Q A_Set___6.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- SAQMMA13R0044
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 72 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question | Answer | |
| 1 | Should the indirect rates to be presented on J-5 Attachment 5 Pricing Table 2 and Table 3 reflect Contractor Fiscal Year rates (CFY) or Contract Performance Year rates (CPY)? For example, if an offeror’s fiscal year is a calendar year (Jan. 1 thru 31 Dec.) are these the rates to be reflected on Tables 2 and 3 or should CFY rates be converted to contract performance period, 1 April thru 31 March, equivalent rates for Tables 2 and 3. | Contractor Fiscal Year rates. See Section L.6.3.12. However, Contractor Fiscal Year rates shall be proposed for each contractor fiscal year that occurs during the life of the contract. See Section L.6.3.13. |
| 2 | If the answer to Question 1 is Contractor Fiscal Year Rates then will a Detailed Pricing Table be acceptable for showing the conversion of the Contractor Fiscal Year indirect rates to the Contract Performance Year indirect rates to be used in the build-up of the Fully Burdened Labor Rate Tables and the Table 6 Indirect Cost Computations applicable to the RFP specified travel costs for each contract performance period. | Neither the provisional billing indirect cost rates proposed in Pricing Table 2 nor the ceiling indirect cost rates proposed in Pricing Table 3 are required to be the indirect cost rates proposed as part of the build-up of the proposed fixed fully-loaded hourly labor rates in Pricing Tables 5 and 7. However, the ceiling indirect cost rates proposed in Pricing Table 3 are required to be proposed, as applicable, to compute in Pricing Table 6 the proposed indirect costs associated with the RFP-specified direct travel costs. See Section L.6.3.27. |
In either case, offerors shall use the Detail Pricing Tables (for Pricing Tables 5-7) to show the Contractor Fiscal Year indirect cost rate(s) proposed for each contract year.
| 3 | Also, applicable to question 2, above, will this conversion table be acceptable as a link between the requirements of RFP 6.3 27) and 48), pgs 130 and 134, that the indirect rates used in the fully burdened labor rate build ups and application to Table 6 RFP specified travel costs reflect or match the indirect cost rates proposed in Pricing Table 3? | Yes, but see previous answer. |
| 4 | The solicitation discusses two levels of a “normal workweek”, either 40 hrs or 48 hrs for CONUS and OCOUNUS respectively |
A. When pricing the OCONUS work, is the Government expecting rates and price for all LCATS? If not, which LCATS would the 48 hr workweek apply?
B. If only specific LCATS are affected for OCONUS work, and in cases where surge is required to augment staff at an OCONUS location, do we use the LCAT occupied by the person providing support and apply and OCONUS load to calculate price?
A. No. The 48-hour normal workweek for OCONUS performance applies only to the labor categories identified with CLINs X006, X007, and X019. See Pricing Table 5 and Section L.6.3.24.
B. Offerors shall identify under "Proposed" in Pricing Table 5 any additional labor categories. See Section L.6.3.23.
| 5 | In Pricing Table 4, the offeror shall propose one profit and one fee percentage per year? Please clarify the difference in the two percentages. | See Sections B-10 and B-11. |
| 6 | Section M does not describe how task order 1 will be evaluated other than price evaluation, which is non-specific. Would the government please provide more clarity as to the manner in which they intended to evaluate price on the task order? Directions provided in Question 31 (from the posting on 12.18.13) direct offerors to refer to and cover the specific elements discussed in the evaluation criteria, at section M. However, there is no specific information provided in Section M as to the evaluation of task order #1. Would the government please provide clarity on how it intends to evaluate price on the task order? | The description of the Task Order 1 price evaluation is listed under "Price Evaluation" at the end of the Task Order 1 solicitation. |
| 7 | Reference: "The principal basis for evaluating price as a factor for award under this solicitation will be an evaluation of the offerors’ respective overall proposed prices submitted on row 12 in Pricing Table 10." |
Discussion: As stated in M-015, the evaluated price will be based upon the final calculation on Row 12, Table 10. In addition, L.6.2 10) states that additional labor categories required by the contractor may be added to the Pricing Table following contract award.
