Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Note – All information provided is notational and subject to change upon release of the final solicitation. Please ensure to read the final solicitation in its entirety prior to submitting your proposal.

Note: The references included in the responses below are based on the DRAFT RFP posting with this Q&A. References may vary on the previously posted Draft RFP and/or final solicitation.

1. Question: Can two small businesses make up the team of 51% on this effort?

Answer: The current regulation FAR 52.219-14 -- Limitations on Subcontracting states that "At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern". If this should change prior to final solicitation, the RFP will reflect accordingly. Information on joint ventures being able to submit an offer for a procurement can be found at

13 CFR §125.8.

2. Question: Page 69; paragraph M.13.1 Relevancy: In order to maintain the intended nature of this solicitation as a small business competition, will the

Government consider removing the specific size threshold to allow the capability of small businesses to perform to be fairly evaluated?

Answer: No, the narrative remains unchanged.

3. Question: Page 66; paragraph M.10.0: Will the government clarify/confirm that it will accept a copy of an existing GFOPS [Ground Flight Operations Procedures] prepared and approved by the offeror as evidence that it “can” comply with the safety requirements?

Answer: No, procedures submitted by an offeror shall address the offerors ability to perform under the specified terms of the contract IAW AR 95-20 paragraph

7.11.3.

4. Question: Does the Government intend to perform a pre-award survey as per AR

95-20, 7.11.3 as part of its go/no go determination, and if so, is it safe to assume this will occur at the site where we currently perform work under a GFOPS?

Answer: The go/no-go factor has been removed. However, the pre-award survey will occur, if required, during the determination of responsibility. The GFR will not travel to a specific site for the pre-award survey.

5. Question: Will the Government require delivery of GFOPS as a CDRL, and if so, how long after award is it envisioned to be due?

Answer: There is no requirement to make this a CDRL, the contractor is required to provide a GFOPS IAW the Ground and Flight Risk Clause. PWS 2.2 states that during phase-in the contractor shall submit and receive an approval of flight and ground operations procedure, any requests for extension is subject to Government approval.

6. Question: Under Proposal Structure: Will the Government clarify that such backup information may be provided as scanned .pdf documents?

Answer: The proposal file instructions in L.4.2 of the solicitation and proposal structure in L.5.0 have been updated to clarify the .pdf requirements.

7. Question: Section A: Page 2; paragraph A.2 IDIQ Not-to-exceed ceiling amount:

Will the Government provide information to the Offerors indicating the reasons behind this increase to ensure we can accurately account for the requirements for bidding purposes?

Answer: The Government is required to establish a maximum ceiling for IDIQ contracts IAW FAR Part 16. Many factors are utilized to develop this figure but the specific details will not be released.

8. Question: Will the government require Offerors to provide financial data in

Volume 1 that shows ability to provide at least 3 months of payment to employees after start up to reduce risk to execution and training timelines and throughput?

Answer: As stated in L.6.1.5, unless the offeror's global parent files with the U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission, the following will be provided: Financial statements (with notes) for the most recently completed fiscal year and status of any/all loans and lines-of-credit (used and unused amounts). Additional financial data may be required by the PCO prior to contract award.

9. Question: For the Program Management Factor: Is there a required format/page limit for resumes?

Answer: In accordance with the proposal structure table in L.5.0 resumes shall not exceed 3 pages. Format required has been updated/clarified in the proposal structure table to reflect Adobe. Note: The Program Management Factor has been broken into Sub-factors.

10. Question: Is the Program Manager expected to be on-site Ft. Huachuca with an office on the Government facility or to perform at a contractor site off-post?

Answer: Program Manager is required to be On-Site, IAW PWS Para 2.6.1. The

Government will NOT provide work/office space for corporate duties but will for key personnel, if proposed.

11. Question: Under what labor category(ies) does the Government expect the

Program Management personnel to be proposed, or are they expected to be indirect-charging functions?

Answer: A Program Manager has been added to the Cost/Price Workbook as a direct charge. There is also additional space for a contractor to propose key personnel, if they deem applicable.

12. Question: Are we correct in assuming this indicates an expectation for an off-station office? Management of this contract will require contractor support staff for functions including Human Resources, Facility Security Officer, and project administration.

Answer: The offeror shall propose as they see fit. The Government does not intend to supply space for support staff functions. Also reference the answer to

Question 10 regarding the Program Manager and key personnel.

13. Question: Section L, Page 58, para L.6.3: L.6.3 describes Volume III Program

Management (Factor 2).

Q1: Is Volume III considered Technical, with Program Management as Factor 2 within the Volume?

Answer: The title paragraph has been revised to clarify. Please note, the

Volumes and Factors may be different in the final solicitation.

14. Question: Section L, Pages 53 & 55, paras L.4.1 & L.5: Page 53, identifies

Volume III- Program Management, Task Order 0001. However, on page 55

Volume III is identified as Technical with Factor 2 Program Management and

Factor 3 as Task Order 0001.

Q1: Will the Government clarify the Volume title, Factor title and Task order?

