The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
TSA IV – FA8621-21-R-0030
Questions/Answers Regarding Draft RFP Documents
Questions and Answers from 2nd draft Posting – 12 November 2020
| Reference |
| Question/Comment |
| Government Response |
| 1. |
| DID |
| DI-MGMT-81808 – RMP, last sentence required Word 2003-2007 format, is that correct? |
| The DID has been modified to state MS Word 2010 or later to be consistent with Section L instructions. |
| 2. |
| General |
| Would you be able to define task order participation requirements? How are prime evaluated for task order participation? |
| The H clause for task order participation states, “TSA IV awardees will be required to propose on a minimum of two competitive task orders during the 5-year base period. This includes task orders proposed as a prime or a subcontractor.” This will be tracked by the TSA IV Core Team as proposals are submitted for task orders. |
| 3. |
| General |
| Would you be able to provide examples of types of contract incentives at the task order level? |
| There are a variety of incentives connected contract type (i.e., CPFF, CPIF, FPIF, etc.) that a program team may implement on a task order. These incentives are used to encourage contractor performance. |
| 4. |
| General |
| It was stated by the Government during the one on one session that change proposal turnaround time would be determined at the Task Order level. Within TSA III H-004 states “the contractor shall submit a proposal, in Microsoft Word and/or Excel, to the Government within 45 days, or within the time specified by the contracting officer”. Will the proposal turnaround requirement be removed from the H-Clauses for TSA IV or will language be included which states the proposal turnaround requirements in the Task Order take precedence over the IDIQ? |
| The clause in TSA IV will read the same as in TSA III. The statement allows for the CO to require proposal receipt within a time period other than 45 days; however, if the CO fails to indicate a date in the change proposal request, the contractor is required to submit the proposal within 45 days. |
| 5. |
| General |
| According to the 10 Nov 2020 Draft RFP, Section M, the Government anticipates awarding multiple ID/IQ TSA IV contracts (approximately 10-15 in the Unrestricted Pool and approximately 10-15 in the Small Business Pool). During TSA III source selection, the Government reportedly limited the number of Unrestricted proposals in the competitive range to a maximum of 12, for the purpose of efficiency. Please clarify if it is the Government's intention to award to each and any qualifying offerors on TSA IV, as long as the number of qualified offerors does not exceed 15 within the respective Unrestricted or Small Business pools? |
| As stated in Section M, 1, “Award will be made to each and all qualifying offerors.” There is no perceived limit on how many awards that may be. The range of awards for each pool indicated in M, 1.2 is based on our market research. Typically, industry wants a range of number of awards so we base that on market research with the disclaimer that the Government reserves the right to award to more or fewer ID/IQ contracts. |
| 6. |
| General |
| The Government clearly allows joint ventures (JV's) to compete for a spot on TSA IV. Is it allowable for a prime offeror to compete individually, and also to compete as part of a JV? Similarly, what is the Government's position regarding the eligibility of different divisions or business units within a large corporation, each competing separately for a spot on TSA IV? |
| If a SB is part of a JV with other SBs and submits a proposal for TSA IV as a JV, that SB may also submit a proposal as a prime for TSA IV. However, that SB must be able to meet the requirement of being technical acceptable with Satisfactory Confidence or better for PP to receive an award as a prime awardee. Typically, JVs are formed because a single SB does not have the capabilities to meet the criteria as a prime offeror. |
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.
| 7. |
| General |
| Please explain the lengthy delay between the proposal due date in March 2021 and the expected TSA IV award in November 2022. Much might change during that 20-month time period (e.g., mergers & acquisitions, fresh past performance, etc.) that could be very relevant and useful to the Government for TSA IV source selection. In that regard, what updated information will the Government accept from offerors after proposal submission but prior to source selection? |
| The length in schedule is to cover the evaluation of the proposals received. We anticipate a large number of proposals and each proposal must be evaluated IAW the evaluation criteria stated in Section M. The schedule also allows for the FAR 15, process we must follow and is based on the standard process for a FAR 15 source selection. We will not allow for alternate proposals or updated proposals unless specifically requested by the Government during Discussions or Final Proposal Requests (FPR). |
| 8. |
| Industry Day Slide 25 |
| 16 Nov 20 Industry Day chart #25 indicates that Operations & Integration (O&I) contracts like DMON 3.0 and MAF DMO are potential TSA IV programs. |
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.
| 9. |
| L General |
| There is a disparity between references to the attachments. For example, Section L, Section 6 (Volume IV Contract Documentation) references Section J Attachments (6.1.9). These attachments include Attachment 4/5/6/7/8: Attachment 4 (SEMP), Attachment 5 (CMP), Attachment 6 (RMP), Attachment 7 (QAPP), and Attachment 8 (SBSP). Section 4.3.1 Subfactor 1 Engineering and Innovation Item a, Systems Engineering references Section L, Attachment 2 for the SEMP, but Paragraph 6.1.9 references Attachment 4. Section 4.2 Volume Organization references the SEMP as Attachment 1. |
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.
