TSA IV Final RFP Q-As.docx

TSA IV – FA8621-21-R-0030 - Questions/Answers on RFP Documents

Questions and Answers – RFP Amendment 0001

L,2.3 Page Size and Format According to the Q&A from March 10th, 2021, the question was asked as to whether Offerors could use Arial Narrow font no smaller than 10-point for tables, charts, graphics, figures, diagrams, and schematics. The Government clarified that “Yes, Arial font may be used for tables, charts, graphs, etc. as long as no smaller than 10-point.”

Section L2.3 was not updated to reflect this. Will the Government please confirm and update section L accordingly, to reflect the use of Arial family of fonts may be used for tables, charts, graphs, etc. as long as no smaller than 10-point?

The Government does not intend to restrict the font style used for tables, charts, graphs, etc. as long as the font size is no smaller than 10-point. No changes are required in Section L.

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. For these displays, the text shall be no smaller than 10-point.” {emphasis added}

L, 2.2.6 According to the Q&A from March 31st, 2021, it was clarified that “the PP volume shall contain the organizational change history and all information generated from the PPI tool (Business Relationships page and contract citations).” The reports do include a header/footer that reads: “Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104. For Official Use Only” Section L2.2.6 states all proposal pages shall include the following legend at the bottom of each page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

See FAR 3.104 and 2.101 When incorporating the Business Relationship Page and PPI report for the contract citations into our Volume III file, will the Government please confirm Offerors shall use the legend noted in section L2.2.6 and not the header/footer that is generated in the PPI Tool Report?

The header/footer generated from the PPI tool is acceptable, unless the offeror can edit the printout and change “For Official Use Only” to “Controlled Unclassified Information”.

We understand the printouts from the PPI tool may have different headers/footers than the remaining pages for Volume III.

· 25 pages maximum per plan for the CMP, RMP, and QAPP (not included in 30-page Technical Volume maximum)

· 45 pages maximum for the SEMP (not included in 30-page Technical Volume maximum) Section L, 4.2 discusses each attachment (e.g., master plan) individually with page limits. Make sure you are following Section L which was posted as part of the final RFP.

L, 5.3

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

See FAR 3.104 and 2.101 Can the signed digital copy of the Model Contract in Vol IV be excluded from the marking requirement? The RFP pdf file does not allow for additional header/footer.

Yes, the signed digital copy of the model contract does not require the header/footer markings.

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. For these displays, the text shall be no smaller than 10-point” Can offerors use other than Times New Roman font type for tables and graphics?

The Government does not intend to restrict the font style used for tables, charts, graphs, etc. as long as the font size is no smaller than 10-point. No changes are required in Section L.

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. For these displays, the text shall be no smaller than 10-point.” {emphasis added}

Please confirm that pre-existing documents such as contractor’s comprehensive SBSP are excluded from formatting requirements.

Yes, if an offeror has a pre-existing Comprehensive SBSP, it may be excluded from the formatting requirements; however, if the offeror is preparing a SBSP specifically for TSA IV, that plan must comply with formatting requirements.

Can the offerors use 10 pt font for tables and figures titles and action captions?

Yes, as table/figure titles and action captions are considered part of the tables/figures so they may be no smaller than 10-point type.

Will the Government please confirm the below file names are acceptable?

· Vol I_Executive Summary

· Vol II_Technical Acceptability

· Vol II_Attachment 1_SEMP

· Vol II_Attachment 2_CMP

· Vol II_Attachment 3_RMP

· Vol II_Attachment 4_QAPP

· Vol III_Past Performance

· Vol IV_Contract Documentation The listed file names are acceptable.

In order for bidders to create a drop-off for proposal submission via SAFE, they must receive a drop-off request from the Government. This request would be needed twice, for both the past performance and the proposal submission. Will the Government provide a POC for this request?

We recently confirmed that a drop-off code is required for DoD SAFE for non-CAC users. In light of this, we have changed proposal submission requirements to state all volumes must be received via electronic media (CDR/DVD-R).

The logistics required to ensure all offerors request and receive a drop-off code to ensure timely proposal submission presents an unacceptable risk to the Government; therefore all offerors shall submit proposals via CD/DVD and delivered to the address provided in L, 2.5. This includes any offerors who may have CAC access to DoD SAFE.

Section L proposal submission requirements, including an extension of the proposal deadline, have been updated via Amendment 0001.

