the current tool. I suggest you provide a short title and if you need a more detailed program title, include it under the Brief Description block.

Will the Government confirm, entering “Not Releasable” is an acceptable response in fields where the Contractor is contractually restricted from releasing specified information and that such response will not result in a lower or non-compliant rating?

If this information is not included, the Government cannot verify the offeror’s performance on the contract; therefore, it would likely result in insufficient data being available for that contract, which could result in a Neutral assessment for that contract. It is at the offeror’s discretion what you provide for past performance, but it would serve you well if the Government has the ability to look up a contract in CPARs based on contract number and be able to verify the offeror’s performance through CPARs and/or PPQs.

Note: L, 2.2.2 states, “No classified information is required or permitted in the offeror’s response.”

L, Attachment 8 In the answer to question 5 of the TSA IV Draft RFP Q-As - 10Mar21.docx, it was indicated that “Offerors may submit their proposal via CD-R/DVD-R or through DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil/) ensuring whichever delivery method is used gets the proposal submitted on the required due date.” In Attachment 8, it indicates that PPI reports (Business Relationship and Past Performance) shall be saved to a CD and submitted.

Will the Government adjust the requirement to coincide with the adjusted requirement in Section L that Offerors may submit via either CD or through DoD SAFE?

Good catch . Section L, Attachment 8, Section ‘Printing Reports and Submitting PPI Tool’ has been modified to read: “Submit an electronic copy via CD-R/DVD-R or through DoD SAFE of the saved PPI database file with your proposal.”

How many calendar days will the Government allow between final RFP release and proposal receipt?

As stated in the clause, it is at the CO’s discretion for that task order as to what the proposal due date will be for a change proposal. However, if the CO, does not provide a specific due date within the change proposal request, then in compliance with the TSA IV H clause, the proposal must be submitted within 45 days.

Questions and Answers – 10 March 2021

Will the Government confirm the intent is to provide this statement in Section A of the Contract Documentation volume, and not a proposal documentation volume?

Yes, the statement shall be included in the Contract Documentation Volume. Section L has been updated.

Will the Government clarify where within Volume II the Cross Reference Matrix should be included (e.g., In the front matter along with the Table of Contents and Glossary, or as an Appendix to Volume II)?

It is at the offeror’s discretion where the matrix is located within Volume II, as long it is within Volume II. However, L, 4.2 provides a “general” outline of volume organization.

Will the Government confirm the Attachment 11 reference should be Attachment 10, which is the attachment number of section M?

Attachment 10 is correct for Section M. Section L has been updated.

For the purpose of providing legible tables, charts, graphs, figures, diagrams, and schematics, will the Government confirm that the use of 10-point font other than Times New Roman (i.e. Arial Narrow) is allowed? Arial Narrow allows for more legible tables, charts, figures, etc.

Yes, Arial font may be used for tables, charts, graphs, etc. as long as no smaller than 10-point.

As COVID-19 continues to impact the United States and global community, we are following all recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of State, and World Health Organization. While we have been successful to mitigate any impacts to our business operations, the health and safety of our employees is of the utmost importance. We have implemented a number of requirements company-wide to limit potential employee and community exposure including:

· Working remotely, away from company facilities, whenever possible;

· Avoiding non-essential business travel; and

· Conducting virtual meetings via Skype, WebEx or other available conference call services The production of CD-R/DVD-Rs will require offerors to work in person at company facilities, and since offerors proposals will also be submitted via the DoD SAFE site will the Government remove the requirement to also submit CD-R/DVD-R versions of the proposal?

Section L, 2.4 has been modified to state, “Offerors may submit their proposal via CD-R/DVD-R or through DoD SAFE (https://safe.apps.mil/) ensuring whichever delivery method is used gets the proposal submitted on the required due date.”

Will the Government confirm we are allowed to submit Volume attachments within the applicable volume files and not have to be separate files. For example, since the SEMP, CMP, RMP, and QAPP are attachments to Volume II it makes the most sense to include those in the Volume II file.

It is preferred that the master plans be submitted as separate files as attachments to Volume II. It is more difficult for the Government to have to separate these attachments out from a large volume file for evaluation purposes. In addition, these master plans will become attachments to the awarded contract and will need to be separate files for that purpose.

Will the Government confirm this does not include any images that offerors may need to provide to meet an RFP requirement (e.g. screenshots of SAM Dashboard or certifications)?

If an offeror is copying an image into a document then converts that document to pdf that is fine as long as the pdf document has textual search and copy functions enabled.

As with section 2.2.4 (Indexing), will the Government confirm this Master Table of Contents does not apply to the Volume I 5-page limit? Should the Master Table of Contents be submitted as an Appendix to Volume I?

As stated in L, 2.2.4 table of contents do not count against the page limitations for their respective volumes. This applies to all volumes including Volume I.

Will the Government clarify if this should be SOO 4.6 Systems Engineering and not SOO 4.2?

SOO references for all technical subfactors have been removed from Sections L and M.

Will the Government clarify if this should be SOO 4.14 Configuration Management (CM) and not SOO 4.13?