| 10. |
| L, 2.3 |
| Section L 2.3 states: Legible tables, charts, graphs, figures, diagrams, and schematics shall be used wherever practicable to depict organizations, systems and layout, implementation schedules, plans, etc. These displays shall be uncomplicated and legible and shall not exceed 11x17 inches in size and shall be counted as two pages. |
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.
| 11. |
| L, 4.3.1.a |
| The cited section cross-references SOO paragraph 4.2 for development of the SEMP. However, Section 4.2 concerns Mission Essential Services, while 4.6 concerns systems engineering. Please confirm the correct cross reference. |
| The SOO paragraph references in Section L have been corrected. |
| 12. |
| L, 4.3.1.a |
| Please confirm that the Contractor’s processes for systems engineering requirements are to be detailed in a standalone 25-page SEMP plan and are not required to be restated within the confines of the 30-page technical volume. |
| Section L states the SEMP shall not exceed 25 pages and is not included in the 30-page volume limit. It is at the offeror’s discretion how they comply with Section L instructions for Volume II. Make sure you are reading what is required for each subfactor. If the instructions state submit a plan (e.g., 4.3.1.a), then it would imply the plan is all that is required for that area. It is not the Government’s intent or desire to read the same information in two different places within the proposal. |
| 13. |
| L, 4.3.1.a |
| Section L 4.3.1.a states: The Simulators Division’s Organizational Systems Engineering Plan (OSEP) is provided as Section L Attachment 3 to assist in developing the SEMP. (SOO paragraph 4.2) |
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.
| 14. |
| L, 4.3.1.b |
| The cited section cross-references SOO paragraph 4.13 for development of the CMP. However, Section 4.13 concerns SCARS, while 4.14 concerns configuration management. Please confirm the correct cross reference. |
| The SOO paragraph references in Section L have been corrected. |
| 15. |
| L, 4.3.1.b |
| Section L 4.3.1.b states: The Agile Combat Support (ACS) Directorate CMP is provided as Section L Attachment 5 to assist in developing the offeror’s CMP. (SOO paragraph 4.13) |
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.
| 16. |
| L, 4.3.1.c |
| Section L 4.3.1.c states: In addition, provide innovative concepts the offeror would apply to training system concurrency. (SOO paragraph 4.14 and 5) |
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.
| 17. |
| L, 4.3.1.d |
| Section L 4.3.1 states: Integration: Describe the offeror’s process or identifying, evaluating, and integrating beneficial new technologies into the Air Force Simulator environment, generally across two or more “families” of simulators, to improve performance, reduce cost, or enhance lifecycle supportability. (SOO paragraph 4.6). |
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”.
| 18. |
| L, 4.3.2.a |
| Section L 4.3.2.a states: TSSC: Describe the offeror’s process for TSSC operations, responsibilities, and interaction with development teams. Include the offeror’s process to augment the technical staff to flex and meet greater TSSC demands. (SOO paragraph 6.3) |
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.
| 19. |
| L, 4.3.2.c |
| Section L 4.3.2.c states: DMO: Describe offeror’s process for executing DMO requirements, to include resource allocation, scheduling, coordination, establishing connectivity for pre-mission briefings, mission execution, post-mission debriefing activities, and security. (SOO paragraph 6.2) |
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.
| 20. |
| L, 4.3.3 |
| Section L 4.3.3 states: The offeror shall submit the following processes for training system courseware development and instruction. (SOO paragraph 6.4) |
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.
| 21. |
| L, 4.3.4.a |
| Section L 4.3.4.a states: Program Management: Describe the offeror’s program management approach that includes: (SOO paragraphs 4.1 and 4.10 with its subparagraphs) |
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.
| 22. |
| L, 4.3.4.b |
| The cited section cross-references SOO paragraphs 4.1 and 4.10.1 for development of the RMP. However, Section 4.1 concerns contractor manpower reporting, while 4.10 concerns system integration; there is no 4.10.1. Please confirm the correct cross reference. |
| The SOO paragraph references in Section L have been corrected. |
| 23. |
| L, 4.3.4.b |
| Section L 4.3.4.b states: Risk Management: Provide a RMP IAW DI-MGMT-81808 (Section L Attachment 6) that describes the offeror’s risk management system and associated tools and processes, and how the risk management system will be applied to improve program performance. In addition, the offeror shall identify any risk (if any) associated with the proposed processes/approaches for each subfactor and the mitigations the offeror intends to implement to reduce/eliminate these risks. (SOO paragraphs 4.1 and 4.10.1) |
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.