L, 2.5 In order to submit proposals in the DOD Safe platform, an authenticated user must first execute the "Request a Drop-Off" procedure to obtain a "Request Code" for external delivery to the non-authenticated user. Passwords are only valid up to 14 days.

When should we expect to receive a Request Code in order to submit Volume III (due 6 May) and the remaining submission due on 17 May?

We recently confirmed that a drop-off code is required for DoD SAFE for non-CAC users. In light of this, we have changed proposal submission requirements to state all volumes must be received via electronic media (CDR/DVD-R).

The logistics required to ensure all offerors request and receive a drop-off code to ensure timely proposal submission presents an unacceptable risk to the Government; therefore all offerors shall submit proposals via CD/DVD and delivered to the address provided in L, 2.5. This includes any offerors who may have CAC access to DoD SAFE.

Section L proposal submission requirements, including an extension of the proposal deadline, have been updated via Amendment 0001.

1. If a SAFE code is time-sensitive, how will the final code be handled, given May 17th is a Monday. Will the time sensitivity be adequate if provided the prior week?

We recently confirmed that a drop-off code is required for DoD SAFE for non-CAC users. In light of this, we have changed proposal submission requirements to state all volumes must be received via electronic media (CDR/DVD-R).

The logistics required to ensure all offerors request and receive a drop-off code to ensure timely proposal submission presents an unacceptable risk to the Government; therefore all offerors shall submit proposals via CD/DVD and delivered to the address provided in L, 2.5. This includes any offerors who may have CAC access to DoD SAFE.

Section L proposal submission requirements, including an extension of the proposal deadline, have been updated via Amendment 0001.

Will the Government please advise if there are any limitations when submitting via the DoD SAFE site? For instance, limitations with files size, number of files, etc.

If there are certain limitations, will the Government confirm multiple uploads to submit all proposal volumes and contents is acceptable?

We recently confirmed that a drop-off code is required for DoD SAFE for non-CAC users. In light of this, we have changed proposal submission requirements to state all volumes must be received via electronic media (CDR/DVD-R).

The logistics required to ensure all offerors request and receive a drop-off code to ensure timely proposal submission presents an unacceptable risk to the Government; therefore all offerors shall submit proposals via CD/DVD and delivered to the address provided in L, 2.5. This includes any offerors who may have CAC access to DoD SAFE.

Section L proposal submission requirements, including an extension of the proposal deadline, have been updated via Amendment 0001.

Will the Government please confirm that Volume III Past Performance is also due by 3:00PM EST on May 6th?

In Amendment 0001, Section L, 2.6 has been updated to reflect a change in requested date of 3:00pm EST 10 May 2021 for the PP volume and Section L, 5.1 and the PPQ (L, Atch 9) have been updated to reflect a due date of 3:00pm EST 20 May 2021 to coincide with a proposal deadline of 3:00pm EST 20 May 2021.

· Please confirm that the Technical Acceptability Volume should address the offeror’s proposed processes and not approach to accomplishing the SOO tasks.

· If approach to SOO not required, should offerors delete the SOO column from the cross-reference matrix?

· If the SOO column is to be retained, please update to most current SOO paragraph.

Section L, 2.2.3 and the Proposal Cross Reference Matrix (L, Atch 1) have been updated to remove the reference to the SOO via Amendment 0001.

The Technical Acceptability Volume should address what is instructed in Section L.

The Government removed the sentence (at left) from the Risk Management requirement within Subfactor 4; however, in other areas of Section L (4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3, and 4.3.4) this same requirement exists. Would the Government confirm whether Offerors are to identify risks associated with the proposed processes for each subfactor and the mitigations the offeror intends to implement to reduce/eliminate these risks within our Technical proposal?

The sentence was removed from L, 4.3.4.b because the requirement is to include self-identified risks for each subfactor. The Government does not want offerors to place self-identified risks in the RMP. The RMP will be a master plan to be applied to each TSA IV task orders. The Government wants the self-identified risks included within the 30-page volume limit.

Will the Government consider not requiring Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) be sent for efforts in which completed CPARs are available detailing contract performance? Our customers have expressed concerns with the number of PPQs they are fielding and have, in some instances, refused to respond.

PPQs are requested to assist the Government in evaluating the performance on contracts submitted. The PPQ is tailored to the Technical Subfactors to allow the POCs to indicate specifically what the offeror performed on the contract and how well they performed. CPARs are generic in nature and do not include specific information relating to TSA IV.