| Further, based on the Government's response to a question on Line 16 of the second set of Q&A stated "The revised J-5 in amendment 1 post should be used for pricing proposal. Your technical proposal will specify labor types and personnel number which support your approach. PWS will not cite personnel numbers, rather PWS addresses requirements by location." | As described in Section M-015, the Government will evaluate each offeror's overall proposed price, which is comprised of the grand total proposed price from Pricing Table 6 and grand total proposed price from Pricing Table 9. While Pricing Table 6 solicits pricing based on specific labor categories and number of positions per year, Pricing Table 9 (for Task Order 1) solicits pricing based on each offeror's unique approach. As stated in Section M-015, the Government will use one or more of the proposal analysis techniques stipulated in FAR 15.404 to conduct the price evaluation. | |
| 8 | Section J, Attachment 1, Exhibit A / Task_Order_1_Solicitation. 11-25-2013 & Section J, Attachment 5_Pricing Tables. The instructions state that, “In the Detail Pricing Tables (for Pricing Table 9), Offerors shall include in the proposed prices under “Supplies” only and all predictable prices that exclude direct labor effort, associated applicable indirect costs, and associated profit. Examples of “Supplies” are contractor-directed travel, equipment, software licenses, subscriptions, miscellaneous material, post hardship differential pay, danger pay, and DBA insurance.” However, there is no Supplies line in the Attachment 5 Pricing Tables dated 3 Dec 13 template. Is the Contractor permitted to add a line to the pricing template on the tab 9 in order to price Supplies? |
Additionally, is the Offeror to price Supplies for Task Order #1 solely?
A column for "Supplies" exists for each year in Pricing Table 9. See columns D, G, etc. in Pricing Table 9.
Yes, offerors shall price supplies for Task Order 1 only, except that they shall add proposed ceiling indirect costs and fee to the RFP-specified direct travel costs in Pricing Table 6.
| 9 | Will the government release a summary listing of current management meetings including control boards (configuration management, etc) being conducted today? Please specify frequency or schedule. | No. Known or estimated quantities are already noted in the PWS. |
| 10 | In Pricing Table 9, is it the government’s position that each line item number from 1 – 10.G should have prices associated with them? Please clarify Jesse or Patrick - please provide answer. | |
| Yes; Provide a total price of services and supplies for each major geographical area (CONUS, Iraq, Colombia, etc.). | ||
| 11 | Task Order 1 Solicitation.11-25-3013 Pricing Instructions item 3) states " In Pricing Table 9, offerors shall add or delete rows as necessary. The same is stated in Attachment 5 Pricing table 8. Question: What rows are we to add or delete? If the PWS line items, should this be at the 2nd or 3rd PWS WBS level? | |
| Pricing Table 9 was created with an arbitrary number of rows. Offerors shall add or delete rows based on the number of priceable line items included in the PWS. |
WBS level of detail is the total price of services and supplies for each major geographical area (CONUS, Iraq, Colombia, etc.).