| 24. |
| L, 4.3.4.c |
| Section L 4.3.4 states: Quality Assurance: Provide a QAPP IAW DI-QCIC-81794A (Section L Attachment 7) that describe the offeror’s process for implementing a quality management system that addresses the offeror’s accountability for contract requirements. (SOO paragraph 12 and subparagraphs) |
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.
| 25. |
| L, 4.3.4.c |
| If TSA IV requires compatibility with AS9100, are DCMA approvals and coordination necessary to transition existing TSA programs to the new standard? |
| TSA IV does not require compatibility with AS9100. The DID provided is intended to provide a recommended format and content guide to ensure all QAPPs cover the essential items for a quality program as it relates to TSA IV. |
SOO 13
| The Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) Data Item Description (DI-QCIC-81794A) requires compatibility with SAE AS9100, Quality Management Systems – Requirements for Aviation, Space and Defense Organizations. Will you confirm that the Government intends to move beyond ISO 9001 to AS9100 for TSA IV? |
| TSA IV does not require compatibility with AS9100. The DID provided is intended to provide a recommended format and content guide to ensure all QAPPs cover the essential items for a quality program as it relates to TSA IV. |
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.
| 27. |
| L, 5.1 |
| The sections states "... In addition to the data provided in this volume, the Government may use the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)." Will copies of CPARS be required with the proposal submittal? |
| Offeror are not required to submit CPARs with their proposal submission. The Government Past Performance Team will search for all applicable CPARs. |
| 28. |
| L, 5.1 |
| The section states "Offerors shall send a Past Performance Questionnaire (Section L, Attachment 9) directly to the POCs for the efforts identified." There are some organizations, such as the U.S. Navy, who do not complete PPQs. Will a recent CPARS submitted with the proposal be a sufficient to fulfill this requirement? |
| Offeror are not required to submit CPARs with their proposal submission. The Government Past Performance Team will search for all applicable CPARs. |
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.
| 29. |
| L, 5.2 |
| The draft RFP states “…Offerors are required to explain what aspects of contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate…” |
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.
| 30. |
| L, 6.5 |
| Draft RFP states “Large businesses shall submit, on a plant or division-wide basis, a SBSP (see FAR 19.701) that contains all the elements required by the clause at FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.” |
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.
| 31. |
| L, Atch 3, OSEP |
| The OSEP includes a number of hyperlinks that provide additional detail to the requirements such as guides for technical reviews and risk management (pag 12, para 3.3 - AFLCMC Standard Process to Execute Risk and Issue Management in Acquisition Program; pg 18, para 4.5.2 - AFLCMC Systems Engineering Technical Review Guide; Will these references be made available? |
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.
| 32. |
| L, Atch 8, PPI Tool |
| The PP Information Tool Contract Information Tab fields don’t seem to be formatted to allow multiple Delivery/Task Order information to be listed. |
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.
| 33. |
| M, 1 and 1.4 |
| Section 1.0 states, "award will be made to each and all qualifying offerors." Section 1.4 discusses competitive ranges to be used as well. Do these sections mean that if a company qualifies, they could still be removed as not one of the highest rated qualifiers? What would be the competitive range criteria if this is the case? |
| A competitive range determination is made after initial evaluations. The SSA will make a determination if we can award without discussions or enter into discussions. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions if there is a sufficient number of offerors who meet the qualifying offeror criteria after initial evaluation. If this is not the case, then the Government would enter into discussions with those offerors who are considered the most highly rated. Since one of the criteria for a qualifying offeror is to have Satisfactory Confidence or better for PP, then an offeror with Neutral Confidence or worse after initial evaluation would likely not be among the most highly rated. |
| 34. |
| M, 2.1.1.b |
| Does the CMP have to be consistent with ACS CMP? Similar to the SEMP in item "a" |
| The ACS CMP is provided to help offerors understand the CM process utilized within the ACS Directorate to include the Sims Division. It is available as a guide and at the offeror’s discretion oh how it is utilized in developing it’s CMP. |
| 35. |
| M, 2.2.1 (also Q&A #72) |
| The section states that an overall PP rating of satisfactory is required and that Factor 2 PP will be rated IAW the table. It also states that each subfactor will be evaluated as well but does not specify how the subfactors will be rated. Can the government clarify how the PP on each subfactor will be rated and how those individual ratings will inform the overall Factor 2 PP rating? What are the ratings for each subfactor as discussed in para 1 and how do they play into the overall rating? |
| The Government will use the same confidence assessment ratings for the Subfactors and the overall Factor rating. |
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.”