Answer: The title paragraph has been revised to clarify. Please note, Volumes and Factors may be different in the final solicitation.

15. Question: Section H; Section I, pg. 12; 23-24: Will the Government entertain removing the H.4 clause and the FAR clause 52.219-28 references from the solicitation to allow a small business winner to perform for the desired seven years? Otherwise, we recommend a five-year base contract with no option years.

This will allow the Government more than 60-120 days to prepare for the re-compete.

Answer: FAR clause 52.219-28 does not restrict the awardee (prime contractor) from continuing performance beyond 5 years. The Section H reference has been removed.

16. Question: Attachment J, Pg. 39: Section J of the base solicitation reflects

Technical Exhibit 4 – Contract Data Requirements List Student Throughput

Limits Per Shift. However, Technical Exhibit 4 does not appear among the draft solicitation documents package

Answer: Reference to Technical Exhibit 4 has been removed from Section J of the solicitation.

17. Question: SOL, L.6.1.5 Business System Information & Accounting System: we received DCAA and DCMA adequacy letters over two years ago and have not primed a government contract since, and stands ready to receive a Pre-Award

Survey at any time. Please confirm that submission of the last letter along with a completed Attachment 03, acting as a self-audit, is sufficient?

Answer: This paragraph has been revised. If the offeror does not have current adequacy letter or has never had one they shall complete Attachment 03 and submit it as part of their proposal.

18. Question: SOL, Pg. 57 Paragraph L.6.1.6: Do sections G, I and K need to be included in the proposal in their entirety?

Answer: Reference to section G has been removed. Offerors are required to submit the filled-in portions (i.e. the entire clause that includes the fill-in) of sections I and K. If an offeror deems it appropriate to submit the entire section they may do so.

19. Question: L.6.5.1, Pg. 59: Question/Comment: The initial paragraph in L.6.5.1

(last line) specifies that “a minimum of one of the projects submitted shall be that of the small business prime contractor.”

The second paragraph seems to imply that the Government wants at least one project description from the offeror where they have performed as a prime contractor.

These specifications generate the following potential submission circumstances:

1. The prime offeror (in accordance with paragraph 1), submits a project for which it performed as a subcontractor and other teammates submit projects that include at least one for which they performed as a prime contractor (in accordance with paragraph 2).

2. The prime offeror (in accordance with paragraph 1), submits a project for which it performed as a prime contractor (in accordance with paragraph 2). Other teammates submit projects for which they either performed as a prime or subcontractor.

Answer: The factor numbering has been revised. Language within the factor has been added to provide clarity.

20. Question: M.3.1, pg. 63: Section M.3.1 specifies that failure to comply with the solicitation’s requirements will result in an Offeror’s proposal being rejected.

This statement is absolute, offering the Government no flexibility, but to dismiss any offeror who fails to reply with a 100%-compliant proposal, no matter how minor the infraction. This could, potentially, eliminate a best value solution from being awarded for a simple clerical error.

Recommend that the Government change the wording from will to may at the above solicitation location.

Answer: Compliance language has been changed to be less restrictive.

21. Question: Reference error perceived in CLIN description. Solicitation references

"HTASC." Please confirm that the reference should have been to UAS IMS, not

HTASC.

Answer: This was an erroneous error and has been corrected.

22. Question: Section B.1. Clause indicates that indirect rates for both the Prime and the Subcontractor will be included as an attachment in Section J; how will the

Government do this and still protect the proprietary nature of the Subcontractor rates?

Answer: Language has been added to Section B.1 to clarify as follows:

“Subcontractors can independently/separately submit their portion of the proposal per delivery instructions IAW L.3.3-L.3.6; subcontractor proposals delivered separately shall clearly reference the prime Offeror with the submission.” The Government intends to provide notification of receipt to the offeror and subcontractor(s) who directly submits a proposal.

23. Question: Section L.6.6.1. Clause indicates that indirect rates for both the Prime and the Subcontractor will be included as an attachment in Section J; how will the Government do this and still protect the proprietary nature of the

Subcontractor rates?

Answer: Language has been added to Section B.1, L.4.1, and L.6.5.1 (formally

L.6.6.1) to clarify. The language is “Subcontractors can independently/separately submit their portion of the proposal per delivery instructions IAW L.3.3-L.3.6;

subcontractor proposals delivered separately shall clearly reference the prime

Offeror with the submission.”

24. Question: Section H.3(c)(1). Paragraph (c) (1) indicates that "the contractor shall be paid on the basis of actual amount paid "; further paragraph (c) (4) says

"invoices shall include receipts or other evidence substantiating actual costs incurred for authorized travel". FAR regulation allows contractors to pay M&IE costs in accordance with the established per diem rates in lieu of actuals. When reimbursing M&IE in this way employees are not required to provide receipts.

Request that M&IE be allowed instead of requiring payment of actuals with receipts.

Answer: The language within H.4 (formally H.3) remains unchanged.

25. Question: Section H.4. Correction required. There are two H.4 clauses: 1)

Reimbursement of Travel, Per Diem, and Special Material Costs & 2) Small

Business Recertification.

