Government Responses_24Jan22.pdf

W900KK‐22‐R‐0003 Attachment J11

Relates To: (RFP or Attachment #/Section #/Page #

Question/Comment Government Response

Attachment J1 PWS/Section L.3.5.g.2

Can the government please remove the requirement at L.3.5.g.2 for DoD Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan holders to provide “the associated DCMA Small Business Subcontracting Program Compliance Reviews with the DCMA form 640”, and confirm it will accept provision only of the review’s audit rating letter inclusive of the rating provided to the contractor? Such a requirement is more stringent on a Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan holder than on “Other than Small Business” contractors who have undergone reviews for Individual Subcontracting Plans”

According to the DCMA Manual 2302‐01, titled "Small Business Programs Administration", dated 20 DEC 2021, the DCMA Small Business Compliance Group provides the compliance review results directly to each participant in the DoD Test Program for Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan every year on or before April 15th. Although the DCMA cover letter does list the final rating, the enclosed DCMA Form 640, titled "DCMA Small Business Subcontracting Program Compliance Review," provides complete details of the compliance review. If an Offeror is a participant in the DoD Test Program for Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan, the details within the DCMA Form 640 are critical to the Government's evaluation of the Offeror's compliance with FAR 52.219‐9 requirements as required in the RFP.

Attachment J1 PWS/Section L.3.7.3

DoD Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans (CSBSP) have been negotiated with and approved by DCMA, and cannot be adjusted in any manner. Will the government please confirm that Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan holders meet all Subcontracting Plan requirements with their submission of the approved plan, and are not required to meet the requirements from AFARS Appendix DD (Ref DFARS 219.708, DFARS 219.702‐70(c)(2), and DFARS 252.219‐7004)?”

Yes, participants in the DoD Test Program for Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan are NOT required to meet the requirements from AFARS Appendix DD (Ref DFARS 219.708, DFARS 219.702‐70(c)(2), and DFARS 252.219‐7004); an RFP amendment will be issued to clarify this language.

Attachment J1 PWS/Section L.3.5.g.3, L.3.5.g.4

Can the Government confirm that a CSP holder’s provision of SSRs for the preceding years and audit documents (required) for the preceding 3 years fully meets all requirements of L.3.5.g without further documentation being required?

RFP section L.3.5.g.2 will be amended to remove the requirement for participants in the DoD Test Program for Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan to submit Summary Subcontracting Report (SSR), from eSRS, for the past three (3) calendar years, from the release of the solicitation. However, participants in the DoD Test Program for Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan will still be required to provide a complete DCMA Form 640, "DCMA Small Business Subcontracting Program Compliance Review," showing the details of the review, for the past three (3) calendar years, from the release date of this solicitation. The requirements within RFP sections L.3.5.g.1, L.3.5.g.3, L.3.5.g.4, and L.3.5.g.5 will remain unchanged.

SF 33, Block 9

Would the Government please consider extending the due date for the submission of the proposal by one month to 2 March 2022? It would allow offerors additional time to better coordinate and work with their subcontractors in order to prepare a compliant proposal. The Government has extended the proposal submission due date to 22 February 2022.

Attachment J1 PWS /Section L.3.3.c and M.3.3.c

Will you revise Section L.3.3.c content requirements and section M.3.3.c evaluation criteria to remove JTA in accordance with PWS

3.17.8 revisions in the Nov 29 PWS where interoperability with JTA was removed from the final PWS? JTA language removed from Solicitation and Attachment J12, Traceability Matrix.

Attachment J1 Solicitation, Section J

Would the Government consider adding the current CAE IAM Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to the FSTSS RFP so that all offerors are aware of the prevailing wages in the area? The Government will not be incorporating CAE's CBA into the FSTSS RFP.

PWS, 8.4, Appendix D ‐ UH‐72A Task List

Task 72Z‐1194 'Perform Refueling Operations' as stated in the UH‐72 dATM is cold refuel authorized only. Is the Government's intent for the IOS operator to change fuel status at the IOS station? Concur, the intent is for IOS operator to change fuel status for this task.

PWS, 8.4, Appendix D ‐ UH‐72A Task List

Task 72Z‐2048 'Perform External (Sling) Load Operations and Task 72Z‐2052 'Perform Water Bucket Operations.' UH‐72A dATM, page 4‐96 through 4‐99 provide the Task, Condition, and Standard for Sling Load Operations. Under Training and Evaluation Requirements it states 'Training will be conducted in the aircraft' and 'Evaluation will be conducted in the aircraft.' UH‐72A dATM page 4‐100 through 4‐104 provide the Task, Condition, and Standard for Water Bucket Operations. Under Training and Evaluation Requirements it states 'Training will be conducted in the aircraft' and 'Evaluation will be conducted in the aircraft.' Please clarify if these two tasks are required to be trained in the simulator. The PWS task list will be revised to remove tasks 72Z‐2048 & 72Z‐2052.