| 36. |
| M, 2.2.4 |
| M, 2.2.4 provides a description of what equates to the different Past Performance Relevancy Ratings, but what is the effective impact of each of the different Past Performance Relevancy Ratings on evaluating Past Performance and calculating a Quality Assessment Rating? |
| The relevancy rating and performance quality ratings are separate distinct ratings that will be assessed for each contract for each subfactor. Relevancy – did you provide a relevant contract and how relevant is that cont6ract; Performance Quality – how well did you perform on that contract. The Government will then review all of the relevancy ratings and performance quality ratings for all of the contracts for each subfactor to assess subfactor confidence ratings. |
| 37. |
| M, 2.2.4, para 2 |
| This section and the PP Relevancy Matrix state that dollar value will not be used to estimate magnitude, but the tables state magnitude will be assessed. How will magnitude be assessed? |
| The relevancy definitions are required from the DoD SS Procedures and cannot be altered. However, we do not intend to assess magnitude so we are informing offerors of this fact in M, 2.2.4. |
| 38. |
| M, 2.2.5 |
| M, 2.2.5 Quality Assessment states that “for each recent and relevant past performance effort reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for Technical Subfactors 1 through 4”. Since this paragraph specifically uses the terms “recent and relevant”, does that mean past performance evaluated as “Somewhat Relevant” will not be eligible for a quality assessment for the Technical Subfactors? |
| Somewhat relevant contracts are still considered “relevant” so they will be assessed for performance quality. If a contract is found to not fall within the recency criteria, it will not be evaluated further. If a contract is recent but not relevant, it will not be assessed for performance quality. If it’s not relevant, it’s not rated. |
| 39. |
| M, Atch 1 |
| Past Performance Relevancy Matrix - Will the past performance relevancy rating matrix be applied: (a) to each past performance citation individually per sub-factor or, (b) will the relevancy rating matrix be applied to the complete body of work of all PP citations collectively per sub-factor? The method in which the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix is applied could result in vastly different Relevancy Ratings. For example in the case of Subfactor 3, if a JV has one member providing a PP citation covering a portion of Subfactor 3 MoMs on an aircraft training systems program and another member providing a PP citation for the remainder of Subfactor 3 MoMs on an aircraft training systems program, vastly different outcomes could occur based on how the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix is applied. In the case of (a) above, the best relevancy rating the JV could receive on each of the two PP citations is “Somewhat Relevant’. Using method (b), the JV could potentially receive “Very Relevant” past performance relevancy ratings. |
| The PP Relevancy Matrix will be applied to each contract for each subfactor. Here’s how it works: Each contract will be evaluated for relevancy and performance quality for each subfactor. The following is a sample view of how this could play out with 3 contracts: |
| 40. |
| M,1.1, para 2, item 3 |
| With no price evaluation, what reasons might the contracting officer have to believe a bidder would offer other than fair and reasonable pricing? |
| It is unlikely there would be a reason not to assume a potential awardee would offer fair and reasonable pricing. The Government has the option to conduct Pre-Award Surveys (PAS) on offerors. We will follow FAR 9.104 to make responsibility determinations. |
| 41. |
| PP Matrix |
| Is the change from "performed [or provided] and managed" in the very relevant line to only "performed [or provided]" or only "managed" in the relevant line intentional, because it then goes back to "provided and managed" in the somewhat relevant line? |
| The VR for SF1, SF2, and SF3 is “performed and managed”; SF is “managed”. R is “performed” for SF 1 and SF2; and “managed for SF 3 and SF4. |
| 42. |
| Q58 |
| Small Business Requirement: Q&A States “The goals should be based on the percentage of subcontracted work at the ID/IQ level as a percentage of total annual obligated dollars. Large businesses will be required to update this Master SBSP with each task order proposal submission to indicate percentage of subcontracted dollars for that task order.” |
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.
| 43. |
| SOO, 12 |
| SS-10 states “Training system is concurrent with aircraft 30 days prior to aircraft fielding”. It was stated by the Government during the one on one session that the concurrency requirements would be determined at the Task Order level. Will the concurrency requirement be removed from the SOO or will language be included which states the concurrency requirements provided in the Task Order take precedence over the IDIQ? |
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 how many days prior to aircraft fielding a training must be concurrent.
| 44. |
| SOO, 4.13 |
| There is a vertical oriented graphic out of place, recommend removal. |
| Caught that as well; fixed |
| 45. |
| SOO, 5 |
| Can the government clarify what is meant by "plus five years" from the PoP? Is it expected that contractors continue to support equipment after the contract PoP? |
| That was a typo from a previous review. The statement, “of the contract plus five years” has been deleted. |
| 46. |
| SOO, 6.1 |
| Recommend adding a "to" in the last sentence after "required" |
| Change made. |
| 47. |
| SOO, 6.7 and 7.3 |
| These two sections have similar in wording. Is there a distinction between the services aspect of TSSC and the product aspect that you are trying to differentiate here? |
| SOO 6.7, refers to the Training System center location where tasks are being performed to manage the technical baseline, studies, inventory control, etc. |
SOO 7.3 refers to the products needed to support the Training System center with maintaining the technical baseline, inventory, and the devices across all locations.