| 12 | Reference SAQMMA13R0044 RFP Section H – 016 Key Personnel: Country Site Managers for Afghanistan, Colombia, and Iraq are listed as key personnel by the Government. Does the Government leave the determination as to whether the other Country Site Managers are key personnel to the contractor, or does the Government dictate that the Country Site Managers for Pakistan and Peru are also key personnel? | USG dictated key personnel are cited in H-016 and should be proposed as instucted. Certainly the offeror will assess other personnel as also critical to their respective approaches. Propose those as you see fit. |
| 13 | Reference PWS Paragraph 7: Are Peshawar and Quetta considered FOLs, or are PSO functions handled only from Islamabad in Pakistan? | Main Operating Base (MOB) is Islamabad. Quetta is a Forward Operating Location (FOL). |
| 14 | Reference PWS Paragraph 8.A.: “Concept of Operations: The contractor will establish and sustain a Main Operating Base (MOB) in Kabul, a Forward Operating Base (FOB) in Kandahar and the capability to deploy a temporary FOL in support of field operations.” -- Does the Government expect the contractor to maintain a complete deployable PSO FOL team to establish and run temporary FOLs, or is the contractor expected to perform this with organic assets in Afghanistan? | The Government does not expect the contractor to maintain a complete deployable PSO FOL team to establish and run temporary FOLs. Rather the contractor expected to perform this with organic assets in Afghanistan, as laid out in 1.A.4, a-c (Contingent and Exigent Operations) of PWS. |
| 15 | Reference PWS Paragraph 10.A.: “Concept of Operations: The contractor will establish and sustain a Main Operating Base (MOB) at Baghdad International Airport (BIAP) - Sather Air Force Base , Forward Operating Bases (FOB) at LZ Embassy (LZE), Erbil, and Basrah.” -- Does the Government expect FOLs operated by the PSO at all of these locations, or is the LZE FOL supported by the PSO at BIAP? | PWS Paragraph 10.A. (Concept of Operations) describes the wider view of what the DOSAW team must accomplish. Focus on specific PSO requirements in 10.B-G. The USG expects PSO coverage at MOB, FOL Basra, and Embassy LZ. The latter (ELZ) may be supportable from BIAP if that is your approach. |
| 16 | Reference PWS 3.c.1.b.: “Support for 3 Strategic Planning Session. Cost may include facility for the sessions and TDY cost for the PSO OCONUS personnel who will need to attend sessions.” -- Are these sessions in Melbourne? Will it be at one of the hotels? | Yes, vicinity Melbourne and Patrick AFB area. Site dependent on your approach. Some level of remote participation may reduce travel time and cost for overseas personnel, if proposed. |
| 17 | Reference PW 3.C.6.b.: discusses 4X EAP reviews and Drills. The Reviews maybe covered under labor but the drills conducted quarterly at "each country location" may require safety and quality staff TDY from Melbourne to these sites. So travel, per diem, etc. Are adequate Government furnished facilities available for conducting these meetings, or should the contractor price other facilities as an ODC?” | Yes, facilities are provided and available. If your approach includes travel it would be indicated in price proposal according to section L. |
| 18 | Under B-1 Program Overview, the Government states their plan to compete four other contracts “concurrently” with PSO. They are: Aviation Maintenance, Flight Operations, Logistics, and IT Services. The RFP further states the requirement for no conflict between these contracts and thus requiring any member of the PSO team from participating as a prime or a sub on the other four solicitations. |
A. In the SOW Section Associate Contracts, the RFP adds Training and Safety Compliance as other contracts for INL/A. No statement was made regarding OCI between PSO and these other two contracts (Safety and Training). Is there an OCI concern?
| That decision will be made upon release of the solicitations for safety compliance and training support. | |
| 19 | The Government is firm regarding the Associate Contract relationship between all procurements |
A. Does the government envision the PSO contractor to enter into separate and individual Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) with the other four primes?
B. If so, can the government define the elements of the ACA they expect to see including sharing of information, data and technical knowledge, and resources? Since the government puts emphasis on the ability of the PSO to integrate the entire INL/A operation in a seamless manner is there an expectation that the other Primes are set up to work under an ACA?
C. Factor 2 of Section M discusses in detail the responsibility of the PSO contractor to “implement a professional work ethic among associate contractors and the USG” by teambuilding and integration of activities. What contractual power do you envision the PSO contractor as having as to direct the other contractors to provide information or data necessary to resolve an issue at the “system” level? The ACA may help alleviate some potential issues arising in the conduct of the work, but is the government prepared to resolve issues arising from the “associate” contractors’ execution of their respective efforts?
D. Since overall success is a team effort, is the government emphasizing PSO Factor 2 on the other contracts?
E. Is there an Incentive Plan or Award Fee structure envisioned for the five associated contracts to monetarily award or punish the Pillar Primes for inter-contract collaboration and team work?
A. Yes, USG intends the PSO contractor to enter into separate and individual Associate Contractor Agreements (ACA) with the other four primes.
B. The elements of the ACA are found in Section H-010. Yes, USG requires other associate contractors to enter into ACA to be crafted by USG with PSO assistance.