PWS 3.9.5.15

The PWS states, "The simulation will simulate a GPS receiver display." Is it the Government’s intent that an external GPS receiver will be used to synchronize radio timing or that a GPS display be provided? Does the Government intend for all parts of the simulator system, including audio and video, be synchronized, and can the Government confirm that a clock internal to the simulator is an acceptable solution?

PWS paragraphs 3.9.5.15 and 3.9.5.15.1 revised for clarity. Clocks internal to the systems are sufficient provided the capability allows for time manipulation for training.

PWS 3.9.15.1

The PWS states, "The GPS display will provide accurate timing for the HAVEQUICK, HF NOE COMM radios, Voice recorder, Workstation clock(s) for ZULU and local time, and Meteorological Sensors." Can the Government confirm that simulation of the ETVS communication system is an acceptable solution?

PWS paragraphs 3.9.5.15 and 3.9.5.15.1 revised for clarity. A simulation capability similar to the ETVS is an acceptable solution.

PWS 3.9.5.17

The PWS states, "The tower simulator replicate a controller console for a minimum of three operators with stand‐alone ATNAVICS radar control console that supports two operators in an ASR/PAR configuration." Is it the Government’s intent that some ATNAVICS radar control systems be co‐located with the Tower simulator?

PWS Paragraph 3.9.5.17 revised. The Tower and Radar simulations are not to be co‐ located. The Tower simulation shall contain a capability that replicates the airtracks similar to local area radar tracks, futhering training realism.

PWS 3.9.5.22

The PWS states, "The simulated data display and control will provide access to and visibility of all simulated voice and control devices, NOB…" Can the Government clarify what NOB stands for? PWS corrected to reflect Non‐Directional Radio Beacon (NDB)

PWS 4.1.3

The PWS states, "Yano Hall BLDG 6005 ‐ 2 rooms currently holding RADAR trainers 29 feet X 38 feet (each room)." The Government‐ provided drawing shows there are more classrooms. Can the contractor propose the use of more than 2 classrooms?

The 2 rooms identified in the PWS are the only space available for this effort as stated in the PWS.

PWS 4.1.4

The PWS states, "Braman Hall BLDG 6002 ‐ 7 rooms currently holding tower trainers." The Government‐provided drawing only shows 6 rooms available for tower trainers. Is there an updated drawing for Braman? Additionally, we understand Braman Hall is building 6022, not 6002 as stated in the PWS.

PWS revised to reflect correct building number. An updated drawing will be provided, via email, to the POC of those companies who previously requested the facility specification documents and were vetted through security. The drawing will be emailed within 24 hours of the Amendment 0002 posting.

Are any Set Asides for WOSB or 8A? The FSTSS acquisition is a full and open competition with no set‐asides.

Solicitation/Section L.3.3.a/Page and Solicitation/Section M.3.3.a/Page 135

Per sections L & M, Factor 1 Technical Volume 1‐Subfactor 1 includes relevant PWS paragraphs including 2.2. (Business Relations), 2.3.

(Subcontract Management), and 2.4. (Contract Administration and Management).

Since these three sections deal with the conduct of our management activities, will the Government consider removing these requirements and evaluation of these PWS sections from the Technical Volume Subfactor 1 and place them in Factor 2 Program Management Volume II, Subfactor 1 (Program Management Plan)?

The Government has considered this and determined these sections will remain as part of the Technical Volume.

Solicitation/Section F.3/Page 73

�Sec on F.3 states, "Services Accredita on and Declara on of RFT shall be no later than 1 April 2023, with the excep on of the AH 64E Individual/Crew training requirements. The Government recognizes that there are current, available solutions that provide capabilities for all PWS requirements except for the AH‐64E. The Government also recognizes that Offerors may propose developmental efforts to satisfy the AH‐64E requirements, which may not be RFT by 1 April 2023. Therefore, the Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal based on the cost, schedule, and performance aspects of their proposed AH‐64E solution."

The current Air Traffic Control capabilities available are Government owned. In order to satisfy the FSTSS requirement of contractor provided capabilities, we will propose implementation, testing, and accreditation of a new contractor provided Air Traffic Control capability. Will the Government modify the exclusion to the April 1, 2023 RFT date, which currently specifies AH‐64 E Individual/Crew training, to include Air Traffic Control and also keep the government provided systems in service until the contractor provided capabilities are RFT?