There are two aspects for the TSSC; one is services to include software fixes and configuration control and the other is the product aspect for performing DMO MP Standards, OFP updates, and any concurrency effort. This is normally outside the scope of the TSSC, but the programs could mandate the TSSC perform these effort. The contractor would have to staff up the TSSC to comply.
Questions and Answers from 1st draft Posting – 9 October 2020
| Reference |
| Question/Comment |
| Government Response |
| 1. |
| General |
| Can parent/affiliate companies be included in the evaluation? |
| The Government is providing clarification to its approach to past performance evaluation on TSA IV as there was a question if the parent/affiliate companies will be included in the evaluation. TSA IV is evaluating the prime contractor only and not the parent/affiliate companies. The Government is looking for contractors that can do the efforts identified in Factor 1, Technical. In Section L, paragraph 5.2, language has been added to clarify that parent/affiliate companies will not be evaluated. |
| 2. |
| General |
| Will the government consider requiring five (5) past performance submissions? Three contracts for PP does not give the government sufficient insight to offers capabilities unless the offeror has had IDIQ TO contracts in which multiple ECP’s are awarded under that TO. |
| As stated in M, 2.2.2, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the offeror and information obtained from other sources. The Government intends to perform searches through the CPARS for additional relevant contracts when assessing past performance. |
| 3. |
| General |
| Will the government consider the use of 11X17 page size for items such as charts and graphs? |
| Section L has been modified to allow for 11x17 for charts, tables, graphs, etc. |
| 4. |
| General |
| Will the government consider requiring the Full and Open pool members to utilize TSA IV small-businesses awardees before contracting to non-TSA IV awardees in order to satisfy their 28% SB goals? |
| TSA IV will have a 20% small business subcontracting requirement for each task order issued under the Unrestricted Pool. It is at the prime’s discretion when establishing the teaming for each task order proposed. There is no requirement for large business primes to utilize small business primes at the task order level. |
| 5. |
| General |
| In the evaluation criteria a Neutral Confidence Rating states “No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.” How will a Neutral rating be counted/scored against an offeror? Is it possible that a Neutral rating will be cause for an offeror to be eliminated? |
| See 2nd draft Sections M. To be considered for award as a qualifying offeror, you must have a Past Performance Confidence Rating of Satisfactory or better. |
| 6. |
| General |
| General question - Will pricing be required in the final RFP? Will labor categories be provided and will a labor rate rate sheet be requested in the final RFP? If no pricing will be required at the ID/IQ level, how will pricing be done via individual TO's? |
| Pricing is not required per FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) and will not be evaluated for the ID/IQ. Pricing at the task order level will be based on the requirements of that task order. |
| 7. |
| General |
| How will task orders be solicited? |
| Fair Opportunity Proposal Requests (FOPRs) will be issued to all TSA IV awardees IAW FAR 16.5. If a task order is set-aside for the SB Pool, it will be announced in the FOPR. |
| 8. |
| General |
| How will the govt make sure that all primes are included in each individual task order RFP? |
| Fair Opportunity Proposal Requests (FOPRs) will be issued to all TSA IV awardees IAW FAR 16.5. If a task order is set-aside for the SB Pool, it will be announced in the FOPR. |
| 9. |
| General |
| Are primes required to bid on all delivery/task order RFPs? If not, is there a minimum response/bid requirement percentage? |
| There will be an “off ramp” clause in Section H of the contract that states TSA IV primes must propose on a minimum of two task orders during the 5-year base period. If a prime fails to do so, the Government reserves the right not to exercise the option period for that prime. |
| 10. |
| General |
| Please explain the Small Business determination process. In other words, how will the Government determine if a task order is released as unrestricted or small business set-aside? |
| Each program team will conduct a capability assessment (e.g., market research) IAW FAR Part 10 to determine if there are two or more small business TSA IV primes who can perform the work. If so, then the task order will be set-aside for the Small Business Pool. |
| 11. |
| General |
| Can a company submit in both the small business pool and as unrestricted? |
| Assume you are referring to the TSA IV ID/IQ, the answer is no. All offerors are being evaluated the same so there is no need for a small business to propose under the Unrestricted Pool. In addition, small business primes will have the opportunity to propose on any Unrestricted task orders. |
| 12. |
| General |
| Will the non-manufacturer rule be included at the master IDIQ level? |
| Yes, all appropriate clauses will be included in the basic ID/IQ contract. |
| 13. |
| General |
| Can a small business (qualified as a non-manufacturer with 500 or fewer employees) be exempt from the limitations on subcontracting if the subcontracts are also with small businesses, awarded under the small business pool for TSA IV? |
| All small businesses must comply with CFR 121.406, as required for each task order. There is no automatic exemption because as small business is a TSA IV prime. |
| 14. |
| General |
| 52.219-6-Due to recent changes in the FAR, we have seen the various iterations of this clause (Nov 2011, Dev 2020 O0008, March 2020) included in other solicitations, causing confusion. Will TSA IV include the correct iteration so that a small business qualified as a non-manufacturer can provide products of a large or small business? (for example, leaving the Mar 2020 version of 52.219-33 unchecked would permit the aforementioned scenario). |
| All appropriate clauses and current will be included in the basic ID/IQ contract. |
| 15. |
| General |
| Please confirm that price is not an evaluation factor. The draft states the current evaluation factors are: |
1 – Technical 2- Past Performance Correct. Pricing is not required per FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) and will not be evaluated for the ID/IQ.