Answer: Reimbursement of Travel, Per Diem, and Special Material Costs remains as Section H.4. The Small Business Recertification language has been removed. Contractors will be required to comply with 52.219-28. However, FAR clause 52.219-28 does not restrict the awardee (prime contractor) from continuing performance beyond 5 years.

26. Question: 52.219-16 Liquidated Damages Subcontracting Plan. Recommend deletion; clause not normally prescribed in Small Business Set Aside contracting.

Answer: This clause has been removed.

27. Question: 252.219-7003 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DOD Contracts)

Basic. Recommend deletion; clause not normally prescribed in Small Business

Set Aside contracting.

Answer: This clause has been removed.

28. Question: 52.217-9 Can the USG confirm that "TBD" will be replaced by a date in the Final RFP?

Answer: Solicitation now reads TBD at the TO [task order] level. Dates will be annotated as required.

29. Question: L.4.2. Please confirm whether or not the Government page size limitation of 8.5" X 11" also applies to Attachment 4 Cost/Price Workbook?

Answer: The Cost/Price Workbook is an Excel document. As such, there is no page size limitation. See solicitation paragraph L.5.0.

30. Question: L 6.1.1 Page 55 - Basically requires the same information as the cover sheet of the proposal along with the compliance statement defined in L 6.1.4, with an allowable page count of only 2 pages that probably only leaves 1 page for the executive summary which severely impacts the ability to truly provide an executive summary of our capability/proposal. Suggest that this one page is added to the exec summary page count (3 pages).

Answer: The page limitation within the Proposal Structure Table in solicitation paragraph L.5.0 for Executive Summary has been increased to three pages.

31. Question: L.6.5 Proposal Structure Table. The page limit associated with L.6.5

Factor 4 Performance Confidence Assessment states, "Shall not exceed 5 pages." Considering that the USG will allow the Offeror to submit descriptions for up to four projects (L.6.5.1) requires that the Offeror submit written consent of its proposed subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information (L.6.5.3), letters of commitment for all subcontractors for their past performance to be considered (L.6.5.3), and project-specific information required by L.6.5.4, can the USG confirm that this information should all be captured in 5 pages? At a minimum, would the USG consider excluding the consent letters and letters of commitment from the page count?

Answer: The page limitation within the Proposal Structure Table for L.6.3

(formally L.6.5) has been increased to 25.

32. Question: L.6.1.5 Can the Government confirm that the only Business Systems

Information which needs to be addressed in the proposal are the Accounting &

Purchasing Systems?

Answer: Yes, L.6.1.5 will be revised to provide clarity.

33. Question: L.6.1.5 Offerors are required to include Attachment 03 (SF1408) of the solicitation with their proposals if accounting system review is more than two years old. Other than completing the block that includes the prospective contractors’ identity in the second block, this form appears to require completion by DCAA. Is it the Government's intent that the Offeror should request a review of the system/completion of this form for submission with our proposal?

Answer: The Government’s intent is to have the Offeror fill out the attachment and submit it with their proposal. L.6.1.5 will be revised to provide clarity.

34. Question: L.6.1.6 Section includes instructions to include Section G fill-ins.

Currently, none of the clauses in Section G require fill-in; please confirm.

Answer: Reference to section G has been removed.

35. Question: L.6.1.6 Solicitation requires submission of "the most recent ACO letter regarding the status of their applicable business systems". If an offeror has never received correspondence of this nature; are they required to approach the

ACO and request?

Answer: This language will be revised to provide clarity. The most recent ACO letter regarding an offeror’s approval status is only necessary if it applies to the offeror.

36. Question: L.6.1.7 Will the subcontractors be allowed to submit separate sealed package TCPs, or do they need to be included in the Offeror's TCP?

Answer: The Total Compensation Plan of the subcontractors can be separately submitted. L.6.1.7 has been revised to reflect that change.

37. Question: L 6.3.2 Page 58 requires two version of the PM resume one with name and one without. Implies that the PM’s name should not be included in the PM section of the proposal? Are the resumes an attachment to the volume?

According to the Q&A #11 they are included in the page count.

Answer: Per the Proposal Structure Table the redacted and non-redacted resumes shall each be presented as a separate file within Volume II. The page restrictions within the table apply to the resumes.

38. Question: M.1.0 Can the USG provide additional clarity on the definition "highest technical rating" for the Best Value Subjective Tradeoff procedures? Will the government evaluate all non-Cost/Price factors as a part of the Tradeoff?

Answer: All factors will be considered during the tradeoff process. Factors 1 and

2 will be evaluated using the definitions in M.7.0 and Factor 3 will be evaluated using the definitions in M.11.0. The relative order of importance listed in M.6.2 will be utilized for the tradeoff procedures.

39. Question: M.7.2 Considering that this is a very important Small Business Set

Aside procurement, should relevant Prime past performance be considered for award? If so, recommend that the Government add Factor 4 to the last paragraph in Section M.7.2 as follows, "Offerors must achieve a rating of "GO" for Factor 1, and ACCEPTABLE, or higher, for Factors 2 and 3, a Past

Performance Relevancy Rating of Relevant, or higher, and a Performance

Confidence Assessment of Satisfactory Confidence, or higher in order to be considered for award."

