The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
TSA IV – FA8621-21-R-0030
Questions/Answers Regarding Draft RFP Documents
| 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.
| 46. |
| L, 4.3.4 |
| Subfactor 4: Program Management, c. Quality Assurance: The paragraph specifies the QAPP is to be prepared IAW DI-MGMT-81808 (Section L Attachment 7). |
Question: Can the government provide Section L Attachment 7 soon as part of this draft package?
The DIDs will be included with 2nd draft release.
| 47. |
| L, 5.1 |
| May wish to include here the limit of 3 past contracts per the organization table restriction in section 2.2 |
| L, 5.2 clearly states no more than three of the most relevant contracts. |
| 48. |
| L, 5.1 |
| May wish to include the Questionnaire POC listing in the organizational table in section 2.2 |
| Appreciate the feedback. L, 5.1 clearly states a PPQ listing is required. 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. |
| 49. |
| L, 5.1 |
| 1st paragraph states, “Past performance information shall be provided using the Past Performance Information Tool as described in RFP Section L Attachment 3, for each referenced contract.” Section L Attachment 3 is also referenced in Section L, 4.3.1 Subfactor 1: Engineering and Integration, a. Systems Engineering as the Simulators Division’s Organization Systems Engineering Plan (OSEP). |
Question: Can the government please clarify the correct attachment number and provide it soon as part of this draft package?
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.
The DID and OSEP will be included with 2nd draft release.
| 50. |
| L, 5.1 |
| 3rd paragraph states, “Offerors shall send a Past Performance Questionnaire (RFP Section L, Attachment 4) directly to the POCs for the efforts identified.” Section L Attachment 4 is also referenced in Section L, 4.3.1 Subfactor 1: Engineering and Integration, b. Configuration Management and Control as the guide to develop the CMP. |
Question: Can the government please clarify the correct attachment number and provide it soon as part of this draft package?
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.
The DID and ACS CMP will be included with 2nd draft release.
| 51. |
| L, 5.1 |
| 5th paragraph states, “For each identified effort for a commercial customer, the offeror shall also submit a Client Authorization Letter (RFP Section L, Attachment 5), authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.” Section L Attachment 5 is also referenced in Section L, 4.3.1 Subfactor 1: Engineering and Integration, b. Configuration Management and Control as the Agile Combat Support (ACS) Directorate CMP. |
Question: Can the government please clarify the correct attachment number and provide it soon as part of this draft package?
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.
| 52. |
| L, 5.1 |
| The draft Section L states “…Offerors shall send a Past Performance Questionnaire (RFP Section L, Attachment 4) directly to the POCs for the efforts identified…” |
Please confirm that Offerors should send the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to both the technical customer and Contracting Officer.
If a Past Performance reference is an IDIQ contract with multiple task order/delivery order-level POCs, should a PPQ be sent to the IDIQ POCs or individual TO/DO POCs?
It is up to the offeror who you send the PPQs to; however, it should be those individuals who know your performance on the contract effort and can answer questions about the offeror’s performance.
| 53. |
| L, 6.1.2 |
| Will there be a CLIN structure included in Section B? If so, what will the CLIN structure be? |
| Yes, there will be a CLIN structure in Section B of the solicitation, which will be provided with final RFP release. |
| 54. |
| L, 6.5 |
| Is there any non-professional, SCA, or Union personnel work anticipated on this contract? |
| There is no actual work on the TSA IV ID/IQ contract. The work will be detailed within each task order issued. Each task order will provide details regarding any applicable, professional, SCLS (e.g., SCA), and/or union personnel requirements. |
| 55. |
| L, 6.6 |
| What are the SB goals for this contract? How are we to anticipate dollars awarded to SB against the subcontracting goals? |
| There will be a 20% SB subcontracting requirement applicable to each task order issued within the Unrestricted Pool. Large business offerors will be required to submit a SBSP with their proposal indicating SB goals as a percentage because there is no way to know anticipated dollars at the ID/IQ level. |
| 56. |
| L, 6.6 |
| The TSA IV IDIQ represents a valuable opportunity for small businesses to get involved in Federal contracting. Would the USG consider small business participation as an evaluation factor for the Unrestricted Pool, with 25% of each task order value going toward small business? |
| There will be a 20% SB subcontracting requirement applicable to each task order issued within the Unrestricted Pool. |
| 57. |
| M, 1 |
| The draft Section M states “…The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated on the offeror’s approach to meeting each of its subcontracting goals.” |
What are the Government’s established small business utilization goals (in each socio-economic class) for this IDIQ?