SOO references for all technical subfactors have been removed from Sections L and M.

Will the Government clarify if section L4.3.1.c should only reference SOO 5, which covers concurrency modifications or if there should be a different SOO reference(s)?

SOO references for all technical subfactors have been removed from Sections L and M.

Will the Government clarify if this should be SOO 4.10 System Integration and not SOO 4.6?

SOO references for all technical subfactors have been removed from Sections L and M.

Will the Government clarify if this should be SOO 6.7 Training System Support Center (TSSC) and not SOO 6.3?

SOO references for all technical subfactors have been removed from Sections L and M.

Will the Government clarify if this should be SOO 6.4 Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) and not SOO 6.2?

SOO references for all technical subfactors have been removed from Sections L and M.

Will the Government clarify if this should be SOO 6.8 Instructions Services and not SOO 6.4?

SOO references for all technical subfactors have been removed from Sections L and M.

Will the Government clarify if these should be SOO 4, 4.1-4.5 and SOO 4.11 (including subparagraphs), and not SOO 4.10?

SOO references for all technical subfactors have been removed from Sections L and M.

Will the Government clarify the appropriate SOO sections, if any, to be written to in Section L4.3.4.b Risk Management?

SOO references for all technical subfactors have been removed from Sections L and M.

Will the Government clarify if this should be SOO 13 Summary Services (which includes subparagraphs 13.1 Quality Assurance and 13.2 Quality Control) and not SOO 12?

SOO references for all technical subfactors have been removed from Sections L and M.

Will the Government clarify if the Business Relationship page is the same as the Organizational Structure Change History that is required in section L5.3 or something additional within the Past Performance Information Tool?

The Business Relationship page in the PPI tool is required to identify the offeror for the PP information entered into the PPI tool. It will result in a single page “printout”.

The Organizational change history is a different requirement to be included within the PP Volume per the instructions in L, 5.3.

Will the Government confirm the Client Authorization Letters can be included as an appendix to Volume III Past Performance and not be included within the Past Performance 20-page limit?

If Client Authorization Letters are submitted for commercial contracts, they are not included in the PP volume page count and should be submitted as an attachment/appendix to the volume.

Recommend the Government review the Services Summary Table, SOO Paragraphs, and Section L instructions to verify all references align. This will be beneficial to do this prior to Final RFP release to avoid any confusion and additional questions from Offerors.

The Services Summary in the SOO has been verified and updated to reflect appropriate SOO references. In addition, SOO references for all technical subfactors have been removed from Sections L and M.

Note: L, 4.1 has been modified to include the following statement: “We are not looking for approaches to everything in the Statement of Objectives (SOO), just a top level process so we can determine that the offeror has the capability to perform TSA IV requirements.”

Will the Government release these attachments prior to Final RFP release so Offerors can review and provide any questions and recommendations prior to the RFP release, as necessary?

The PPI tool and associated instructions were posted on betaSAM 20 November 2020.

The remaining attachments will be posted with the final RFP.

Questions and Answers from 2nd draft Posting – 12 November 2020

In addition, if a Mentor-Protégé JV is formed between a SB and LB for the SB Pool, that LB may also submit a proposal as a prime offeror in the Unrestricted Pool.

What SOO paragraph(s) cover the O&I work scope?

SOO, 6.4 provides the top level requirements for DMO. If/when the DMON 3.0 and/or MAF DMO programs utilize TSA IV, the specific requirements will be documented in a PWS for that program.

Would you be able to clarify which attachment is required for what volume, and where it should be contained?

Are they appended to the Technical as attachments (IAW Section 4) included in Volume IV Contract Documentation as attachments (IAW section 6)?

L, 2.2 and 4.2 instruct offerors to submit the master plans (SEMP, CMP, RMP, QAPP) in Volume II.

L, 2.2 and 6.5 instruct the SBSP be submitted in Volume IV.

L, 6.1.9 is informing the offeror how the plans will be incorporated into the awarded TSA IV contract. L, 6.1.9 states, “The following Section J attachments will be included as part of the TSA IV contract:” There are no instructions to the offeror to submit the master plans, except the SBSP, in Volume IV.

Does “shall be counted as two pages” in the last sentence apply to only 11x17-inch pages or to all tables, charts, graphs, figures, diagrams, and schematics?

It applies to only to the use of 11x17 pages that will be counted as 2 pages.

SOO Paragraph 4.2 is Mission Essential Services. Should this refer to SOO Paragraph 4.6 Systems Engineering?

The SOO paragraph references in Section L have been corrected.

SOO Paragraph 4.13 is Simulator Common Architecture Requirements and Standards (SCARS). Should this refer to SOO Paragraph 4.14 Configuration Management?

The SOO paragraph references in Section L have been corrected.

SOO Paragraph 4.14 is Configuration Management. Should this refer to SOO Paragraph 4.15 Sustaining Engineering?

The SOO paragraph references in Section L have been corrected.

Please provide a definition of “families of simulators” for this requirement.

