Q A_Set___5.xlsx

Sheet1

B. SF 33, block 9, dated 11 Nov 2013. USG requires sealed offerors be delivered NLT 16:00 on January 8, 2014. With the release of Section J Attachment 1, Exhibit A, requiring and describing twenty-nine Pricing instructions for the Task Order in J-5 Table 9, and the resulting Industry questions submitted earlier, we professionally request a two week delivery extension from January 8, 2014 to January 22, 2014

For proposal compliance purposes, will the USG please clarify which labor categories/titles should be used when referring to key personnel and non-key personnel?

PSO has only those requirements specified in the PWS.

We do not anticipate further changes to CLIN structure.

5 Task Order 1 Solicitation document states the following:

“The Department of State requests you submit a cost/price proposal in response to the Performance Work Statement provided in Section J, Attachment 1, Exhibit B."

(1) Program Management: NAICS Code 541330 Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business. (2) Flight Services: NAICS Code 541330; full and open competition. (3) Maintenance Services: NAICS Code 541330; full and open competition. (4) Logistics Services: NAICS Code 541330; full and open competition.

(5) IT/ Communications Services: NAICS Code 517909; HUBZone. (6) Training: NAICS Code 61152; total small business set-aside. (7) Safety Compliance: NAICS Code 541990; total small business set-aside.

Notes regarding NAICS code 541330; we believe the 541330 NAICS code best fits the above Department of State aviation procurements for many reasons. For the PSO, using the special $35.5M size standard for Engineering Services - Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons as it is the most well aligned NAICS code for the broad range of aviation tasks needed within the SOR. By using this NAICS size standard, DOS AW further reduces risk by allowing for larger small business to participate, particularly those supporting other DOD aviation commands.

medical qualifications listed in H-018 as those deploying for OCONUS site

RFP Paragraph 7.2.1 Section A –Solicitation/Contract Form, Page 133 instructs the offeror to provide SF 33 in Volume V Contract Documentation.

RFP Paragraph 7.3 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements, Page 133 instructs the offeror to provide Exceptions to Solicitations in Volume V Contract Documentation.

There are conflicts within section L concerning the required contents of Volumes V and VI. Please clarify the required contents of Volume V - Contract Documentation and Volume VI - Business Proposal.

B. Section 5.1 Volume III: Factor 3 Past Performances. The solicitation states the prime contractor and each of the subcontractors will submit a minimum of three past performance references. The page limit for the submission is 7 pages.

Question: Our Company, who is the prime contractor, has two subcontractors. If each company submits three past performances one page each this will equate to nine pages. Will the government consider increasing the number of pages for past performance to a total not to exceed 12 pages?

C. In the INL/A Draft RFP, seven (7) pages were allocated for Past Performance (Volume III) which was to include 3 past performance citations from the offeror team. In the final RFP, as amended, the instructions now require 3 past performance citations from the prime and 3 from each proposed subcontractor. The allocated 7 page limit for Volume III however remains the same. Contractor teams with multiple team mates will have extreme difficulty meeting the 7 page limit for Volume III even when limiting the narrative to the bare minimum needed to describe the Past Performance. Will the government consider changing this requirement to a specified and fixed page limit on each individual citation?

D. As referenced in Section L, paragraph 5.1, Factor 3 – Past Performance, … the prime contractor will submit a minimum of three past performance references. As well as, each and any proposed subcontractor(s) will submit a minimum of three past performance references. Table 2-2 Proposal Organization has a limit of 7 pages for the past performance volume.

Question: Will the Government allow 3 pages for each past performance submitted for the prime and each subcontractor, increasing the page limit for the volume as necessary?

Furthermore, the TOC for Volume II is not included in the Page Count, however, the Master Table of Contents in Volume I is included. Can the Master Table of Contents be excluded from page count?

Based upon statements in Sections H and L and Factor 5 requirements for key personnel, it is implied that the government is requesting the incumbent staff to be presented in their proposal. If correct, this would be to the advantage of the incumbent contractors. Will the Offeror be evaluated with a higher risk rating if they do not propose incumbent staff when presenting Resumes and Letters of Commitment in Factor 5? Will personnel proposed by the Offeror who have the requisite skills and expertise (but are not incumbent staff) be evaluated at the same level as the incumbent personnel?

The Key Personnel commitment letter requirement to provide the key person’s proposed salary and a summary description of any benefits packages that have been offered to the key person; and,….”