Answer: A required minimum for Performance Confidence Assessment will not be included. Please note, however, the evaluation criteria has changed.

40. Question: L.6.6 and M.14.0. What proof do offerors need to provide to show they have the financial capability to absorb the impact of this contract through cash flow, lines of credit, etc.?

Answer: Solicitation paragraph numbers have been revised. Financial capability isn’t assessed in the Total Evaluated Price (formally Cost/Price) factor as it applies to the determination of responsibility. Please see solicitation paragraph

L.6.1.5 as it discusses circumstances when the offeror does not file with the U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission.

41. Question: 1.1. What proof do offerors need to provide to show they have the facility clearance required under the effort?

Answer: An offeror shall provide a statement of compliance that includes the

Company name, address, and zip code, the CAGE code, and cognizant security office name, address, and zip code.

42. Question: Attachment 5 TO 0001 PWS. 4.4 Government Furnished Training.

IAW Memorandum, Office of the Chief of Staff, 3 Mar 14, subject: Contractor

Reimbursing U.S. Army for Attendance at Army-Provided Training, it is Army policy that Contractors will be charged a tuition fee (the full pro rata cost of instruction and base support) for attending Army-provided training.

Question(s):

The offeror understand the intent of referenced memorandum in 4.4 for contractor reimbursement of U.S. Army attendance training cost. Was this a requirement of the current contract? Can the Government clarify if considerations were determined on the impact of incorporating this requirement on the small business community?

Can the Government clarify the tuition fees (full pro rata cost of instruction and base support) for attending specific Army-provided training required? Will the

Government consider providing a plug number for the pricing volume?

Answer: This memo is still under review but in the meantime a plug number is not required given that this paragraph has been removed from the PWS.

43. Question: Attachment 5 TO 0001 PWS. 4.4.1 Government Provided Training.

The Contractor shall provide a workforce that has sufficient qualifications to perform work as required by the U.S. Government, and those qualifications shall be maintained during the life of the contract. The Contractor shall replace, at no cost to the U.S. Government, any personnel, trained at U.S. Government expense, who leave the contract for other than U.S. Government convenience within the period of performance of the TO upon which the personnel begin to perform, and for which the training is also required for performance. Personnel so replaced shall be comparably trained at the Contractor's expense.

Question(s):

The offeror understand the requirement to provide qualified personnel to perform work requirements. Was paragraph 4.4.1 a requirement on the current contract?

Can the Government clarify the rationale for adding and placing this requirement on the small business community?

PWS 4.4.1 Government Provided Training states “Personnel so replaced shall be comparably trained at the Contractor's expense.” This is an unreasonable financial burden on any Offeror and especially a small business. With even 5% turnover in the workforce, that equates to thousands of hours (and tens of thousands of dollars) per year. This financial burden was not placed on large business previous contract, why would government implement this requirement on small business? Recommend government delete this requirement.

Answer: This paragraph has been removed from the PWS. However, all personnel must meet the minimum qualifications as established in the PWS for their respective positions at time of hire.

44. Question: Attachment 5 TO 0001 PWS. Section 6.2.1 states that, "All contractor positions require Support Cadre Training Course (Government provided)." Can the USG confirm whether or not the cost of this Government-required training and labor is the responsibility of the USG?

Answer: As stated in the PWS, this training is provided by the Government. It is expected that this training would occur during regular business hours.

45. Question: Attachment I (Base PWS), Page 8, para 1.8.2: Base PWS paragraph

1.8.2 states, “Extended Work Week. In some circumstances, i.e. practical exercises, field training exercises, exercises requiring travel, the normal working hours may vary. Hours in excess of 80 hours/two weeks are considered an

Extended Work Week (EWW); requirements with EWW will be specified in detail in each individual TO.”

Q1: Will the Government confirm that the Extended Work Week threshold for

Service Contact Act/Wage Determined positions is 40 hours per week rather than

80 hours/two weeks?

Answer: In accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act employees covered by the Act (unless exempt) must receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. An extended work week is defined as a definite schedule of hours longer than the regular workweek for a temporary period. Also, see the

Service Contract Labor Standards clauses (FAR 52.222-41 and 52.222-42)

46. Question: Attachment I (Base PWS), Page 45, para 6.5:Base PWS 6.5 states, “The contractor shall assist in development of training scenarios, Computer

Based Training, Distance Learning, Playable on Demand (podcast) videos and filming of scenarios for use in class presentations and support of live flight training missions...”

Q1: Will the Government confirm whether the Computer Based Training or

Distance Learning requires Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI) and, if so, at what IMI level?

Answer: No, it doesn’t require IMI instruction and there is no IMI certification level requirement.

47. Question: Attachment 5 TO 0001 PWS, Page 40, para 6.3: Throughout PWS paragraph 6.3 and subparagraphs, the Government requires troubleshooting and maintenance of computers, AV and SW applications. However, there is no identification of the type of equipment to be maintained or serviced nor the historical Level of Effort (LOE) for troubleshooting.