C. Contractual "power" will reside with USG, not PSO.
D. and E. Yes. Teamwork is a criteria in source selection and award term evaluation of each associate contractor on the DOSAW team.
| 20 | In 3.C.2.c of the PWS QASP Solution the software program will require user licenses. Does the government have an estimate of how many licenses will be needed? | Number of licenses must cover all PSO employees performing QA monitoring and reporting. |
| 21 | Is it the government intention to extend the proposal due date past January 8, 2014? | Is extended to 16 January, 2014. |
| 22 | Section J, Attachment 1, Exhibit A, TOR 2013-0001, refers to a Performance Work Statement provided in Section J, Attachment 1, Exhibit B. Situation: Exhibit B was not provided with the Amendment. |
Amendment 1 Section J-List of Attachments does not list an Exhibit B in in the List of Attachments
| To remove any ambugity for all Offeror's, suggest USG provide Exhibit B for the Sample Task Order, and update Section J-List of Attachments accordingly. | Amendment 2 will clarify that exhibit B does not exist, and that Attachment 1 shall be used. | ||
| 23 | Question #62 from the posting on 12.18.13. The issue central to this and a number of questions included in the Q&A remains unclear; the government has already requested base contract pricing for the 10 year duration. What is the basis for requiring the contractor to price the labor categories for out-years as ‘options’ when the task order has been defined as base plus two one-year options? In addition, there are formulas associated with each of the out-years, which would make it appear as though the government desired hours and labor rates for proposed categories under each of the CLINS in spreadsheet in Attachment_5.Pricing_Tables_3DEC13, Tab 9. Would the government please reconcile the instructions and provided tables to better correlate, reducing ambiguity or confusion? | The intent is to have FFP labor rates for 10 years and pricing of the Task Order for three years, e.g., Base + Two Priced Options). Actually the first task order document will be for the Base Year Pricing, thereafter, a separate and distinct task order will be issued for each subsequent period of performance. | |
| 24 | Regarding the answer provided to the question in line 6 of questions posted on 12.18.13, risk is typically looked at in terms of cost, schedule, and performance. Size of a company is not generally a good indicator of risk. The notes included may be the opinion of the contractor officer, but they are not fact and appear to indicate a bias. These could be taken by smaller contractors as a means of discouragement, serving to discourage competition, not encourage maximum competition. Please consider all qualified small businesses and their teams for the merits of their proposal. | The Department of State determined in consult with their Small Business Office that the selected NAICS code is appropriate for this solicitation. | |
| 25 | From the posting on 12.18.13, the government was evasive in the response to question #60. Given the status of this procurement as an SDVOSB set-aside and the requirement under Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.5, which prohibits any condition or action that has the effect of unnecessarily restricting acquisition or competition, would the government consider amending the requirements for the sample task order, which appear to be written in such a manner as to unnecessarily limit the pool of contractors who could realistically bid on this effort to those with intimate knowledge of current/historical operations? | The sample task order represents the recurring and known requirements. Accordingly the USG requires an offeror to have the ability to perform the USG mission. | |
| 26 | Reference H-007 Insurance Requirements:The DOS Air Wing RFP does not relate to any aircraft flight or vessel work being done by the Contractor. |
Are there unstated requirements for DOS Air Wing personnel to be pilots of aircraft or involved in vessels in performance of the DOS Air Wing contract? If not, we recommend that these requirements be deleted from the RFP.
| No, there are no unstated requirements for PSO. However, possible future requirements may require it, and would be issued by separate task order or contract modification. | |
| 27 | PWS line item 3.C.3.c requires the solution to be scalable to up to 1,500 users. Question: How many users does DOS anticipate for the first 3 years of performance as it applies to Task Order #1? This has a large impact on the price proposal depending upon the number of users who require licensing. |
| Yes, your proposed QASP softaware solution must be able to accommodate up to 1,500 users. Your pricing proposal should only account for the number of proposed PSO users. | |
| 28 | Amendment 1 added the requirements for Peru and Pakistan to the PWS; however, H-016 Key Personnel does not include the Country Site Managers for Peru and Pakistan as Key personnel. Question: Should resumes and commitment letters be provided for these additional key personnel? |
| USG dictated key personnel are cited in H-016 and should be proposed as instucted. Certainly the offeror will assess other personnel as also critical to their respective approaches. Propose those as you see fit. | |
| 29 | Attachment 5.Pricing Tables 3 Dec 13, table 6. IDIQ Prices |
Question: The QAS labor category is not a requirement for OCONUS?