It is at the offeror’s discretion if and who PPQs are sent to. However, it should be made clear to offerors that if sufficient information is not available to the Government to verify performance on contracts submitted, the offeror is at risk of receiving a Neutral Confidence assessment.

L, Atch 9

L, Atch 9 PP Questionnaire Section L5.1 states, “All respondents shall be instructed that all responses are to be provided directly to the Government CO (Steve Godby, steven.godby@us.af.mil) or Contract Specialist (Marcia Hall, marcia.hall@us.af.mil) not later than 17 May 2021.” In Attachment 9, it states, “Email questionnaires to Steve Godby, steven.godby@us.af.mil and Marcia Hall, marcia.hall@us.af.mil NLT 3:00pm EST, 6 May 2021” Will the Government please confirm that while the Past Performance Volume III is required to be submitted by offerors on May 6th NLT 3:00PM EST, the Past Performance Questionnaires can be submitted by the RFP close date of May 17th, 2021, to allow the Offerors’ customers time to complete the questionnaires?

In Amendment 0001, Section L, 2.6 has been updated to reflect a change in requested date of 3:00pm EST 10 May 2021 for the PP volume and Section L, 5.1 and the PPQ (L, Atch 9) have been updated to reflect a due date of 3:00pm EST 20 May 2021 to coincide with a proposal deadline of 3:00pm EST 20 May 2021.

Please clarify if the POC requested for these additional contracts are intended to be Government POCs (e.g., program manager, contracting officer) or POCs from the Offeror (e.g., our program manager supporting this work).

The POCs provided should be a Government POC so that the TSA IV team can contact them to verify performance.

The exclusion of Section D reference in Section L, Paragraph 6 was in error. Section L has been updated via RFP Amendment 001 to include a reference to Section D.

Model Contract/ Representation and Certifications The Offeror is required to provide a signed digital copy of the Model Contract, and Sections A through K. However, the RFP document appears to be password protected.

· Can the Government provide an editable PDF file for completion of this requirement?

The Model Contract is generated from our contract writing system and cannot be manipulated to allow for fill-ins. It is recommended the offeror print those pages needed to be completed and then scan to digital format to include in proposal submission.

Since this is not a hard copy submission requiring an original and copy, will the Government please remove “Original” requirement from the SF33 in Vol IV?

The statement, “The “original” signed copy should be clearly marked.” Has been removed from Section L, 6.1.1 via Amendment 0001

Please clarify, is the government agreeable to contractors pursuing nondisclosure agreements directly with the identified non-government advisors, or does the government require contractors to confirm their awareness of such advisors based upon the established NDA directly between PESystems and the government?

Offerors are required to indicate any objections to the use of non-Government advisors, based upon the established NDA directly between PESystems and the Government, within the Contract Documentation Volume of its proposal. However, if the offeror chooses to pursue an NDA with PESystems, it may do so at its own discretion as long as the offeror complies with L, 6.4 instructions.

The FAR and the Section L instructions state that subcontracting goals expressed at the ID/IQ contract level shall be included as a percentage of annual total obligated dollars on awarded task orders; however, at this time there are no obligated dollars or awarded task orders. Given the multiple award nature of this contract, using the ceiling value for obligated dollars is also not practical or realistic. Would the Government please provide guidance as to the total dollar amount offerors should assume when calculating the goals within our SBSP?

As stated, there are no dollars associated with the ID/IQ, which is why we are requesting offerors provide its subcontracting goals at the ID/IQ level expressed as percentage of annual total obligated dollars. The intent is for the Government to evaluate that the offeror is complying with FAR 52.219-9 expressing subcontracting goals as percentages only. An offeror should be able to state subcontracting goals as percentages it plans to subcontract on an annual basis.

As task orders are competed under the Unrestricted Pool, the offeror will be required to update its SBSP, as well as submit a Small Business Subcontract Commitment Document specific to that task order.

L4.1 The Proposal Cross Reference Matrix instructions state, “The cross-reference matrix shall reference the Proposal Volume/Paragraph and applicable SOO, Section L, and Section M paragraphs..” and provides the same references that were included in the last Draft RFP, that have since been removed in the Final RFP. Section L4.1 states, “We are not looking for approaches to everything in the Statement of Objectives (SOO), just a top level process so we can determine that the offeror has the capability to perform TSA IV requirements”, which resulted in the removal of the SOO references in the RFP.