The commitment letter requirements stated in Factor 5, Subfactor A, does not require the proposed salary of key personnel. Please clarify if that information is to be provided in the Total Compensation Plan but NOT in the Commitment Letter?

Tables 2.2 contains several discrepancies with instructions provided in Sections 7 and 9. Please confirm or clarify:

(a) The Total Compensation Plan is to be provided in Volume VI, Section F – Additional Contractor Plans.

(b) The SF33 is to be provided in Volume V, Section A (NOT Volume VI, Section A as listed in Table 2.2).

(c) Contract Information (as defined in RFP Section 7.2) is to be provided in Volume V (NOT Volume VI, Section B as listed in Table 2.2). If not, provide proposal instructions for Volume VI, Section B?

(d) “Exception to Solicitation Requirements” are to be provided in Volume V (NOT Volume VI, Section C as listed in Table 2.2).

(e) The proposal instructions for Volume VI, Section D – Company Information.

(f) The proposal instructions for Volume VI, Section E – Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan.

(g) Is an OCI Plan required for both Prime and each Subcontractor(s)?

(h) The proposal instructions for Volume VI, Section F – Additional Contractor Plans. What other contractor plans are required within this Section?

(a) Correct

(b) Provide in both Sections ( c) Provide in both Sections

(d) Provide in both Sections ( e) Provide in both Sections

(f) Correct.

(g) Yes.

(h) OCI Plan, Associate Contract Agreement sample.

19 RFP states: Include a master table of contents covering sections II through V.

Please clarify the above should read “covering volumes II through VI”?

For Sections listed in Table 2.2 (QASPs, PMP, Resumes, Letters of Commitment, etc.) that are “not counted against total page count”, can the Offeror present these Sections as Attachments or Appendices to Volume II in order to comply with instructions stated above?

• Customer’s name, address, and telephone numbers of customer’s point of contact and technical personnel

• Contract number and type

• Date of the contract, place(s) of performance, and delivery dates or period of performance

• Contract size (number of personnel employed by contract year per labor category) and dollar value

• Brief description of the work, including responsibilities

• A comparison to the work required under this solicitation

• Brief discussion of any technical problems and their resolutions

• Brief discussion of all terminations (partial or complete) and the type (convenience or default) as well as any deficiency notices, show cause notices or cure notices (provide explanatory details)

• Listing of deductions taken under any listed contracts, with explanatory details and resolution.

There is a 7 page limit for this volume per Table 2.2. Based upon the minimum of 3 references for the Prime and a minimum of 3 references for each proposed subcontractor(s), will the government allow additional pages for this volume in order for the Offeror to fully address the requested information? We respectfully request a 25 page limit for this volume.

Should the information requested above be provided by the Prime and subcontractor(s)?

Should the Offeror only provide back to the government Sections A through K that require fill-ins or signatures by the Offeror? Or does the government want ALL Sections returned regardless?

The Offeror acknowledges that they are required to provide a disclosure statement as noted in K-002; however there are no other instructions as to what other information is required for this Plan.

Please clarify which volume the Plan is to be submitted within.

Please clarify if any subcontractor(s) are required to submit a Plan as well. If yes, will their plan be included in the 7 page limit?

In determining relevance, consideration will be given to the similarity of the service performed in OCONUS locations; complexity; technology; magnitude of effort; contract scope and type; and schedule.

Past performance and experience of similar nature by the prime and/or partners (vendors, subcontractors) conducted in locations stated in the statement of requirements will be considered more relevant than work performed in another country. However, work in these locations is not a requirement.

Confidence is based on relevancy. The above statements appears to be determining relevancy as Past Performance in conducting OCONUS operations only. Will the USG please clarify if relevancy will only be determined based on Past Performance in OCONUS operations, or will relevancy be determined based on PSO related requirements outlined in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of the PWS and Factor and Sub-factors listed in Section 4.3.1 Technical/Management?

With regard to requirements listed in under C, D and E, there is no requirement for the PSO contractor to own or operate autos, aircraft or vessels in performance of this contract.

Will the USG please verify if these insurances are required as part of the PSO Contract?