Q1: Will the Government provide equipment information and historical LOE?

Q2: Will there be a requirement for cybersecurity/IA inspections on UAS equipment / networks?

Answer: Q1 answer: The Government and contractors track equipment but not historical data. As such, the Government cannot provide this information. PWS paragraph 6.3.20.1 lists examples of the typical audiovisual footprint to support this requirement.

Q2 answer: The S-6 section constantly inspect and check computers and IT equipment every time the Government come in contact with the equipment. Any inspections of IA will be conducted by the Network Enterprise Center (NEC) on

Fort Huachuca.

48. Question: Attachment I Base PWS. The paragraph numbers in the first line

(6.1.3, 6.1.7, 6.1.8, and 6.2) appear to reference incorrect PWS sections. Can the USG update these paragraph numbers to reflect the correct positions that require SECRET clearances?

Answer: PWS references updated.

49. Question: Attachment G DD254. In continuation of Block 13, Section 1.5.5.1

Security Clearances, the paragraphs listed (4.1.3, 4.1.7, and 4.2) appear to be incorrect references. Can the USG correct the paragraph numbers referencing the positions that require Secret clearances?

Answer: The DD254 will be revised to reflect this proper paragraphs once PWS revisions are complete.

50. Question: Attachment 5 TO 0001 PWS. Section 6.2.1 states that, "Contractor shall perform the required operator level maintenance on all contractor utilized equipment." Can the USG first clarify or provide examples of "contractor utilized equipment?" Second, can the USG define the scope of the operator level maintenance required on that equipment?

Answer: An example would be that spotters may be required to operate a

HMMWV which would require a preventative maintenance daily be accomplished

IAW the technical manual (added to the PWS). The contractor would have been licensed IAW the contractor's driver training program (Base PWS paragraph

6.4.4).

51. Question: Attachment 5 TO 0001 PWS. Section 6.3.5 states that, "Contractor shall provide orientation and training for all users to learn and understand the information and communications systems utilized within the command supporting operational requirements with minimal oversight and distractions of co-workers.

Also provides training and written documentation for command-standard software applications and packages." Can the USG define the scope of the training required, in terms of the number of annual training sessions and the approximate duration of each session?

Answer: See PWS paragraph 1.11. It is anticipated that this training will occur during regular business hours and the duration varies with each course.

52. Question: Attachment I Base PWS. Section 6.3.8.20 states that the Contractor shall, "Perform on-site user level maintenance/part replacement of Government provided classroom audiovisual equipment within 2 business days." Can the

USG confirm that replacement parts will be provided as GFE?

Answer: Replacement parts will be provided by the Government at time of need and will not be considered GFE. Contractor is required to coordinate with the

Property Book Officer to track inventory processed for replacement, repair, or turn in, and maintain inventory of the provided parts.

53. Question: Attachment I Base PWS. Section 6.3.8 states that IT Network

Administration personnel shall, "Perform one time per month preventive maintenance of each installed TRADOC ECP classroom audiovisual equipment to include but not limited to:" and then begins a list of requirements. This intent of this section seems to focus on the maintenance of the ECP classroom A/V equipment, but Subsections 6.3.8.28, 6.3.8.29, and 6.3.8.30 cover overarching minimum certification requirements for IT Network Administration personnel.

Can the Government confirm whether or not these certification requirements apply only to the ECP classroom A/V equipment task? Also, can the

Government confirm if all IT Network Administration personnel must possess all certifications, or if the IT Network Administration group as a whole must cover the certification requirements?

Answer: The contractor should provide a technical approach to meeting the requirements of the PWS. The certification requirements apply to the IT Network

Administration personnel. Each IT Network Administration personnel shall have all of the requirements listed in PWS Paragraph 6.3.19.

54. Question: Attachment 05 TO 0001 PWS. Sections 6.2.1 through 6.2.9 require that specific roles require the Instructor Operator Course. Can the USG confirm whether or not the cost of this Government-required training and labor is the responsibility of the USG?

Answer: PWS paragraph 6.2.6 has been updated to reflect the Instructor

Operator Course as Government Provided.

55. Question: Attachment K AR 95-20. The link to the Excel copy of the Procedures

Review Guide does not function properly.

Answer: This link to the Procedures Review Guide has been removed and incorporated as an attachment to the solicitation.

56. Question: Compliance Matrix: Column B refers to specific paragraphs in the

Solicitation that are not marked appropriately, specifically Paragraph References:

11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 12.1, 12.2 and 14.3. Can these be clarified?

Answer: The compliance matrix has been updated.

57. Question: In the Cost Price Workbook Tab, Phase-in is shown as a 12 month long, FFP CLIN. In the PWS, it is required to be completed in 120 days.

Q1: Is the 12 months indicated in the tab an error?

Answer: The Cost/Price Workbook has been updated to reflect a 3 month (90 days) phase-in. The PWS has been updated to reflect 90 days as well.

58. Question: Attachment 4: Row #8: The note for Column D indicates the government anticipates all labor categories to be exempt. Can the government provide their anticipated exemption category for the following labor categories that justified this note?