| 16. |
| General |
| If a company submits as a small business, will a small business subcontracting plan be required for other set asides (woman owned, HUBZone, etc.)? |
| The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is only required for large business offerors. |
| 17. |
| General |
| Please clarify the requirements for Contractor Manpower Reporting (Section 4.1.1 & 4.7). What type of reporting will be required? |
| Contractor Manpower Reporting, if required, will be at the task order level. The PWS for the task order will provide what is required with regards to manpower reporting. |
| 18. |
| General |
| Will the Government provide the Simulators Division’s Organizational Systems Engineering Plan (OSEP) document? |
| The OSEP will be posted with the 2nd draft release, as well as the final RFP. |
| 19. |
| General |
| Will the government consider the use of 11X17 page size for items such as charts and graphs? |
| Section L has been modified to allow for 11x17 for charts, tables, graphs, etc. |
| 20. |
| General |
| Will the government consider requiring 3 PP, but allow up to “no more than 5” past performance submissions? |
| As stated in M, 2.2.2, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the offeror and information obtained from other sources. The Government intends to perform searches through the CPARS for additional relevant contracts when assessing past performance. |
| 21. |
| General |
| Will the government consider limiting the Full and Open pool members workshare to non-TSA IV small-businesses to 15% in order to encourage engagement of the approved TSA IV small-business pool? |
| TSA IV will have a 20% small business subcontracting requirement for each task order issued under the Unrestricted Pool. It is at the prime’s discretion when establishing the teaming for each task order proposed. There is no requirement for large business primes to utilize small business primes at the task order level. |
| 22. |
| General |
| In the evaluation criteria a Neutral Confidence Rating states “No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.” |
How can no recent/relevant past performance result in a Neutral rating?
As stated in the description for a Neutral Confidence rating, an offeror’s PP record is either not available or so sparse that a meaningful rating cannot be determined. These ratings are IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures.
| 23. |
| L General |
| Will the Government require a Price Volume and TSA IV Rate Table as was required for the TSA III proposal? |
| Pricing is not required per FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii) and will not be evaluated for the ID/IQ. |
| 24. |
| L, 1.1 |
| Does the combination of a US/Canada Joint Certification (Military Critical Technical Data Agreement) and a JCP Approval Letter (DD 2345) between Canada (place of parent company) and the US (place of subsidiary) qualify as DDS approval for a seat on the TSA IV IDIQ? |
| As long as the company has a mitigated FOCI on file with DCSA and approved to access/store U.S. classified (through) DCSA, they can be part of the overarching effort. |
| 25. |
| L, 1.1 |
| What are the requirements for a foreign-owned subcontractor to participate? |
| As stated in L, 1.1, foreign-owned companies may participate as a subcontractor on TSA IV task orders. There are no specific requirements as long as the FAR is followed regarding partnering with foreign companies. |
| 26. |
| L, 1.2 |
| Section L, para 1.2 states “…The Government intends to award basic ID/IQ TSA IV contracts that will allow for a variety of contract types, including but not limited to, Firm-Fixed Price (FFP), Fixed Price Incentive Firm (FPIF), Fixed Price Level of Effort (FP-LOE), Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), and Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF). Applicable contract type contract line item numbers (CLINs) will be specified on each individual task order…” |
Will the government provide information on any fee limitations, how the fees will be calculated or what metrics are expected to be met (milestones, labor hours, deliverables, etc.)?
The task order FOPRs will provide all cost/pricing requirements for that specific task order.