There will be a 20% SB subcontracting requirement applicable to each task order issued within the Unrestricted Pool. Large business offerors will be required to submit a SBSP with their proposal indicating SB goals as a percentage because there is no way to know anticipated dollars at the ID/IQ level.
| 58. |
| M, 1 |
| The draft Section M states “The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall include the subcontracting goals expressed at the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract level as a percentage only of annual total obligated dollars on awarded task orders for each of the following: small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women owned small business…” |
Please confirm if the goals are based on subcontracted dollars included in the annual total obligated dollars on awarded task orders.
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.
| 59. |
| M, 1 |
| Will the government allow TSA IV prime contract awardees to team together in the Task Order phase? |
| Yes. |
| 60. |
| M, 1.3 |
| States, “During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition. The competitive range determination will be based on all evaluation criteria.” |
Question: Since price is not an evaluation criterion, can the government describe the process by which the evaluation criteria included in Section M will be utilized to determine a competitive range? Additionally, can the government provide an example of how a competitive range determination might be made?
Per M, 1.4, A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors that are not among the most highly rated based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request; the range may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency.
Offerors who are not among the most highly rated based on Technical and PP ratings may be eliminated from the competition. The competitive range may be further reduced for efficiency purposes.
| 61. |
| M, 1.3 |
| Does the government anticipate requesting any additional pricing information? |
| There will not be a price evaluation; therefore, no pricing data will be required. |
| 62. |
| M, 2.1 |
| Is the USAF still considering giving Offerors the choice of which 3rd subfactor to respond to (i.e., Sustainment or Courseware), apart from Technical and Program Management? |
| No, the proposal submission instructions and evaluation criteria as stated in Section L and M, respectively have been approved. Offerors are required to respond to all subfactors. |
| 63. |
| M, 2.1 |
| If an Offeror's simulation software tools have supported (i.e., provided the synthetic backbone to) a number of courseware solutions, may the Offeror use these collaborations as examples of Technical Experience in Courseware? |
| There is not a requirement to provide examples of technical experience. The offeror is responsible for submitting its most relevant contracts to demonstrate past performance. |
| 64. |
| M, 2.1 |
| Paragraph 3 states, "The assessment of risk will include the offeror's self-identified risks and proposa mitigations (if applicable)." The Section L proposal requirements do not identify how or where "self-identified risks" are supposed to be addressed. Request Section L be modified to incorporate instructions for how and where to identify risks for each specific technical proposal section. |
| L, 4.3 subsections have been modified requesting offerors submit risks associated with proposed processes. |
| 65. |
| M, 2.1 |
| Will strengths be added in association with Measures of Merit (MoM) for Section M and will the Government consider adding color-gradient scales ( i.e. Exceptional, Very Good, Satisfactory, Marginal, Unsatisfactory, N/A) to delineate between contractor technical solutions? |
| Strengths will not be assessed for the subfactors. There are no technical solutions required; we are looking for your processes and it is difficult to assess how an offeror can exceed a process. |
| 66. |
| M, 2.1 |
| The combination of technical acceptability being evaluated against primes-only and evaluating all four subfactors may have the unintended consequence of limiting competition for the DMON 3.0 recompete and related DMO network operations and integrations work scopes managed by WNS. |
If it is not WNS’ intent to include DMO network operations, growth and integration work scopes in TSA IV, would the Government please explicitly communicate this fact?
It would preserve future competition in non-CLS simulator sustainment work including virtual/constructive environments and expanded networks. This answer will help qualified industry partners from expending precious resources bidding TSA IV.
There is no intention to limit competition. TSA IV is intended to award prime contracts to qualified contractors who can support all prospective work within AFLCMC/WNS. Each task order issued under TSA IV will include specific requirements. Primes have the opportunity to establish teaming arrangements as needed to fulfill task order requirements when they propose on individual task orders.