Since the SOO references have been removed from the L and M requirements, will the Government please confirm there is no need to include the SOO paragraph column within the Cross References Matrix, and to only include section L and M along with the Proposal Volume/Paragraph columns?

Section L, 2.2.3 and the Proposal Cross Reference Matrix (L, Atch 1) have been updated to remove the reference to the SOO via Amendment 0001.

Will the Government please confirm Offerors are to provide a Cross Reference Matrix only for those L and M sections and not for the four master plan instructions that are required within Volume II?

Section L, 2.2.3 and the Proposal Cross Reference Matrix (L, Atch 1) have been updated to remove the reference to the SOO via Amendment 0001.

L, 4.1 General “… We are not looking for approaches to everything in the Statement of Objectives (SOO), just a top level process so we can determine that the offeror has the capability to perform TSA IV requirements” Attachment 1 Cross reference matrix for Volume II includes a SOO column. Given the statement in L, 4.1 referenced above, should the offer delete the SOO reference column. Please clarify.

Section L, 2.2.3 and the Proposal Cross Reference Matrix (L, Atch 1) have been updated to remove the reference to the SOO via Amendment 0001.

Please clarify if annotated mapping between the contractor and Government SE process in the SEMP and the OSEP can be excluded as part of the overall SEMP page count.

The SEMP page count has been increased from the original 25 pages to 45 pages; this should be more than enough page count to prepare the SEMP IAW the DID.

While our intent is to include a cover page for all master plans and to include these items, will the Government please confirm this requirement in Attachment 6 for the RMP is not included in the 25 page limit, as cover/title pages usually are excluded from page count?

Section L, 4.2 has been updated, via Amendment 0001, to exclude cover/title pages for each Attachment (SEMP, CMP, RMP, and QAPP).

Question: It is unclear whether two pages are necessary (i.e., a cover page and a title page), or if a cover and title page are the same thing. If two pages are required, can the Government please confirm whether both are non-counted?

Section L, 4.2 has been updated, via Amendment 0001, to exclude cover/title pages for each Attachment (SEMP, CMP, RMP, and QAPP).

Will the Government please clarify if we are to submit the two PPI report files separately, in addition to the reports being included in our Volume III Submission, or is it only required to generate the reports to then be incorporated into our Volume III file?

Will the Government also confirm offerors are to submit their saved version of the database as well?

The “printed” PPI reports should be included with Volume III submission. If the offeror prepares the volume in MS Word and the PPI tool reports in “pdf” that is ok, as long as the total count of the information does not exceed the 20-page volume limit.

As stated in the PPI Tool Instructions, Printed Reports and Submitting PPI Tool Section, item 4 and the following note, offerors are required to submit the completed database file with the proposal. The database is necessary to upload the offeror’s PP information into our EZSource tool.

The PPI tool has not changed from what was posted with the draft RFP.

· Request that the date in Attachment 9 be changed to reflect 17 May to allow sufficient time for offeror’s to prepare and distribute the questionnaires and for recipients to complete and return.

In Amendment 0001, Section L, 2.6 has been updated to reflect a change in requested date of 3:00pm EST 10 May 2021 for the PP volume and Section L, 5.1 and the PPQ (L, Atch 9) have been updated to reflect a due date of 3:00pm EST 20 May 2021 to coincide with a proposal deadline of 3:00pm EST 20 May 2021.

M, 2.1.2 M, 2.1.3

The assessment information in M.2.2.4 appears to be somewhat at odds with the relevance criteria listed in both the table “Relevancy Ratings” within Sec. M. 2.2.4 and within Sec. M. Att.1. In the table of Att. 1, the Government appears to judge as more favorable something that DOES match close similarity of prior products or services. The “Relevancy Ratings” table and the Att. 1 rating read ‘very relevant’ is shown as “Present/Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.”

If possible, please clarify which of these relevance assessment approaches will be used since it may directly impact how Offerors present past performance.

L, 2.2.4 states, “In determining relevance, the Government will evaluate how an offeror’s performance involves aircraft training systems and is relevant to the Technical Subfactors: 1) Engineering and Innovation, 2) Sustainment, 3) Courseware Development/Instruction, and 4) Program Management using the Past Performance Relevancy Matrix (Section M, Attachment 1) as its guide.”

The relevancy ratings and associated definitions in the M, 2.2.4 table provide a general statement of relevancy and the relevancy matrix (M, Atch 1) will be used as a guide to help the PP team determine the level of relevancy of each contract.