Ground Flight Observers

Flight Line Operations (possibly First Responder Exemption)

Mission Support

Training Material Support

Logistics Support-Maintenance Training Tool Room

Logistics Specialists

Answer: Column D is requiring the offeror to state if the labor category is exempt or non-exempt. The column has been renamed the column in an attempt to be more clear.

59. Question: Attachment 4: Sheet “Labor Rates and TPCP” Row #9: In addition to the government estimated hours, can the offeror propose different hours on a separate spreadsheet?

Answer: No. For evaluation purposes, offerors are to only propose against the provided values in the workbook.

60. Question: Attachment 4: Sheet “Labor Rates and TPCP” Row #10: Row #10 states:

Columns L, Q, V…: The proposed Direct Rates, (after Year 1) shall be the previous years' Direct Rate multiplied by the Government provided Escalation

Rate.

If year 2-7 are calculated as above, what is the purpose of filling in Year 2-7 of the “Indirect Rates” Sheet?

Answer: Indirect rates will be bound in accordance with B.1 and incorporated into the contract for future task order evaluation.

61. Question: Attachment 4: Sheet “Labor Rates and TPCP” Row #12: Can the government clarify what the highlighted numbers in the following statements refer to? They do not seem to correspond to any specific labor category.

For Labor Categories 21-36, the Government will utilize the "Secret Clearance" version of the category for the purposes of Cost/Price evaluation; offerors are still required to populate the yellow highlighted cells for the "Top Secret" version of the categories (22, 24, etc.)

Answer: Reference has been removed. There is no Top Secret requirement.

62. Question: The Government has provided plug numbers for Travel and ODCs, but does not require offerors to burden those plug numbers with appropriate indirect burdens. Recommend adding cells to the spreadsheet to require offerors to apply appropriate indirect burdens for evaluation purposes.

Answer: Travel and ODC amounts are derived from government estimates including burdens for evaluation purposes only. That said, the plug numbers have been revised.

63. Question: Attachment 4 Cost/Price Workbook. In its current form, the Labor

Rates and TPCP Tab only includes those labor categories listed in

Technical_Exhibit_2-UAS_Labor_Cat._Description which does not include

Program Management Office support. If offerors add Program Management

Office support to the spreadsheet, what level of effort should offerors include in

Column F for each added labor category for evaluation purposes?

Answer: The Cost/Price Workbook has been revised to add a Program Manager to the spreadsheet with 2,080 hours. Additionally, lines have been added to the

“Labor Rates and TEP” (renamed) of the Cost/Price Workbook to allow for an offeror to propose a Program Management Team as a direct cost if they chose to do so.

64. Question: Attachment 6 UAS Course Data. Will the USG provide FY18 UAS

Course Data?

Answer: Attachment 6 has been removed. Student throughput numbers (1 May

18 to 30 April 19) are incorporated into TO 0001 PWS (Attachment 05). Also see

Attachment J which incorporates the Course Management Plans (CMP). The data reflected in the CMP are expected to remain valid through fiscal year 18.

65. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, First PRS Table, PWS Section 6.2.2 and

6.2.3. For clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from, "No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 70-79% on quarterly instructor evaluation" to "No more than 20% of instructors receive a score below 80% on quarterly instructor evaluation."

Answer: The PRS has been revised significantly. Please see the revised version with final RFP.

66. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, First PRS Table, PWS Section 6.2.4. For clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from, "80% of all instructors have completed the EP/DP MOI Process of all equipment and are certified to instruct IAW the PWS" to "at least 80% of all instructors have completed the EP/DP MOI Process of all equipment and are certified to instruct

IAW the PWS."

67. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, First PRS Table, PWS Section 6.2.4. For

"No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 70-79% on quarterly instructor evaluation" to "No more than 20% of instructors receive a score below

80% on quarterly instructor evaluation."

68. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, First PRS Table, PWS Section 6.2.5. For

"90% of all instructors complete the MOI Process timely and maintain currency

IAW AR 95-20" to "at least 90% of all instructors complete the MOI Process timely and maintain currency IAW AR 95-20."

69. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, First PRS Table, PWS Section 6.2.6. For

"75% of all contract instructors complete the MOI process timely and maintain currency IAW AR 95-20" to "at least 75% of all contract instructors complete the

MOI process timely and maintain currency IAW AR 95-20."

70. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, First PRS Table, PWS Section 6.2.10. For

"No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 70-79% on quarterly

71. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, First PRS Table, PWS Section 6.2.9. For

"No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 70-79% on quarterly

72. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.2 UGS Common Core PRS Matrix. In the

Quality row under the Very Good rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from "All instructors receive an 80 - 94% score on their quarterly instructor evaluation" to "All instructors receive an at least an 80% score on their quarterly instructor evaluation."

73. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.2 UGS Common Core PRS Matrix. In the

Quality row under the Satisfactory rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from "No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 70-79% on quarterly instructor evaluation" to "All instructors receive at least a 70% score on their quarterly instructor evaluation but no more than 20% of those instructors receive a score of 70-79% on the evaluation."

74. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.2 UGS Common Core PRS Matrix. In the

Quality row under the Marginal rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from "No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 60-69% on their quarterly instructor evaluation" to "All instructors receive at least a 60% score on their quarterly instructor evaluation but no more than 20% of those instructors receive a score of 60-69% on the evaluation."

75. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.3 USO Common Core PRS Matrix. In the that the USG change the requirement from "All instructors receive an 80 - 94%

76. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.3 USO Common Core PRS Matrix. In the that the USG change the requirement from "No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 70-79% on quarterly instructor evaluation" to "All instructors

77. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.4 UAS Shadow Mission System

Instruction PRS Matrix. In the Quality row under the Marginal rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from

"No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 60-69% on their quarterly instructor evaluation" to "All instructors receive at least a 60% score on their quarterly instructor evaluation but no more than 20% of those instructors receive a score of 60-69% on the evaluation."

78. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.4 UAS Shadow Mission System

Instruction PRS Matrix. In the Quality row under the Very Good rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from

"90% of all instructors have completed the EP/DP MOI Process of all equipment and are certified to instruct IAW the PWS" to "at least 90% of all instructors have

79. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.4 UAS Shadow Mission System

Instruction PRS Matrix. In the Quality row under the Very Good rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from

"All instructors receive an 80 - 94% score on their quarterly instructor evaluation" to "All instructors receive an at least an 80% score on their quarterly instructor evaluation."

80. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.4 UAS Shadow Mission System

Instruction PRS Matrix. In the Quality row under the Satisfactory rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from

"80% of all instructors have completed the EP/DP MOI Process of all equipment and are certified to instruct IAW the PWS" to "at least 80% of all instructors have

81. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.4 UAS Shadow Mission System clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from

"No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 70-79% on quarterly instructor evaluation" to "All instructors receive at least a 70% score on their a score of 70-79% on the evaluation."

82. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.4 UAS Shadow Mission System clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from

"70% of all instructors have completed the EP/DP MOI Process of all equipment and are certified to instruct IAW the PWS" to "at least 70% of all instructors have

83. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.4 UAS Shadow Mission System clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from

"No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 60-69% on quarterly instructor evaluation" to "All instructors receive at least a 60% score on their a score of 60-69% on the evaluation."

84. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.5 UAS Flight Operations Instruction PRS

Matrix. In the Quality row under the Very Good rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from "95% of all instructors complete the MOI Process timely and maintain currency IAW AR 95-20" to "At least 95% of all instructors complete the MOI Process timely and maintain currency IAW AR 95-20."

85. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.5 UAS Flight Operations Instruction PRS

Matrix. In the Quality row under the Satisfactory rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from "90% of all instructors complete the MOI Process timely and maintain currency IAW AR 95-20" to "At least 90% of all instructors complete the MOI Process timely and maintain currency IAW AR 95-20."

86. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.5 UAS Flight Operations Instruction PRS

Matrix. In the Quality row under the Marginal rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from "No more than 5% persons failing to meet their APART, currency and MOI process requirements" to

"No more than 5% of the instructors fail to meet their APART, currency and MOI process requirements."

87. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.5 UAS Flight Operations Instruction PRS

Matrix. In the Quality row under the Unsatisfactory rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from "More than 5% instructors failing to meet their APART, currency and MOI process requirements" to "More than 5% of the instructors fail to meet their APART, currency and MOI process requirements."

88. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.6 UAS IO Course Instruction PRS Matrix.

In the Quality row under the Unsatisfactory rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from "More than 25% persons failing to meet their APART, currency and MOI process requirements" to "More than 25% of the instructors fail to meet their APART, currency and MOI process requirements."

89. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.6 UAS IO Course Instruction PRS Matrix.

In the Quality row under the Unsatisfactory rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from "More than 25% instructors failing their standardization evaluation less than 79%" to "More than

25% of the instructors fail to obtain a score of at least 80% on their standardization evaluation."

90. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.9 UAS IFR Instruction PRS Matrix. In the that the USG change the requirement from "All instructors receive an 80 - 94%

91. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.9 UAS IFR Instruction PRS Matrix. In the that the USG change the requirement from "No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 70-79% on quarterly instructor evaluation" to "All instructors

92. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.9 UAS IFR Instruction PRS Matrix. In the

Quality row under the Marginal rating, for clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from "No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 60-69% on their quarterly instructor evaluation" to "All instructors receive at least a 60% score on their quarterly instructor evaluation but no more than 20% of those instructors receive a score of 60-69% on the evaluation."

93. Question: Technical Exhibit 1 PRS, 6.2.10 UAS Warrant Officers Course clarification purposes, recommend that the USG change the requirement from

"No more than 20% of instructors receive a score of 70-89% on quarterly instructor evaluation" to "All instructors receive at least a 70% score on their a score of 70-89% on the evaluation."

94. Question: There is no mention of any Surge requirements in the draft documents.

If there is a surge requirement would this be addressed as a contract modification?