| 67. |
| M, 2.2.2 |
| "A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance." These two sentences are confusing to me at least; how would a "strong record of relevant past performance" NOT be more advantageous than a neutral confidence? and how would "more relevant past performance" NOT receive a higher confidence rating than less relevant performance? |
| Section M has been revised indicating to be considered for award as a qualifying offeror, you must have a Past Performance Confidence Rating of Satisfactory or better. |
| 68. |
| M, 2.2.4 |
| Please clarify Section M, Factor 2.2.4. Will past performance be considered relevant for non-aircraft related simulation solutions? |
| We are currently working on the past performance relevancy matrix and will share the draft with industry when developed. |
| 69. |
| M, 2.2.4 |
| The third para reads, in part; "In determining relevance, consideration will be given to performance of efforts involving aircraft training systems as they relate to Technical Subfactors 1 through 4. However, MoM 4 in subfactor 1 stipulates; "Technology Integration. A sound process for identifying, evaluating, and integrating beneficial new technologies into the Air Force Simulator environment, to improve performance, reduce cost, or enhance lifecycle supportability." Please confirm that relevance is determined against all aircraft training systems work, not just relative to Air Force Training systems. Also request that the definition of "aircraft training systems" be changed to match the purpose description in paragraph 1 of the Statement of Objectives that includes "non-aircraft, system-specific simulation/training requiements." |
| We are currently working on the past performance relevancy matrix and will share the draft with industry when developed. This will help offerors understand how relevancy may be determined within each subfactor. |
| 70. |
| M, 2.2.4 |
| The draft Section M indicates Past Performance relevancy ratings are based on “scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires…” |
Will past performance evaluation of scope, magnitude and complexity be considered for base IDIQ contracts or task orders or both?
Will the govt define the relevance of past performance “magnitude” – at the IDIQ level and/or at the TO level?
We are currently working on the past performance relevancy matrix and will share the draft with industry when developed. This matrix will help offerors understand how magnitude is determined at the ID/IQ level.
We cannot speak on how task order evaluations will be conducted.
| 71. |
| M, 2.2.4 |
| The draft Section M states “…In determining relevance, consideration will be given to performance of efforts involving aircraft training systems as they relate to Technical Subfactors 1 through 4…. Each offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which they demonstrate performance on aircraft training system contracts or subcontracts. The Government will evaluate how an offeror’s performance is relevant to Technical Subfactors 1 through 4: 1) Engineering and Innovation, 2) Sustainment, 3) Courseware Development/Instruction, and 4) Program Management.” |
Much of the modeling and simulation market, technologies and innovations, to include big data analysis, artificial intelligence and cyber resiliency come from the broader industrial base to include gaming, medical, maritime, ground based systems and others.
Will the Government consider modifying the evaluation language to capture the merit of advanced modeling and simulation technologies, capabilities and experience that are not specific to “aircraft training systems” but rather "training and simulation systems and networks"?
We are currently working on the past performance relevancy matrix and will share the draft with industry when developed. This will help offerors understand how relevancy may be determined within each subfactor.
| 72. |
| M, 2.2.5 |
| The draft Section M states “…As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive a performance confidence assessment rating for each subfactor based on the definitions provided in Paragraph 2.2.1.” |
Is past performance scored in aggregate, or is each reference scored individually for each subfactor?
Section M has been modified to indicate that each offeror will receive an overall factor rating for Past Performance.
| 73. |
| SOO 16.2 |
| How long can a task order PoP continue past the 10 year ordering period? For example, if a task order is awarded in year 10 of the TSA IV ordering period, what is the longest PoP that contract PoP can have? |
| The acquisition strategy has been approved to allow for a task order to have a period of performance up to 10 years throughout the TSA IV ordering period. |
| 74. |
| SOO General |
| Are Air University, the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), and the AF e-Learning the current web-based learning platforms for flight training? |
| To our knowledge, these platforms are only used for academic training. Each training system uses their own training courseware. Some courseware platforms can be the same across different platforms, but that may be due to having the same contractor. |
| 75. |
| SOO General |
| Does the Air Force plan to continue using any or all of these web-based platforms to host all new training courses generated because of the TSA IV effort? If not, would the contractor be expected to produce/utilize a separate learning management platform/database that could manage/provide access to training courses and track/record trainee progress through the courses? |
| See previous response. For existing systems, the contractor will presumably continue to use the current LMS/platform, unless the task order requires the development of a new one. |
| 76. |
| SOO General |
| Assuming trainee flight sorties using the new simulators are being recorded for evaluation and playback, how long would it be expected to maintain those recorded trainee sorties in a database? |
| This depends on the specific aircraft training program. These requirements will be identified in the individual task order. |
| 77. |
| SOO, 1 |
| What is the anticipated scope of FMS work in the anticipated contract? |
| It is difficult to estimate the amount of FMS work to be issued under TSA IV. It depends on who the awardees are for TSDA IV and if they would be directed sources for FMS work. |
| 78. |
| SOO, 1.1 |
| What is the anticipated duration for TSA IV? |
| Per SOO, 16.1, TSA IV will have a 10-year ordering period. |
| 79. |
| SOO, 11 |
| Will Section J, Attachment X, be provided prior to the final RFP? It would be helpful to have the list of deliverables prior to the final RFP. |
| There are no deliverables required on the TSA IV basic contract. The CDRL List indicated was intended to provide a sample representation as to the types of deliverables that may be required at the task order level. Each task order will include the required CDRL package. |
The reference to Section J attachment has been removed from the SOO.