| The distinction between the 40 and 48 hours is not intended to denote geographical location, rather our estimate of the work days per week. There are positions OCONUS and CONUS which may be 40 or 48 hours a week. | ||
| 30 | PWS_RFP_PSO_3_Dec_13 & Q&A_Set_2 . In reference to Q&A Set 2 row 35, if it is not the responsibility of the PSO Contractor to provide security. Please advise which associate contract will provide security and what the reporting requirement(s) is/are for the PSO. | Operations contract contains security responsibility for DOSAW elements. PSO reporting requirements are contained in the PWS. |
| 31 | Q&A_Set_2. Based on the Government’s response to the question in Row 54 of the Q&A_Set_2 document, will the Government amend the solicitation to remove the following requirement from Section 8.1.2 - Oral Technical Proposal Presentation Media on page 139 of the Amendment 0001 Solicitation? |
From Section 8.1.2, “Oral technical proposal presentation slides shall be submitted in advance with the written proposal submission.”
| Amendment 2 will modify the instructions for oral proposals. | |
| 32 | Question: Is it intended that the IS-BAO requirement be deleted from the RFP in a subsequent release? |
Question: Is it your intent for the PSO to develop a plan for the INL/A to obtain an IS-BAO Level II certification that the ACA’s will be required to participate in and support?
Question: Will the USG please clarify how the PSO support contractor is to achieve ISO-BAO LEVEL II CERTIFICATION given the contractor will not be operating or maintaining aircraft, will not have access to the aircraft and will not be setting up a flight department that is staffed with the aircrew members and operating and maintenance personnel?
We respectfully request that the USG consider deleting this requirement or revising the IS-BAO Level II certification requirement to a requirement that the PSO Contractor act as a facilitator/subject matter expert, and/or oversight agent to assist the Air Wing and Associate Contractors in achieving Level II certification. Or, that the PSO Contractor act as an auditing agent. As written today, the PSO Contractor would not be able to meet the Certification Level II requirements given the documented Certification Requirements of IS-BAO-2011.
Amendment 2 will delete IS BAO from 3.C.6.b. However the IS BAO requirements in 3.C.6.g will remain.
Yes, associate contractors will have that requirement.
IS-BAO level II cert is no longer required, as of Amendment 2 posting.
33 Section L, Factor 5, Sub-factor A, Approach to Attract, Acquire, and Maintain Personnel The RFP States: Provide attrition rate statistics associated with key and specialized personnel for the last 3 years.
Question: If the offeror is not the incumbent, they would not have attrition rate statistics for key and specialized personnel. Will the USG please clarify if they want to see attrition rate statistics for key and specialized personnel from any contract held by the offeror? If so, for a joint venture, will the USG please consider the JV’s partner company’s overall attrition statistic rates as an acceptable approach to this requirement?
| Yes, offerors/ JVs' may use relevant retention statistics from previous contracts. Cite personnel considered "key" in the sample experience. Yes, a JV partner company’s overall attrition statistic rates would be an acceptable approach to this requirement. | |
| 34 | Reference RFP_PWS_3_Dec_2013, Section 4.C.5.a – Section 10.C.5.a the PWS requirements states for each country that, “Quality Inspections/Audits: Perform inspections and provide inputs to USG quality assurance management information system pertaining to INL/A and NAS eradication operations. The PWS also states that PSO 100% audits = 30 audits per trimester, 10% sample audits of associate contracts = 20 audits per trimester.” |
In Task Order 1 Solicitation 11-25-2013 it states that the Anticipated Task Order Period of Performance that shall be used for pricing purposes, is:
Base Year: April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015 Option Year 1: April 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 Option Year 2: April 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017
And, in the Detail Pricing Tables (for Pricing Table 9), offerors shall show for each task order year the breakdown of the proposed “Supplies” prices. The breakdown shall consist of at least the following: PWS Line Item Number and PWS Title, etc.