L, 6.6
| Section 2.2 indicates that vendors are required to submit the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) with the proposal. Section 6.6 indicates that only large businesses are required to submit an SBSP. Please confirm that vendors who propose as a small business are not required to submit an SBSP. |
| Only large business offerors are required to submit the SBSP. L, 2.2 table has been modified to state this. |
| 28. |
| L, 2.2 |
| Volume III Past Performance has a limit of "No more than 3 contract references permitted." Recommend that the number of contract references be increased to 5 to allow offerors to provide relevant capabilities across the entire SOO. The SOO is very broad and in order to achieve "Very Relevant" an offeror needs to be able to show performance across all SOO areas. |
| As stated in M, 2.2.2, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the offeror and information obtained from other sources. The Government intends to perform searches through the CPARS for additional relevant contracts when assessing past performance. |
As indicated in L, 5.2, offerors are instructed to explain how your performance is relevant to Technical Subfactors 1 through 4 for aircraft training systems. There is no requirement to demonstrate PP in everything in the SOO.
| 29. |
| L, 2.2 |
| Volume IV, Contract Documentation, Attachment 2: Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) - Recommend page limit of 15 pages be changed to unlimited in order to cover all the elements required in FAR 52.222-46. Documentation for salary ranges can be multiple pages. |
| The requirement for submission of a PECP has been removed from Section L. |
| 30. |
| L, 2.2 |
| Section L 4.2 Volume II Organization and Section L 6.1.9 Section J Attachments: In Section L 2.2 and 4.2 under Factor 1 Technical, the SEMP, CMP, RMP and QAPP are identified as Attachments 1 through 4 respectively, and in Section 2.2 the PECP and SBSP are identified as Attachments 1 and 2. In Section L 6.1.9 Section J Attachments, the SEMP CMP, RMP and QAPP are identified as Attachments 5 through 9 respectively, and the PECP and SBSP are identified as attachments 9 and 10 respectively. |
Question: Can the government confirm or clarify the Attachment number references to be used for these documents?
L, 4.2 indicates the SEMP, CMP, RMP, and QAPP are to be submitted as attachments 1 through 4, respectively to Volume II.
L, 6.1.9 indicates, that these will become attachments under Section J of the awarded contracts. L, 6.1.9 states, “The following attachments will be added to the contract after award:”
The offeror is not to be concerned about the Section J attachments at this time. This information if for information purposes only so offerors know what documents will become attachments to the awarded TSA IV basic contracts.
Offerors are to follow the instructions as to what is required with submission of Volume II in L, 4.2
| 31. |
| L, 2.2.3 |
| In which volume should the cross reference matrix be included? May want to add it to the organization table in section 2.2 (P.S. I later saw you address this in section 4.2, but may be helpful to put some brief clarification in this section as well) |
| L, 4.2 provides instructions for submission of the cross-reference matrix within Volume II. The table in L, 2.2 is not intended to indicate everything required with each volume submission. Offerors are required to read all of Section L to make sure all instructions are met. |
| 32. |
| L, 2.4 |
| Due to the inconsistency in MS Word default style settings and our inability to control those factors on government evaluator computers, will the government allow offerors to submit Volume I, II, and IV proposal files as PDFs, as long as version Adobe Acrobat 9.0 or later is used and textual search and copy functions are enabled? |
| L, 2.4 has been modified to also allow for Adobe Acrobat proposal document submission in addition to MS documents. |
| 33. |
| L, 3.1 |
| May want to put the JV partnership agreement into the organization table in section 2.2 as a Volume I attachment. |
| Appreciate the feedback. L, 3.1 clearly states JV agreements shall be provided with the volume, as applicable. The table in L, 2.2 is not intended to indicate everything required with each volume submission. Offerors are required to read all of Section L to make sure all instructions are met. |
| 34. |
| L, 3.2 |
| Do you have a preference as to how many heading levels are detailed in the master Table of Contents? Does this master TOC count toward the 5 page limit of the Executive Summary? |
| There is no preference for levels of the TOC. L, 2.2.4 states table of contents do not count against page limitations for their respective volumes. |
| 35. |
| L, 4.3.1 |
| Several references to Section L attachment Data Item Descriptions (DID). Request the Section L attachments be provided prior to the final RFP release to allow offerors sufficient time to reivew and prepare the required proposal documents for the proposal. |
| The DIDs will be included with 2nd draft release. |
| 36. |
| L, 4.3.1 |
| Subfactor 1: Engineering and Integration, a. Systems Engineering: The paragraph specifies the SEMP is to be prepared IAW Data Item Description (DID) DI-SESS- 81785A (Section L Attachment 2), and that the Simulators Division’s Organization Systems Engineering Plan (OSEP) is provided as Section L Attachment 3 to assist in developing the SEMP. |
Question: Can the government provide Section L Attachment 2 and Section L Attachment 3 soon as part of this draft package?