Answer: There are Training Resources Arbitration Panels (TRAPs) which may take place as either an upward or downward adjustment. These adjustments will result in a level of effort adjustment on CPFF Term CLINs, as appropriate.

95. Question: Can the Government provide a copy of the current Government Flight

Operations Procedure for Offeror review?

Answer: The Government will not provide the current Government Flight

Operations Procedure as it is proprietary information.

96. Question: In the Government-provided Labor Category Qualifications Tab, the

Government has listed the minimum qualifications for each Labor

Category. These minimum requirements do not clearly define the Government’s expectations for the Contractor to address the variance in experience inherent between entry, middle and senior-level employees on the program. Can the

Government confirm that the requirements stated in the PWS for each individual

Labor Category can be achieved by a workforce that meets these minimum qualifications? If not, can the Government define the levels of experience and requirements/certifications required for entry, middle and senior-level positions within each Labor Category? For example, an entry-level Platform Instructor

(UGS) may have the qualification and experience requirements listed in the

Labor Category Qualifications tab, but a mid-level Platform Instructor (UGS) may require a minimum of 4 years (versus 2) experience as an instructor in an

Aviation Field and have UAS experience as a requirement instead of as preferred, and a senior-level Platform Instructor (UGS) may require a minimum of

8 years (versus 2) experience as an instructor in an Aviation Field and have UAS experience as a requirement.

Answer: The USG is looking for the contractor to provide its technical approach in meeting the requirements of the PWS.

97. Question: The Draft PWS dated 18 Dec 15, Para 1.6.13.1 “Key Personnel,” made specific reference to the quality control manager and the training manager as key personnel. The revised PWS, Para 1.6 Personnel Requirements, however, states “The Contractor shall provide managerial supervisory technical, administrative and clerical personnel to accomplish all work described herein and as identified under the individual TOs." Did the USG intentionally remove the requirements for the quality control manager and training manager?

Answer: The PWS was since revised and is accurate.

98. Question: The referenced zip folder includes a Course Management Plan for the

2C-F117/556-F2 UAS Unit Commander & Staff Leaders Course. Is contractor support required for this Course? If so, can the USG clarify those requirements?

Answer: The Course Management Plan has been removed from the For

Reference documents.

99. Question: Is there a requirement for the Contractor to provide Flight Records

Clerk support as part of the Base PWS or Task Order 0001 PWS? If so, can the

USG clarify those requirements?

Answer: There is no requirement in the PWS for the contractor to provide this support to the Government.

100. Question: In the Attachment 04 Cost Price Workbook tab TO 0001 it is not clear how to populate this tab. For example; CLIN 0002 is asking for a monthly price for Instructors. However, the entire cost across all contract years for all labor categories is priced under tab “Labor Rates and TPCP”. The same issue for CLINS 0003, 0004, 0005, and 0006. Also, CLIN 0007 is also priced in the

“Labor Rates and TPCP” tab.

Will the government please provide instructions to fill out Tab “TO 0001”?

Answer: Instructional language has been added to the TO 0001 tab in the Cost

Price Workbook.

101. Question: Section L.6.2, Volume II: Factor 1 Government Flight Operations

Procedure. As potential Offerors are likely unfamiliar with the specific flight and ground operating procedures in or around the Ft. Huachuca operating area, and as the current Government flight Operations Procedures have not been provided as part of the Draft RFP package, responding to this requirement with the type of information required by AR 95-20 would greatly reduce the ability of non-incumbent team members to achieve a "Go" from the GFR, and thus give an unfair advantage to those Offerors that are currently operating at Ft. Huachuca. Therefore, can the Government clarify the type and/or level of detail it expects Offerors to include in their Government Flight Operations Procedures? I.e. is it the Government's expectation that Offerors will submit Flight and Ground procedures previously used on other contracts as an example, or possibly address how the Offerors will ensure compliance with each required section of AR 95-20?"

Answer: The GFR will not be looking for specifics on operations at Ft. Huachuca, but looking at whether or not an offeror can follow directions, and write to attachment K in AR 95-20. This is a determination of whether the Offeror “can” comply with the safety requirements of the contract, not “is” the Offeror in compliance with 95-20." Also, note this is no longer an evaluation factor. See

Solicitation paragraph L.6.1.8, M.8.0, and M.8.1

102. Question: Section L.6.3.3 states that Offerors are required to submit a

Quality Control Plan (QCP) as part of Volume III Program Management. This

Volume is subject to a 75-page limit as prescribed in The Proposal Structure

Table in Section L.5.0. Including the QCP in this page limit could unnecessarily force Offerors to include less content in the QCP in order to "save" those pages for use in other sections of Volume III. Would the Government consider excluding the QCP from the 75-page limit?

Answer: The Program Management Factor has been broken into Sub-factors.

The page limitation for QCP is 20 pages.

103. Section I: In accordance with the prescriptive clause for 52.219-4, this clause should be included "in solicitations and contracts for acquisitions conducted using full and open competition." Because the UAS IMS solicitation is being procured as a Small Business Set Aside, can the Government please confirm that 52.219-4 was included intentionally?

Answer: This clause was erroneously added and has been removed.