Defense Base Act Insurance (DBA) is mandatory for overseas government and department of defense contractors/subcontractor performing any work on behalf of the USG Out-side the Continental United States (OCONUS). Failure to obtain DBA insurance carries stiff penalties. All government contracts contain a provision that requires bidding contractors to obtain necessary insurance. Failure to do so will result in fines and possible loss of contract. Historically, this insurance has been a reimbursable expense on the contract.

Will the USG please clarify if the offeror is required to submit/propose an ACA with their proposal? If so, in which Volume and will it be included in page count?

Please confirm that the proposal Master Table of Contents, provided within Volume I – Executive Summary, is not counted against that volume’s 10-page limit.

Is the Offeror required to include a Volume Table of Contents within each Volume? If so, please confirm that the Table of Contents are not counted against each respective volume’s page limits (as provided in Table 2.2).

FORMAL Q&A, SET 1, Question 11 11 Question: Is it permissible to separate the “counted” and “non-counted” pages in Volume 2 with references in the counted pages to the location/attachment number of the non-counted pages, all provided inside Volume 2? No. Please number Volume 2 sequentially and comply with the count limit.

- To have an IS-BAO certification, normally one must have complete control over the aircraft to include staffing and maintenance cycle. An organization could be a management company of privately owned or leased aircraft, and obtain a certification, but they must have control of the aviation operation. In this situation, neither the PSO nor ACAs have this control. The DOS owns and operates the aircraft. The DOS specifies when and where to fly, they can waive personnel qualifications and/or training, and they can also extend the service life of aircraft and their components. Likewise, access to the aircraft and their locations by certified IS-BAO auditors can be limited. If the DOS doesn't allow or restricts access to locations and documents that are require by auditors, no certification will be forthcoming.

Therefore, will the USG please clarify the following?

- IS-BAO is designed for owners and operators who control the aircraft operations and maintenance. IS it DOS's intent to hand this control over to the PSO to achieve certification?

- If DOS will maintain operational control of the aircraft, are you requesting an implementation strategy and plan to include the ACA's participation so the INL/A organization will achieve an IS-BAO certification.

- Will DOS ensure that IS-BAO certified auditors will have the appropriate access to the aircraft, personnel, and required documents in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other locations as required to achieve certification.

- IS DOS looking for completely separate SMSs from the PSO and ACAs for this RFP?

- Will DOS provide an enforcement mechanism that will require the ACAs to participate in the SMS with penalties for failure to comply or cooperate?

- Will DOS accept a transition plan of our currently AS9100 approved SMS plans to the IS-BAO standard as acceptable?

B. RFP States: The RFP PSO Performance Work Statement requires Offerors to “provide INL/A with a plan to attain Stage I IS-BAO certification for fixed-wing aircraft operations in Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of base contract year, and Stage II IS-BAO certification by end of Option Year 2.”

C. RFP States: INL/A seeks to understand the Safety Management System (SMS) processes and standards the offeror proposes to apply and their levels of application.

- As stated in question 23, IS-BAO Stage III and SAE AQS AS9100:2009 (Revision C) are two very similar standards, with the later being more focused on aviation manufacturers and suppliers worldwide (e.g. Boeing, Bell Helicopters, etc.). Would the Government also consider AS9100-based Safety and Management System (SMS) processes and standards implementation on very similar and recent contracts as highly relevant for this factor?

IS-BAO is an international standard aimed towards the business aircraft operations, and is primarily implemented by commercial and private aircraft carriers to ensure safe and efficient business operations (e.g. United Airlines, US Airways, etc.). To achieve the desired aviation safety and risk management required by this PSW, we highly recommend the Government consider an alternate, yet more aerospace manufacturing and maintenance-focused safety, risk and quality management standard, such as SAE AQS AS9100:2009 (Revision C). Would the Government consider Stage I IS-BAO OR AS9100:2009 (Revision C) certification to fulfill this requirement?

ICAP has stated that their desire is for all member agencies to use IS-BAO as their model. INL/A has not yet made a final determination whether to use the IS-BAO model or not. Hence, the requirement for the contractor to be able to put forth an implementation "plan" in the event that we decide to go that route. We do not yet desire to implement; we are still looking at options which are suitable for our needs and still meet ICAP intent. However, we want to ensure that our contractor, in concert with INL/A, is able to meet that requirement should we desire to implement.

As such, INL/A requires the PSO to work with USG staff to effect the decisions and planning to undertake that effort. Your questions and recommendations regarding IS-BAO are thoughtful and valid, and will be addressed after contract award, as that planning is undertaken.