| 80. |
| SOO, 11 |
| The SOO states “Section J, Attachment X provides a list of available contract data requirements lists (CDRLs) to be used on TSA IV task orders.” Will Section J, Attachment X be made available to contractors prior to Final RFP release? Contractors will need time to develop complete, technically compliant solutions using CDRLs and DIDs as guidance that conform to TSA IV requirements. |
| There are no deliverables required on the TSA IV basic contract. The CDRL List indicated was intended to provide a sample representation as to the types of deliverables that may be required at the task order level. Each task order will include the required CDRL package. |
The reference to Section J attachment has been removed from the SOO.
| 81. |
| SOO, 12 |
| Paragraph 2 - Will the contractor be responsible for developing and providing the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) for each TO? |
| The QASP is a Government-prepared document. The offeror is required to prepare a master QAPP IAW Section L. This master QAPP will be an attachment to the awarded TSA IV ID/IQ contract and may be updated at the task order level, as necessary. |
| 82. |
| SOO, 13 |
| Are OCONUS non-US places of performance for FMS anticipated? If so, please add potential locations. |
| It is difficult to estimate the amount of FMS work to be issued under TSA IV. It depends on who the awardees are for TSDA IV and if they would be directed sources for FMS work. |
| 83. |
| SOO, 14 |
| If ODC's are significant, over 40% on a specific TO, recommend consideration fo fee being allowed on ODCs. No fee on significant ODCs significantly affects a contractor's effective fee on a TO. |
| This comment does not apply to the TSA IV ID/IQ contract. Each task order will detail what is required with regard to ODCs. |
SOO, 6.4
| The SOO references AFMAN 36-2234 for Instructional Systems Development. However, this publication is documented as ‘rescinded’ on https://www.e-publishing.af.mil/ under ‘obsolete products’ as of 25 June, 2018 without a link to access or replacement publication identified. Is the Government’s intent to reference a subset of AFH 36-2235 Volumes 1-13 to address Instructional Systems Development requirements? |
| The reference has been removed from the SOO. Applicable task orders will include the appropriate and current reference. |
| 85. |
| SOO, 2 |
| Can the Government provide a bidder’s library to provide common access to key reference materials? |
| There will not be a bidders library for TSA IV. There are no reference documents other than those discussed in Section L that would be necessary for proposal preparation. |
| 86. |
| SOO, 4.1 |
| Possible missing text: "Individual task orders may also require Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) and will describe the details under specific may be a requirement on the individual task orders and described in detail." |
| Wow, that was a messy sentence; it’s fixed |
| 87. |
| SOO, 4.1 |
| Will each TO have a separate CLIN for Program Management? Will this CLIN be FFP? If no separate CLIN how will Program Management functions be accounted for in pricing? |
| Each task order will provide pricing instructions within the FOPR to include CLIN structure. |
L, 4.3.1 M, 2.2.1
| The SOO states “Tasks shall include, but not be limited to, evaluation of training requirements, leveraging innovative technologies and solutions to enhance capabilities/increase efficiencies/decrease costs,…”. However, Sections L&M only address innovation pertaining to Concurrency Modifications and Technology Integration in Subfactor 1. Is the Government’s intent only to assess innovation as it pertains to Subfactor 1 or will innovation Measures of Merit also be applied to Subfactors 2-4 as well? |
| Sections L and M provide instructions as to what is required for proposal submission and how the Government intends to evaluate the proposals. |
The SOO provides the overall scope of TSA IV and offerors are not required to address everything in the SOO. It’s important to follow the instructions in Section L and understand how proposal will be evaluated per Section M.