The Government will evaluate the proposed solution implementation plan to satisfy the ATC services. The Government will take into consideration the impacts of the transition of capabilities from the Government owned equipment to the contractor provided capabilities. During the transition of capabilities, ATC training will continue with the Government owned systems to allow for installation, testing, accreditation, and Instructor familiarization training. As stated in the PWS paragraph 3.3 ‐ Program Management "The contractor shall ensure that the PMP milestone chart includes all critical phase‐in tasks that must be accomplished and the dates they must be accomplished by in order to be 100% ready to assume full performance.” The proposed solution should provide an IMS that details activities that will begin on 01 April 2023 to transition the existing training capabilities from the Government owned systems to the Contractor provided ATC capabilities, while ensuring no impacts to training.

PWS/para 3.8.2.10/page 27 and Solicitation/Section F.3/Page 73

Paragraph 3.8.2.10 states, "The training environment capabilities for the AAVSs shall include IOSs; BMC stations; training debrief capabilities; After Action Review (AAR) capabilities; SAF; observer/controller (OC) stations; RP stations/capabilities to include UAS, environmental and meteorological conditions (including day; night; adverse weather conditions; and blowing snow, dust and sand);

the insertable degraded operations, malfunctions and failures required to support task training including maintenance test pilot training; and nigh vision device/system capabilities."

The current Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) capability is Government owned. In order to satisfy the FSTSS requirement of contractor provided UAS capabilities, we will propose implementation and testing of a new contractor provided UAS capability. Will the Government modify the exclusion to the April 1, 2023 RFT date, which currently specifies AH‐64 E Individual/Crew training, to include the government owned UAS (MUSE) and also keep the government provided systems in service until the contractor provided capabilities are RFT?

The Government will take into consideration the impacts of the transition of capabilities from the Government owned equipment to the contractor provided capabilities. During the transition of capabilities, training will continue with the Government owned systems to allow for installation, testing, accreditation, and familiarization training. As stated in the PWS paragraph 3.3 ‐ Program Management, "The contractor shall ensure that the PMP milestone chart includes all critical phase‐in tasks that must be accomplished and the dates they must be accomplished by in order to be 100% ready to assume full performance.” The proposed solution should provide an IMS that details activities that will begin on 01 April 2023 to transition the existing training capabilities from the Government owned systems to the Contractor provided capabilities, while ensuring no impacts to training.

Attachment J1 PWS/Section 2.4.3/Page 14 and Solicitation/Section I/Page 83

We recommend PWS Section 2.4.3 to be updated so the required information is consistent with the required reporting information contained in DFARS 252.204‐7023 Alternate I, which is incorporated into the Section I of the solicitation.

PWS Section 2.4.3 has been updated to reference DFARS 252.204‐7023 ‐ Alt I Solicitation/Section L.3.7.3/Page

Can the Small Business Subcontracting Plan be submitted as a separate file?

Yes, under Volume V.

Solicitation/Section L.2.6/Page 122 We assume the IMS is outside of the page count for the Program Management Volume given it is being submitted as an MS Project file. Please confirm. The IMS is outside of the page count and Section L.2.5 has been updated.

Solicitation/Section L.3.6.8/Page

In RFP Section L.3.6.8 a reference is made to Table L‐1, but we do not see Table L‐1 in the RFP.

Section L.3.6.8. has been updated to reference only Section L.1.3 and L.2. The reference to Table L‐1 has been removed.

RFP/Section L.3.5/Page 125

The Small Business Participation Plan requires a number of supporting artifacts to include CPARs and Summary Subcontracting Reports. These files can be rather large in size. Would the Government consider allow including these supporting artifacts as attachments or appendices to the Small Business Participation Plan instead of embedded images from the PDFs of these reports in the core Small Business Participation Plan?

Yes, supporting artifacts may be included as attachments or appendices to the Small Business Participation Plan.

Solicitation/Section L.2.6/p. 122

L.2.6 states "Illustrations (e.g. images or diagrams) shall use a font size of no less than 12‐point and may be landscape." There are certain screenshots specifically reflecting an actual (unadulterated) view, from directly within a solution or database, that may include text (secondary to the main idea being conveyed) in a font of less than 12‐point. Would the Government please consider/confirm that such screenshots be exempt from this font limitation, for the sake of showing aspects of our solution in as natural/accurate of a state as possible? Screenshots are exempt from this font limitation.