For that reason, IS-BAO is not included in your proposal instructions (PPI) or in the evaluation criteria.

As the aircraft operator, INL/A will be the organization receiving the IS-BAO certification, if and when we decide to go in that direction. The PSO will assist INL/A in achieving that standard. Pillar contractors will be responsible via the ACA to comply and contribute as necessary to maintain the standards that are established. DOS will be responsible for providing auditor access as required.

There will be one SMS for the contract, managed by the PSO and executed by all implementing partners. ACA will govern participation.

Regarding penalties for failure - this will be carried out through the award term process.

Regarding acceptance of a transition plan, it may be considered provided it permits a full shift to IS-BAO compliance in the event INL/A elects to implement Provisions of IS-BAO.

35 The current table under 4.3.1 Technical/Management reads as follows regarding the first couple of cells under Factor 4 Safety:

Proposal Preparation Instructions (PPI) Evaluation Criteria Submit an executive summary and table of contents of your proposed SMS and its components. INL/A will evaluate the plan for PSO approach, inclusive of current INL/A practices and minimum standards, phased approach, and critical path with associated time lines Summarize your approach to SMS integration among associate contractors and SMS implementation and monitoring at all sites. Identify staff levels, location and critical personnel that may be associated with this effort. INL/A will evaluate the offerors ability to identify the activities that must be undertaken correctly to achieve the desired safety levels to determine the offerors understanding of those areas which bear heavily on SMS success.

INL/A will also evaluate offerors ability to implement, monitor, and report SMS with full efficacy, across all DOSAW activities, while limiting redundant effort and expense.

Will the government please confirm that the evaluation criteria as stated above is correct and should not be switched as follows below (juxtaposing the first paragraphs in the two evaluation criteria cells)?

Proposal Preparation Instructions (PPI) Evaluation Criteria Submit an executive summary and table of contents of your proposed SMS and its components. INL/A will evaluate the offerors ability to identify the activities that must be undertaken correctly to achieve the desired safety levels to determine the offerors understanding of those areas which bear heavily on SMS success.

Summarize your approach to SMS integration among associate contractors and SMS implementation and monitoring at all sites. Identify staff levels, location and critical personnel that may be associated with this effort. INL/A will evaluate the plan for PSO approach, inclusive of current INL/A practices and minimum standards, phased approach, and critical path with associated time lines INL/A will also evaluate offerors ability to implement, monitor, and report SMS with full efficacy, across all DOSAW activities, while limiting redundant effort and expense.

Table 2.2 provides clear instructions on page limitations; however, in Section 4.3 Format and Content (i.e., PPIs) for the Technical/Management, Table 2.2 does not address all Subfactors elements. For example under Factor 1, the tables lists only two sections (Section A-1 and A-2); but in Section 4.3 there are other areas that need to be addressed under Subfactors A. Another example, in Table 2.2 under Business volume it lists Sections that are to be provided but per instructions in Section 7.1 it states to provide those in the Contract Documentation volume.

Please clarify if the Offeror is to follow Table 2.2 for page limitations and Offeror is to follow Sections 4.3 – 9.6 to organize their response. We respectfully recommend eliminating the assignment of Section A-1, A-2, etc. in Table 2.2, allowing the Offeror to structure their response to align with each Subfactors within Factor and facilitating ease for the evaluator to locate the Offeror’s response to evaluation factors and subfactors.

Yes, please follow Table 2.2 for page limitations and follow Section 4.3 – 9.6 to organize responses.

The calling out of A-1 and A-2 in Table 2.2 was to specifically state that the page limitations did not apply to these particular items under Subfactors A.

Please follow instructions under 7.1 for sections to be provided in the Contract Documentation volume.

37 J-5 Table Pricing Table 6, IDIQ Proposed pricing TABLE. CLIN X021 -Quality Assurance Specialist, shows five positions per year, with no corresponding Quality positions identified for OCONUS support. PSO PWS for OCONUS support contains quality assurance management requirements.. Should the Offeror's anticipate an additional OCONUS QA labor CLIN? No, you should not anticipate an additional OCONUS QA labor CLIN. The QA Specialists are all captured in CLIN X021. Please note the difference in hours is the key, not the CONUS or OCONUS distinction. We predict all the QA Specialists will work a normal work week.

Sheet2

Sheet3