| 89. |
| SOO, 4.10 |
| Recommend change to "addressing": "As specified in individual task orders, the contractor shall adhere to the security requirements listed on the contract DD Form 254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification, addresses the general security requirements to participate in TSA IV." |
| Appreciate the editing remark. |
| 90. |
| SOO, 4.10 |
| Recommend change to "contractors" or "contractor access to" and removal of semicolon: "Individual task orders could require contractor to access; UNCLASSIFIED " |
| Appreciate the editing remark. |
| 91. |
| SOO, 4.10 |
| Recommend remove comma: "a completed favorable T1, equivalent" |
| Appreciate the editing remark. |
| 92. |
| SOO, 4.10.1 |
| With plans to roll-out Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC), should it be a requirement under TSA IV? |
| As CMMC has not been fully rolled out yet, it will be addressed as necessary under individual task orders. |
| 93. |
| SOO, 4.12 |
| Recommend remove comma: "re-configure training systems, to support SCARS standards" |
| Appreciate the editing remark. |
| 94. |
| SOO, 4.12 |
| The draft SOO states “As specified in individual task orders, the contractor shall participate in regular SCARS Engineering Capabilities Boards (SECB) to ensure all related activities and decisions are conducted/weighed in consideration of the simulator system requirements and mission. … |
Will awardees be required to negotiate individual Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA) with the SCARS prime for TSA-IV?
There is no requirement at the TSA IV ID/IQ level for ACAs with the SCARS prime. Any requirements for ACAs will be detailed on individual task orders.
| 95. |
| SOO, 4.13 |
| Requirements state that "the contractor shall develop and implement a configuration management program…" Will individual task orders have a CM scope of work? |
| We cannot state what task orders may or may not have as their requirements. |
| 96. |
| SOO, 4.2 |
| Paragraph 4.2 of the SOO mentions the Simulators Division’s Organizational Systems Engineering Plan (OSEP) document. Will the government provide this document to offers? |
| The OSEP will be posted with the 2nd draft release as well as the final RFP. |
| 97. |
| SOO, 4.2 |
| Will the Government provide the Simulators Division's Organizational Systems Engineering Plan (OSEP) in the draft proposal stage? |
| The OSEP will be posted with the 2nd draft release, as well as the final RFP. |
| 98. |
| SOO, 4.3 |
| The draft SOO states “…The contractor shall provide product support data in support of annual reports such as 50/50 reporting, Repairable forecasting, Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) compliance reporting, etc. as designated in the PWS.” |
Will the govt consider removing FIAR-specific compliance and accept broader Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) approved processes to purchase, account for, secure and use government property and data?
FIAR is a DoD requirement for tracking and reporting GFP, GFE and GFM. It is not an optional form of reporting.
| 99. |
| SOO, 4.3 |
| Paragraph 4.3 Product Support last sentence states "…as designated in the PWS." Is the PWS referenced referring to a task order or PWS? |
| Yes, it is referring to the task order PWS. SOO has been modified. |
| 100. |
| SOO, 4.3 |
| Section 4.3 states, “The contractor shall develop and maintain a database providing real-time readiness reporting…”. What database is the Air Force currently using for storage and playback of trainee sorties? Would the same database be available to store all new trainee sorties using the new simulators? |
| The purpose of the real-time readiness reporting database referenced here is the logistics support of training devices, not the recording of training events. |
| 101. |
| SOO, 6.2 |
| This paragraph does not seem to include the scope of work associated with the current DMON 2.0 contract, but rather limits DMO-related scope to the support of local simulator interfaces with various DMO networks. Will DMON 3.0 and related DMO network integration, expansion, enhancement, upgrade and “long haul” operations work scope managed by WNS be recompeted under TSA IV? |
| The SOO is intended to provide the top level scope of work that may be utilized under TSA IV. We cannot determine at this time, what work will or will not be issued under TSA IV. Each program team will perform a capability assessment (e.g., market research) among the TSA IV awardees to determine the fit under TSA IV. |
| 102. |
| SOO, 6.3 or 7.3 |
| May want to include details that some TSSCs also perform smaller engineering efforts (AF1067) that help with aircraft concurrency, device performance, or visual databases. |
| Agree that the TSSC often has the responsibility to accomplish some minor modification and development activities. The SOO has been modified. |
| 103. |
| SOO, 6.4 |
| Are the expected levels of interactive courseware to include virtual and augmented realities that can simulate the entire spectrum of flight operations? |
| It is not expected that interactive courseware, even with the inclusion of AR/VR technologies, is capable of simulating the entire spectrum of flight operations. |