A “family of simulators” refers to a single program (KC-10 TS, KC-135 ATS, C-17 TS, C-130J MATS, etc.) training system devices. What is being stated here is when you use two or more of these programs or “families”.

SOO Paragraph 6.3 is Maintenance. Should this refer to SOO Paragraph 6.7 Training System Support Center?

The SOO paragraph references in Section L have been corrected.

SOO Paragraph 6.2 is Operations. Should this refer to SOO Paragraph 6.4 Distributed Mission Operations (DMO)?

The SOO paragraph references in Section L have been corrected.

SOO Paragraph 6.4 is Distributed Mission Operations (DMO). Should this refer to SOO Paragraph 6.8 Instructional Services?

The SOO paragraph references in Section L have been corrected.

SOO Paragraph 4.1 is a subparagraph of 4 Program Management, and 4.10 has no subparagraphs. Should this refer to SOO Paragraph 4 and its subparagraphs?

The SOO paragraph references in Section L have been corrected.

SOO Paragraph 4.1 is Contractor Manpower Reporting and 4.10 is System Integration. Paragraph 4.10.1 is not included in the SOO. Should these refer to SOO Paragraph 4 Program Management?

The SOO paragraph references in Section L have been corrected.

SOO Paragraph 12 is Deliverables. Should this reference be SOO Paragraph 13 and subparagraphs? (i.e., Quality Assurance and Quality Control) The SOO paragraph references in Section L have been corrected.

SOO 13

If there are specific requirements for ISO 9001 or AS9100 compatibility beyond the QAPP Master Plan for a task order, those requirements will be explicitly stated in the task order FOPR.

Suggest you send the PPQs to your customers even if it’s unlikely they will respond. Offerors are required to provide a listing of the individuals to whom the questionnaires were sent. The Government will make an attempt to reach out to all PPQ contacts who have not responded to try and get feedback regarding an offeror’s performance.

Should this information be included in the proposal as part of the “Introductory Section” or within the PPI Tool Past Performance Program Details tab?

This information should be documented in the PPI tool for each contract relating the work performed on the contract to Subfactors 1 through 4.

Primes can submit a Comprehensive, Master, Individual or Commercial Small Business Subcontracting Plans to fulfil RFP requirements. Comprehensive, Master and Commercial Plans can be established at the plant or division level.

Individual Subcontract Plans are contract specific and are not established at a plant or division level.

Would the government confirm that the plant or division requirement doesn’t apply to Individual Subcontracting Plan requirement?

That is correct, the plant or division requirement does not apply. Section L has been modified to remove the statement.

Additionally, some of the publicly available references have bad links in the document but can be found. Other references are instructions for the program office use in developing the SEP so are not really important to bidders.

We understand the hyperlinks are not active; however, they are not necessary for an offeror to prepare their SEMP. The links point back to WNS specific information. The purpose of providing the OSEP is to help offerors understand how the systems engineering process works within the Sims Division. It’s the most current version available.

As discussed in our 1on1, please confirm that an IDIQ contract, with multiple relevant Delivery/Task Orders, can be used as single past performance reference.

If so, should the Contract Information Tab reflect the overall IDIQ contract information, or individual Delivery/Task Order information (i.e., DO/TO Number, Program Title, PoP, Contract Value, Points of Contact)?

If the IDIQ Delivery/Task Order information is required, how should this information be entered in the PP Information Tool? Should the information be included within the Program Details tab?

If an offeror is submitting a contract reference at the ID/IQ level, then indicate that contract number in the Contract Information Tab of the tool. Then under the Program Details Tab, discuss the relevant DOs/TOs as they apply to each of the subfactors.

If an offeror is submitting a single DO/TO as an independent contract reference, then provide the DO/TO number under the Contract Information Tab. I suggest also including the overall ID/IQ contract number in the Program Details Tab in case we need to use that number for CPAR searches.

M, 2.2.1 has been revised to state, “Past performance will be rated for each Technical Subfactor, using the confidence assessments ratings in the table below, with the order of importance for the subfactors in descending order with Subfactor 1 being the most important. The resulting Performance Confidence Assessment rating assessed for the offeror will be made at the Factor level.”

Would the Government please clarify if a Prime submits an Individual Subcontracting Plan the small business percentage goals should be reflected as a percentage of subcontracted dollars as noted for Master SBSPs?

Due to the nature of the acquisition, it is unknown how many or if a large business will ever be awarded a task order. Therefore, it is virtually impossible for large businesses to provide a statement of the total dollars planned to be subcontracted and a statement of the total dollars planned to be subcontracted to small business concerns, as a percentage of total subcontract dollars as part of their initial subcontracting plan submission. After coordination with the AFLCMC Small Business Office, it was determined to obtain the initial plans without goals for the total dollars to be subcontracted. As a large business wins a task order they will update their subcontracting plan to include these required goals.

Regarding the prior question, if the requirement will not be removed from the SOO and the TO is silent on a concurrency requirement, does that imply that the 30 day requirement applies to the TO?

The SS element has been modified to indicate “xx” so that if the element is applied to a task order, the program team can define…