It is advised the offeror select contracts showing relevance to the technical subfactors with emphasis on what is provided in the PP Relevancy Matrix.

Since magnitude is frequently defined by contract value, please indicate the alternative means the Government will use to differentiate between “same scope and magnitude” (very relevant); “similar scope and magnitude” (relevant), “some of the scope and magnitude” (somewhat relevant).

As stated in M, 2.2.4 and M, Atch 1, “It is not the Government’s intent to analyze or associate any dollar values to the contract references provided in terms of defining magnitude of effort.”

The relevancy ratings and associated definitions are required under FAR Part 15 and the DoD Source Selection Procedures; however, the Government has determined that “magnitude” will not be assessed under TSA IV. The Government will use the Relevancy Matrix (M, Atch 1) as a guide to determine the level of relevancy for scope and complexities for each contract submitted by the offeror.

Will the Government please provide a file that can be unlocked or a fillable file, to allow offerors to complete the SF 33 and Section K?

The Model Contract is generated from our contract writing system and cannot be manipulated to allow for fill-ins. It is recommended the offeror print those pages needed to be completed and then scan to digital format to include in proposal submission.

52.222-46 EVALUATION OF COMPENSATION FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES (FEB 1993)

NAICS Code Size Standard Unrestricted Pool – 336413, 1,250 Employees Small Business Set-Aside Pool – 336413, 1,250 Employees Noting that the Government is soliciting Training Systems through this acquisition and manufacturing is the activity associated with the referenced NAICS code, will the Government please verify and confirm that NAICS Code 336413 “Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing” is the applicable/principal purpose NAICS code for this solicitation and resultant ID/IQ contract?

The NAICS Code stated in TSA IV-H012 of 336413 for TSA IV has been approved and will be the NAICS Code for the resulting TSA IV ID/IQ contracts and applied to all resulting task orders issued under TSA IV.

Under Section K (certifications) on RFP page K-27 of 42 the following is referenced: 52.234-02 NOTICE OF EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM -PRE-AWARD IBR (NOV 2016) … indicating that there will be an IBR pre-award … (3) The Government will review and approve the offeror's plan for an EVMS before contract award.

Later, under Section K (certifications) RFP page K-41 of 42 references: 252.234-7001 NOTICE OF EARNED VALUE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (DEVIATION 2015-O0017) (SEP 2015) … relaying in essence that “(a) If the offeror submits a proposal in the amount of $100,000,000 or more- …” What are the USG requirements for the TSA-IV IDIQ submission? If the requirement is:

(1) The offeror shall provide documentation that the Cognizant Federal Agency (CFA) has determined that the proposed Earned Value Management System (EVMS) complies with the EVMS guidelines in the American National Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance Standard 748, Earned Value Management Systems (ANSI/EIA-748) (current version at time of solicitation). The Government reserves the right to perform reviews of the EVMS when deemed necessary to verify compliance.

Or, depending on contractor level of certification

(2) If the offeror proposes to use a system that has not been determined to be in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this provision, the offeror shall submit a comprehensive plan for compliance with the guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748 Note: The TSA IV ID/IQ contract has no value, but rather a ceiling value. Offerors are not required to have an approved EVMS for TSA IV. The clauses are included in the ID/IQ and will apply as appropriate at the task order level. Offerors will be notified within a task order fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) if an approved EVMS is required for that task order.

Offerors are required to submit proposals based on the instructions in Section L.

SOO, 4.3

Section K of the Model Contract includes FAR Clauses 52.234-02, Notice of Earned Value Management System-Pre-Award IBR (NOV 2016), and 52.234-03, Notice of Earned Value Management System-Post-Award Integrated Baseline Review (NOV 2016). Inclusion of these Earned Value Management System (EVMS) clauses at the TSA IV-level appears to indicate that Offerors are required to have a Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) approved EVMS to qualify for award of a TSA IV IDIQ contract, while the “Cost, Schedule and Performance Control” requirements in Section 4.3 of the Statement of Objectives do not indicate a requirement for an approved EVMS.

Are Offerors required to have an approved EVMS to be awarded a TSA IV contract, or will the applicability of FAR Clause 52.234-02 and 52.234-03 requirements be identified at the individual task order-level based on the supported task order scope?

Offerors are not required to have an approved EVMS for TSA IV. The clause is included in the ID/IQ and will apply as appropriate at the task order level. Offerors will be notified within a task order fair opportunity proposal request (FOPR) if an approved EVMS is required for that task order.