The DIDs will be included with 2nd draft release.
| 37. |
| L, 4.3.1 |
| Subfactor 1: Engineering and Integration, b. Configuration Management and Control: The paragraph specifies the CMP is to be prepared IAW DI-SESS-80858D (Section L Attachment 4), and the Agile Combat Support (ACS) Directorate CMP is provided as Section L Attachment 5 to assist in developing the offeror’s CMP. |
Question: Can the government provide Section L Attachment 4 and Section L Attachment 5 soon as part of this draft package?
The DIDs will be included with 2nd draft release.
| 38. |
| L, 4.3.1 |
| Subfactor 1: Engineering and Innovation, b. Configuration Management (CM) and Control: Second sentence states, “The CMP shall address process to transition modifications from a development baseline into a training baseline.” |
Question: Can the government provide clarification as to what they mean by a development and training baseline?
This refers to the process of implementing modifications made in the SIL or TSSC into the operational trainers in the field. The “development baseline” would be the hardware/software configuration which resides in the lab, which is modified and tested prior to deployment to the field. The “training baseline” is the configuration of the training devices in the field. The CMP needs to describe the process by which the lab baseline is formally accepted for deployment, and how it is rolled out to become the new training baseline, while maintaining configuration control and status accounting.
| 39. |
| L, 4.3.1a |
| The draft Section L states “…The Simulators Division’s Organizational Systems Engineering Plan (OSEP) is provided as Section L Attachment 3 to assist in developing the SEMP.” |
Request that the Government provide the Section L Attachment 3 OSEP prior to final RFP release.
The DID and OSEP will be included with 2nd draft release.
| 40. |
| L, 4.3.1a |
| Would the government draw their attention to and clarify conflicting references to RFP Section L, Attachment 3 in Section L, 4.3.1.a where Attachment 3 is referred to as the OSEP and Section L, 5.1 where Attachment 3 is referred to as the Past Performance Information Tool instructions? |
| L, 5.1 has been modified to correct attachment numbers: PPI Tool is L attachment 8; PP Questionnaire is L attachment 9; and Client Authorization Letter is L attachment 10. |
| 41. |
| L, 4.3.1b |
| The draft Section L states “…The Agile Combat Support (ACS) Directorate CMP is provided as Section L Attachment 5 to assist in developing the offeror’s CMP.” |
Request that the Government provide the Section L Attachment 5 ACS Directorate Configuration Management Plan prior to final RFP release.
The DID and ACS CMP will be included with 2nd draft release.
| 42. |
| L, 4.3.1b |
| Would the government draw their attention to and clarify conflicting references to RFP Section L, Attachment 4 in Section L, 4.3.1.b where Attachment 4 is referred to as DI-SESS-80858D and Section L, 5.1 where Attachment 4 is referred to as the Past Performance Questionnaire? |
| L, 5.1 has been modified to correct attachment numbers: PPI Tool is L attachment 8; PP Questionnaire is L attachment 9; and Client Authorization Letter is L attachment 10. |
| 43. |
| L, 4.3.1b |
| Would the government draw their attention to and clarify conflicting references to RFP Section L, Attachment 5 in Section L, 4.3.1.b where Attachment 5 is referred to as the Agile Combat Support (ACS) Directorate CMP and Section L, 5.1 where Attachment 5 is referred to as the Client Authorization Letter? |
| L, 5.1 has been modified to correct attachment numbers: PPI Tool is L attachment 8; PP Questionnaire is L attachment 9; and Client Authorization Letter is L attachment 10. |
| 44. |
| L, 4.3.3.c |
| Can you clarify your expection for offeror's approaches to "flexibility of providing instruction" using PTN, adaptive training, VR, etc.? Or perhaps provide some evaluation guidance on it in section M? I'm not really sure what is being asked for such as specific applications of new technology to how we would manage training, or different training techniques, or some other objective. This piece sounds similar to section 4.3.1.d for new technology integration, so I am wondering how it is different. |
| L, 4.3.3.c and 4.3.1.d are somewhat related, but the focus is different. The intent of section 4.3.3.c is to describe how different technologies could be applied to address learning objectives, within the overall context of instructional program objectives. Paragraph 4.3.1.d refers to the process for evaluation and selection of emerging technologies, which would presumably involve analysis of factors such as cost and risk, in addition to the training capabilities provided. |
| 45. |
| L, 4.3.4 |
| Subfactor 4: Program Management, b. Risk Management: The paragraph specifies the RMP is to be prepared IAW DI-MGMT-81808 (Section L Attachment 6). |
Question: Can the government provide Section L Attachment 6 soon as part of this draft package?
The DIDs will be included with 2nd draft release.
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.