In Attachment 5 Pricing Tables 3DEC13, Tab titled IDIQ Prices, the table shows the following OCONUS labor Categories.
CLIN RFP-specified Labor Category Positions Per Year
X006 Country Site Manager 5 X007 FOL Site Manager 4 X019 Safety Specialist 5 Question: Will the USG please clarify/verify that there are no OCONUS requirements for all three base years for Quality Specialist. If there are no requirements, will the USG please clarify how they anticipate the offer to meet the quality assurance requirements of PWS Section 4.C.5.a – Section 10.C.5.a?
| The distinction between the 40 and 48 hours is not intended to denote geographical location, rather our estimate of the work days per week. There are positions OCONUS and CONUS which may be 40 or 48 hours a week. | |
| 35 | PSO RFP PWS 3 Dec 2013 states in Section “2.C.2.a Force Protection Training: Propose a minimum level of force protection training you recommend for select duty positions and select locations. Implement and maintain an employee training program which provides those levels of Force Protection and/or terrorism awareness as proposed and accepted.” |
Question: Will the USG clarify if the offeror is to propose to the requirements listed in the PWS? If so, will the USG please specify in which volume and under which factor the offeror is to propose these requirements and will it count towards page count.
| This is at the discretion of the offeror; USG will not dictate. Please refer to sections L and M for instructions. | |
| 36 | PSO RFP PWS 3 Dec 2013 states in Section 2.G.1 States, “Government Property Accountability: Maintain property accountability for USG property under PSO custody.” |
Question: There is no position description or labor pricing requirements for a property custodian listed in the RFP or pricing matrix. For compliance and pricing considerations, will the USG please clarify under which existing labor category the offeror shall perform and price this requirements?
| Offerors may propose additional labor categories in support of planned approach. | |
| 37 | Discussion: SAQMMA13R0044 - Amendment 001, H-016: In order to ensure a smooth and orderly startup of work, it is essential that the key personnel specified in the Contractor's proposal be available on the effective date of the contract. |
Sub-Factor Resumes and letter of commitments are required for key personnel.
Question: Is it INL/A's intent to staff the Country Site Managers at contract start date at the remote locations before the PSO is fully stood up?
| It is INL/As intent that the Country Site Managers be on site before the start of the Pillar Transition Phase-in. | |
| 38 | 1. PSO Section L Factor 3. |
Discussion: The PWS discusses the management of projects in a number of paragraphs, e.g., 1.A.1.c, 1.A.3.a, 1.A.5, 2.A, 2.C.3.a, 3.C.2.b, 3.C.5.a, etc. Question: The PPI states, ‘Submit a sample IMS which identifies the 3 most critical projects among your requirements’. Are the projects we are to chose from the ones listed in PWS 3.C.2.b under Related Information where it lists the following project types:
a. Nationalization
b. Aircraft Ferrying
c. Major Logistic Movements
d. Aircraft Procurements
e. Retrofit
f. Spare Repair Engine Overhaul
g. Leased Aircraft
h. Critical Flight Safety Program
i. Construction Projects
j. Associate Contract Projects
| Do not limit yourself to only 3.C.2.b. However, refer to the entire PWS and select from the myriad of projects the PSO will undertake. | ||
| 39 | The recently released draft of the Maintenance PWS states in C.3.25 that the Maintenance Associate Contractor will become the IPT lead. However the most recent PSO PWS states in 1.A.6 that the PSO will continue to be the IPT lead. Question: Can you clarify who will lead the MIS IPT and who will be the MIS Project Manager? | Propose against the PWS for PSO. |
| 40 | The recently released draft of the Maintenance PWS states in C.3.25 that the Maintenance Associate Contractor will become the MIS Project Manager. Question: Can you clarify when the PSO will hand off project management duties for the MIS to the Maintenance Associate Contractor? | Propose your plan to support hand-off as described in 1.A.6 of the PWS for PSO. |
| 41 | PSO PWS 2.C.3.a, 3.C.2.b |
Discussion: The PWS 3.C.2.b indicates we are to anticipate actively managing 40 projects per year, closing out 12 projects per year, and setup of 12 new projects per year. Per PWS 2.C.3.a, under Estimated Quantity, it asks for 1 X Data Set for each of 12 anticipated projects. Question: can the USG provide a list of the 12 anticipated PSO projects for the base year?
| These are discussed as requirements throughout the PWS. USG expects the offeror to identify what projects it must undertake and administer to meet the requirements. | |
| 42 | J-11 Labor Category Safety Manager and Safety Specialist |
Discussion: the minimum education requirements are identical. The experience requirements are identical except for the statement in Safety Manager where it stipulates Formal background in SMS desired, along with demonstrable technical writing skills. Certified Safety Professional (CSP) is desirable. The two position descriptions and minimum requirements are basically the same, except that it states it is desirable for the Safety Manager have “formal” training. Question: Is it the governments desire to have the Safety Manager and Safety Specialist with the same qualifications and experience?
We see the Safety Manager as the higher level planner and administrator of the program-wide SMS, and the Safety Specialist as the down-range lead who implements the SMS afield.
Similarity in qualifications is due to our base line minimums. Offeror can propose exceeding requirements or additional labor category if it supports your approach.
43 Solicitation Section H-035.
Discussion: Stipulates that billeting services are available to in Iraq and Afghanistan to US contractor personnel. Question: Will sufficient billeting space be available to PSO personnel while incumbent contractor is still present in addition to the new associate contractor personnel that will start to arrive after award of the 3 pillar contracts?
| Yes. In fact the PSO will be heavily involved in planning with the USG, incumbent and associate contractors, exactly those types of details. | ||
| 44 | PWS 4.C.6, 6.C.6, 7.C.6, 8.C.6, 10.C.6 (Safety) and 4.C.5.a, 6.C.5.a, 7.C.5.a, 8.C.5.a, 10.C.5.a. (Quality). Discussion: The required audits, reports , training, and reviews in the referenced sections are the same in number and type regardless of the actual location and size of operation in the specified country. Question: Are the same number of audits, reports, reviews, and inspections required the same in all countries regardless of the number of aircraft, missions flown, and scope of operation? | Yes. |
| 45 | PWS 6.F.1.b. Discussion: The answer to question 10 in the second Q&A response from the USG stated – ‘In both, the PWS specifies no FOL requirements for PSO. The maps indicate locations where operations may take place.’ However, The PWS does state the following in paragraph 6.F.1.b under the column for Information - FOL Reports: Mission Generation and Tracking: Forward Operating Location (FOL) Manager (PSO) will receive requisite data from associate contractors to provide the in-country SAA and the Colombia Site Manager, Program Support Office (PSO) following data sets; … |
Question: Perhaps this is a cut and paste error, but can the USG confirm whether a FOL Manager (PSO) is required or not in Peru?
| In the event Peru requires an FOL as, as laid out in 1.A.4, a-c (Contingent and Exigent Operations), this FOL reporting will be required. | ||
| 46 | PWS 10.a. Discussion: The Concept of Operation states – ‘contractor will establish and sustain a Main Operating Base (MOB) at Baghdad International Airport (BIAP) - Sather Air Force Base , Forward Operating Bases (FOB) at LZ Embassy (LZE), Erbil, and Basrah.’ Question: Are FOL/FOB site managers required at the Forward Operating Bases LZ Embassy, Erbil, and Basrah? | PWS Paragraph 10.A. (Concept of Operations) describes the wider view of what the DOSAW team must accomplish. Focus on specific PSO requirements in 10.B-G. The USG expects PSO coverage at MOB, FOL Basra, and Embassy LZ. The latter (ELZ) may be supportable from BIAP if that is your approach. |
SAQMMA13R0044 Q AND A SET # 6
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .