Amendment_0003 _Q A_W91247-15-R-0005_SATMO_Aviation_IDIQ.pdf

Aviation Questions W91247-15-R-0005

1. Please clarify whether or not a small business can sub to a prime and also submit a bid on its own for the SB portion?

Government Response: Yes, a small business can be a sub for a prime Contractor. Also, the same small business may submit a proposal of its own.

2. Has there been any movement on the Risk Mitigation RFI posted for the SATMO IDIQ. Will those companies that submitted information IAW the RFI receive any feedback.

Government Response: The current SATMO Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) have been extended until 26 March 2017. All responses received that were submitted in accordance with the instructions of the RFI were incorporated into the Justification and Approval, posted on FedBiz Ops.

3. (1) Section L Proposal Instructions re: Vol cross referencing

· Section L.2.A States: “ … all information shall be confined to the appropriate volume to facilitate independent evaluation. Proposals which do not follow these guidelines …. will be eliminated from further consideration for award”

· Section L.3.A. referencing “Each volume”…States: “…cross references should be utilized to preclude unnecessary duplication of data between sections.”

· Proposal Instructions and Evaluation Criteria also emphasize the importance to “provide convincing rationale and methodology to address how the offeror intends to meet requirements” and not just that we will meet requirements.

Issue: · Vol III Responses to STOs have a page limit of 20 pages each. If all the specific supporting PWS process “hows” such as Quality Control, security, travel, life support, training, staffing, management organization (things that are also covered in the Vol II ID/IQ PWS) … and if the Vol III proposal content cannot reference back to Vol II inputs … then 20 pages will probably not be sufficient to cover all the supporting details and also address other requirements such as the necessary staffing tables, training plans, and schedules. Allow cross-referencing between Proposal Volumes to eliminate unnecessary duplication and preserve current, Volume page limitations. If cross-referencing requirements remain as currently stated…increase Vol III STO response page limits to at least 30 pages each.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.3. Proposal Format, Volume III page limit has been increased to 30 pages.

4. Section L.3, Volume II, Factors 1-2. Factor 1 contains four (4) major approach requirements.

Three of the four are multifaceted management challenges that will require space to adequately address. Factor 2 requires Offerors to fully address all the elements of the PWS.

Part 5 of the PWS alone has nine (9) major elements. Additionally, Tab C of Volume 2 must contain a page counted Executive Summary. If all the elements of Factor 1, Factor 2, and a compliant Executive Summary are distributed across 40 pages, the average amount of space that can be devoted to any required element of the Volume II response is just a little over two pages. We very respectfully submit that amount of space is not adequate to present, as an example, a compliant “Management Plan” or “Staffing Plan,” as required in Factor 1.

We fully understand the Government’s desire to receive concise, well thought out proposals.

Given the compliance rationale above, would the Government please consider increasing the page limit for Volume II back to 50 pages?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.3(A), Table 3, Volume II page limit has been increased to 50 pages.

5. Section L.4.B.(3).(a) states “The offeror shall demonstrate the ability to organize, so as to successfully manage and accomplish the primary and supplemental tasks identified in the PWS.“ There are no “primary and supplemental” tasks in the PWS. Is the Government referring to the Specific Tasks in Part 5 as the “primary” tasks, and the tasks/requirements under paragraph 1.6 General Information as the supplemental tasks?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, the supplemental tasks are located in Paragraph 1.6 of the solicitation and the primary tasks are the specific tasks located in Part 5 of the solicitation.

6. Price Volume Travel Pricing:

· Section L.4.E. (2)(d)(iii) States: “Although the Sample TOs may depict travel requirements, for purposes of proposal evaluations Offerors shall NOT propose any travel costs in its proposals.”

· Peru STO Part 4, Section 4.1.1 Travel states; “The Contractor shall be responsible for all Contractor employees’ travel expenses (i.e., airfare, lodging, and meals) and shall those costs in its proposal.”

· Please confirm requirement for Price Volume travel cost pricing. If travel will not be a requirement in the Price Volume, is it possible to clarify evaluation process re: proposal travel variations?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4(E) 2.d.(iii) Factor 5 Price. There is no STO relating to Peru.

7. Volume 5 Tab A.1/A.2: Pricing

Issue: Tab A.1/A.2: Pricing requests maximum price, any time/anywhere, good for five years

· Wide range of technical qualifications while at the same time giving range of technical qualification will lead cherry picking. For example, in the Peru STO, qualifications for the lead trainer ranges from E7 to Warrant Officer and assistant form E6 to Warrant Officer. It is our position that there is a huge difference in qualifications in such a wide range of acceptable qualifications and this needs to be tightened down to allow selection of low cost per labor category.

· Failure to tighten this will result in companies bidding highly qualified personnel to win task orders and in reality sending cheapest solution to meet costs

Establishment of minimum/maximum pricing for each labor category. Allow cross-referencing between Proposal Volumes to eliminate unnecessary duplication and preserve current, Volume page limitations.

Government Response: Proposal volumes shall be submitted IAW instructions in Section L of the RFP. Also, there is no STO relating to Peru.

8. Section L.4.B.(3)(a) Factor 1: Management/Teaming/Staffing Approach. The fourth major element of the instructions for this Factor read, “Each offerors shall submit a Staffing Plan that demonstrate which labor categories the offeror proposes to execute the mission requirements from the list of labor categories provided in Attachment 1 – CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix.” By the use of the word “which,” is the Government asking us to either propose to use all the prescribed labor categories, or to select and identify those we plan to eliminate for use on the contract? Volume 5 requires us to propose fully loaded labor CAP rates in Attachment 1. Will the Government please clarify what this statement in Factor 1 referenced above is asking us to do?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4.B.(3)(a) Factor 1. The section has been revised and now states that, “Each offeror shall describe their staffing approach so as to demonstrate their ability to execute the PWS mission requirements utilizing labor categories provided in the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix.”

9. Section L.4.B.(3)(a) Factor 1: Management/Teaming/Staffing Approach. When we read the specific instructions (“shall” statements) in this section, we see specific instructions regarding “Management” and “Staffing” approaches. We do not, however, see any specific instructions regarding “Teaming” approaches. What specific aspects of Teaming Approach does the Government desire to be included in this section of the proposal?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4(B)(3). Factor 1 has been revised to include instructions and evaluation information for “Teaming”.

10. Section L.4.D(1), Volume IV – Factor 4: Past Performance. On page 72, the instructions read:

“Recent and relevant past performance shall be discussed for the prime offeror and any “team members” or teaming partners” proposed to support this contract. The offeror is provided an opportunity to submit a list of no more than three (3) of the Offeror’s most recent and relevant past performance information on projects: similar in size, scope, and complexity to the services being procured under this solicitation), performed for Government agencies and/or commercial customers within the last three (3) years from the solicitation release date.”

Q1: Based on these instructions, if a team were to be composed of the prime offeror plus 10 subcontractors, does the Government expect to see a “discussion” of thirteen (13) past performance projects in Volume IV – 3 from the prime and 1 from each subcontractor – within the 20 page limit?

Government response: The team includes the subcontractors. Section L.4.D.(1) states to list no more than three of the offeror’s past performance reports.

Q2: What does the word “discussed” mean?

Government response: In this solicitation the Government’s expectation from the meaning of the word “discussed” is for the offeror to provide a detailed description and narrative of recent and relevant past performance.

Q3: Does the government desire for specific contractual data and narrative to be presented?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4(D)(1). Yes, provide a detailed description and narrative of recent and relevant past performance.

Q4: Will the Government provide a particular past performance template? If not, will the Government accept contractor-developed formats for the required contract past performance information? We respectfully submit that a MICC or SATMO-produced template would be very beneficial.

Government response: Past Performance is an evaluation factor. Offerors should examine Section L submission requirements and Section M evaluation procedures. Provided it otherwise complies with the solicitation requirements, the Government will accept a contractor developed template.

11. Section L – E.3.a. Cost/Price and Supporting Information

RFP language: "Where an Offeror proposes to use subcontractors, the Offeror is required to provide pricing data in support of these subcontracts to the same level of detail and information as required in the Offeror’s price proposal. Proprietary subcontractor data may be submitted directly to the Government in accordance with these Proposal Preparation Instructions " Question : If Subcontractor pricing is incorporated into the Prime's Cap Labor Rate Price Matrix, i.e., Subcontractor and Prime rates are blended to provide CAP Hourly Labor Rate, are subcontractors still required to provide sealed submissions directly to the Government?

Government response: See Amendment 0003. Section L.4(E). Factor , Price, has been revised in its entirety.

12. Section L – E.3.a.2.e Subcontracts, RFP language: "As part of the cost proposal, list each subcontractor price separately. Obtain fully disclosed cost proposals from each subcontractor using the appropriate allocation of the government provided estimates for the same cost element breakout described above. " Question : If a Subcontractor is not being proposed to support either STO 1, STO 2 or STO 3, but only the Cap Rate Matrix is it the Government's intention for subcontractors to submit a sealed submission to the

Government response: See Amendment 0003. Section L.4(E). Factor 5, Price, has been

13. RFP Section L.1.12 Proposal Information - Note and Section L.2.B Proposal Submission

Instructions, p69, Section L.1.12 of the RFP states that proposals are to be submitted electronically through the ARMDEC SAFE system, but Section L.2.B states submissions are to be e-mailed to the Contract Specialist with a courtesy copy to the Contracting Officer with no reference to the ARMDEC SAFE system. Please confirm method of submission for Prime and for Subcontractor pricing.

Government response: Proposal will be submitted utilizing the U.S Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) SAFE ACCESS FILE EXCHANGE

(SAFE).

14. RFP Section L.1.12 Proposal Information - Note: ARMDEC SAFE Instructions, p69, The

RFP states that Description of the file should identify the total number of files being submitted. Please advise if zip file submissions will be accepted. If so, please advise if one zip file submission for the proposal in its entirety is permitted or if each volume should be a separate zip file.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.1(A)(12). Zip files are not permitted.

15. RFP Section L.3.A Proposal Format, p70, The RFP states that the file names should be labeled "Company-Initial" for the first submission. As this naming convention does not allow for Volume and Document indication please advise desired naming convention (i.e.:

"Company Name-Initial-Volume No.-Document Title")

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.3(A) has been revised to include Volume and Document Title.

16. RFP Section L.4.A.1 Proposal Content Volume I-RFP Documents and General Information, p70, The RFP states that the original signed SF 33 is to be submitted. As this is an electronic submission please confirm that a signed copy is permitted.

Government response: The copy of the SF 33 submitted electronically must be signed by the offeror.

17. L.4. Proposal Content, A, p70, At industry day, it was stated that contract award is scheduled for 02/26/2016. Suggest you change the statement that "All proposals shall be valid for 120 calendar days." to "All proposals shall be valid for 280 calendar days."

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4(A)(1). Calendar days have been increased from 120 to 280.

18. L.4. Proposal Contents, A, Tab B, p71, Please clarify what is meant by proposal solutions.

Government response: The proposal solution is the offeror’s approach to meet the terms and conditions of the RFP.

19. L.4. Proposal Contents, A, 2, Tab D, p71, Please clarify, in the context of email submission, what is required in the list of the proposal package requirements.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4(A)(2). A list of the content of the offerors proposal.

20. L.4. Proposal Contents, B, 3, p71, Please clarify if there are missing paragraphs L.4.B (3)(a) through L.4.B (3)(f) or if the list is in error and only (a) and (b) have been provided correctly.

Government response: See Amendment 0003. Section L.4,(B)(3), Volume II - Factors 1 – 2, The paragraphs have been renumbered to “L.4.B (3)(a) and L.4.B(3)(b)”.

21. L.4 Proposal Contents, B (a), p71, The requirement states that Each offerors shall submit a Staffing Plan that demonstrate which labor categories the offeror proposes to execute the mission requirements from the list of labor categories provided in Attachment 1 - CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix. Please clarify if you are referring to Suggested rates and these categories do not all have to be priced.

Government response: See revisions to L.4; see also Q&A 8. No pricing shall be listed in Volume II. All labor categories in Attachment 1 – CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix, shall be priced at CAP rates in Attachment 1, and those labor categories proposed in Volume III shall be priced at CAP rates in Volume III.

22. L.4 Proposal Contents, C, Intro paragraph, i-iv, p72, Please clarify if addressing items i-iv equates to the instruction for offeror to identify and explain their staffing approach.

Government response: L.4 C paragraph, i-iv are the instructions for Response to STOs.

23. RFP Section H.6.D Submission and Section C.1.6.6 Security Requirements and Section

L.4.A.2 Volume I - RFP Documents and General Information, p6,28,70, Section H.6.D Submission of the RFP states that all contractors are to submit a completed DD254 (Attachment 11) as part of their proposal in Volume I-RFP Documents and General Information, TAB C, but Section C.1.6.6 Security Requirements of the RFP states that the DD254 will be provide at the TO level. Additionally, Section L.4.A.2 Volume I-RFP Documents and General Information TAB C does not include a DD254. Please confirm if DD254 submission is required at this time, and if so please provide a copy of Attachment 11.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section H.6(D), . DD 254 will be required at the TO level, if applicable.

24. RFP Section L.4.A.2, L.4.B.2, and L.4.C.2, p71/72, The RFP references TAB formatting for proposal submission. As this is an electronic submission, please clarify this direction. Does the Government want each "TAB" to be submitted as its own stand-alone file?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.2.A. All proposals shall be submitted IAW Paragraph L.2.A. Each Volume, not each tab, should be submitted as a “stand alone” file.

25. Section L.4.D.(1) Recent and relevant past performance shall be discussed for the prime offeror and any “team members” or "teaming partners” proposed to support this contract.

Please clarify how a prime offeror with several team members or teaming partners can discuss the team's recent and relevant past performance with a limit of no more than three

(3) of the Offeror's most recent and relevant past performance information.

Government response: See Government’s response to question 10 sub-question 1.

26. Section L.4.D.(1) The offeror is provided an opportunity to submit a list of no more than three (3) of the Offeror’s most recent and relevant past performance information on projects:

similar in size, scope, and complexity to the services being procured under this solicitation), performed for Government agencies and/or commercial customers within the last three (3) years from the solicitation release date.

Q1: Please clarify "a list of no more than three (3)". What is meant by a list?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4(D)(1), “a list of” has been removed.

Q2: How does a list correlate to the Volume IV Factor 4 Past Performance page limit of 20?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4(D)(1), “a list of” has been removed.

Q3: What information should be provided in the list? Is a narrative required?

Government response: See Government’s response to question 10, sub-question 4.

27. "Section L.4.E.3a Where an Offeror proposes to use subcontractors, the Offeror is required to provide pricing data in support of these subcontracts to the same level of detail and information as required in the Offeror’s price proposal " Will a subcontractor be precluded from future task orders if they are not proposing a STO and do not submit a pricing volume addressing the CAP labor rates?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4(E), Factor 5, Price, has been revised in its entirety and subcontractors are no longer required to provide pricing data to the Government.

28. Section L.4.E.3.a.2).e) Subcontracts: As part of the cost proposal, list each subcontractor price separately. Obtain fully disclosed cost proposals from each subcontractor using the appropriate allocation of the government provided estimates for the same cost element breakout described above. We assume these requirements are only for the subcontractor(s) proposed in response to the three (3) Sample Task Orders of this RFP.

Does the Government concur?

Government response: See Government’s response to question 27.

29. RFP Section(s): Attachment 5, Question: Attachment 5 Sample Task Order Price Proposal states that offerors are NOT required to propose any travel costs yet Section L page 78 states that offerors shall use the Government provided amounts for evaluation purposes.

Please clarify what type of information regarding travel and ODCs is required to be priced for Attachment 5.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4(E)(2)(d)(iii). Factor 5, Price, has been revised in its entirety; offerors shall NOT propose any travel costs or ODCs in its STO price proposals.

30. RFP Reference: Section L.4.E.1; Topic: Schedule B; Question : The pricing instructions for

Volume V state, “The contract will provide for issuance of Firm Fixed Price task orders with Cost Reimbursable Contract Line Items as provided in Schedule B.” Since no Schedule B was included in the RFP, did the Government intend to refer to Section B?

Recommendation: Clarify language to reference Section B.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4(E)(1). Factor 5, Price, has been

31. RFP Reference: L.4, E. Volume V – Factor 5 Price, 3. Cost or Pricing Information

Requirements; Topic: Subcontractor Price Proposals Question: The type of TOs that are authorized for use under this Multiple Award IDIQ vehicle are Firm Fixed Price (FFP) with reimbursable line items for Other Direct Cost and Travel. Although Certified Cost or Pricing Data is not anticipated for award of contract, the solicitation requires both the Prime contractor and Subcontractors to submit pricing data to the level of detail specified by Table 15-2 of FAR 15-408. Given the time constraints of the proposal response, alongside the visibility into the elements of price presented within the Prime Contractor’s proposal, will the Government consider relieving Subcontractors of the burden of having to provide detailed cost/price data? Recommendation: Subcontractors submit sanitized price proposals only.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4(E)(1). Factor 5, Price, has been

32. "Per section L, E-3a, 2). Sample Task Order Pricing, c) Direct Labor Category Hours provides a table of suggested labor categories and personnel for each STO. The STO 1 PWS states in Section 1.6.11 ""NOTE: Based on the high level of overt criminal activity in the mission area, all team members are authorized the Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger addition to their Labor Category.""

" Should any hazard Differential be applied to the STO 1 labor Cap Rates? If so, is this uplift at the contractor's discretion to determine the amount?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Attachment 3 STO #1. Deleted the note following paragraph 1.6.11. No, hazard differential should not be applied to STO 1. Other direct costs will be submitted in accordance with H.2 Ordering, G, TO Pricing, (2) Other Direct Costs

33. RFP page 37 of 89 Para H.6. All Contractors will be required to complete the Anti-Terrorism

(AT) and Operations Security (OPSEC) Awareness Training annually.

Q: We took it to mean the standard cyber awareness as well as AT level 1 training, is that correct?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section H.6(A). There are three separate training requirements: OPSEC, Anti-Terrorism, and Cyber awareness. Cyber awareness replaced information awareness training and is required for network access.

34. H.6.D Security Requirements, Submission, p28, The requirement is to complete a DD254

(Attachment 11) as part of proposal in Volume I, TAB C. Volume I, TAB C is for OCI Mitigation Plan. Please clarify.

Government response: See Government’s response to question 23.

35. Para. H.6.D Security Requirements: Paragraph H.6.D requires that a completed

DD254 (Attachment 11) be completed and provided in the proposal in Volume 1 TAB C.

Para. L .4.A identifies TAB C as the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan.

Para. L.4.A does not identify a TAB for the DD254. Please provide clarification of the Para.

H.6.D requirement to be included in Volume 1.

Government response: See Government’s response to question 23.

36. RFP Sec. B Item No. 0001, It appears that the $236M under Quantity should be replacing the $240M in the paragraph underneath and Quantity should be blank. Is this a correct understanding?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, revisions to Schedule B. The program ceiling is $240M. CLIN are for information purposes only.

37. RFP Sec. B.1 Ordering Period, We understand that the USG intends for this to be a five (5) year ordering period and that Offerors are to price each of the CAP Labor Categories on Attachment 1 for a 5-year award. Any bilateral modifications to extend the ordering period will require Awardees to resubmit updated pricing. Please confirm.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, PWS paragraph 1.5.

38. RFP Sec. I – 52.217-9 & 252.216-7006, In accordance with Sec. B.1, total duration shall not exceed 10 years; however, in 52.217-9 the total duration is listed as 102 months. Should this this be 120 months. In conjunction with the above, the dates incorporated in 252.216- 7006 (pg. 53) should be consistent. Please confirm.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section I. FAR clause 52.217-9 and DFARS 252.216-7006 have been revised.

39. RFP, Page 39, Para 52.217-9 -- “The total duration of this contract including the exercise of any options under this clause shall not exceed 102 months.” Previous language stated that this was a five year contract with an option to extend for five years. This total period would equal 120 months. Request clarify if the “102” is a typographical error or intended.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section I. Yes, this is a typo and the FAR clause 52.217-9 verbiage has been revised as the clause will only apply to TO issued.”

40. 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract, C, p39, Please clarify if the total duration of this contract, including exercise of any options, shall not exceed 102 months should be 120 + 6 = 126 months.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section I. FAR Clause 52.217-9 applies only at the TO level.

41. RFP Reference: 52.217-9 Option To Extend The Term Of The Contract; Topic: Total Months of Performance; Question: If total performance period is potentially 10 years, the total months should be 120 months, not 102 months. Recommendation: Please clarify and change to 120 months.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section I. FAR Clause 52.217-9 applies only at the TO level.

42. RFP PWS 1.6.12.2 Contractor Personnel Appearance, In accordance with this clause professional attire requirements will vary based on the TO, mission, and local environment.

We understand this requirement and assume all professional attire will be treated as an ODC at the TO level. Please confirm.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Per paragraph 3.2 of the PWS, clothing will be the contractor’s responsibility. In situations where some elements of may be ODCs, those will be specified at the TO level.

43. RFP PWS 1.10.8 DBA, DBA rates vary significantly by OCONUS location and job function and would be impossible to estimate total DBA requirements. Therefore it is standard practice to quote DBA costs as an ODC for each TO. Please confirm DBA insurance costs will be treated as an ODC at the TO level.

Government response: The DBA is an ODC and should not be used in your CAP Labor Rates.

44. RFP Attach 1 – CAP Labor Rates Matrix, Please reference Attach.1 - Hostile Fire/Imminent

Danger Pay. The regulations state that this form of danger pay is applicable to uniform service members. DoD contractors typically use the DoS DSSR Allowances for danger/hostile pay adjustments. To substantiate this and in accordance with Sec. 1.6.13 Contractor Travel, the Contractor will be authorized travel expenses consistent with the substantive provisions of the JTR. Chapter 6, Sec. 6500 B & C – Pay Allowances of the JTR specifically states that DoD has adopted the OCONUS allowances and differentials of the Department of State (DoS) Standardized Regulations (DSSR). Please confirm the DSSR Allowances will be reimbursed at the TO level as an A/R addition in lieu of the Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger addition (in Attachment 1 - Cap Labor Rates Price Matrix).

Government response: See response to question 32.

45. RFP Sec H.3 and Attach 1 – CAP Labor Rates Matrix, Due to the unknown OCONUS locations where services will be performed, determining a reasonable and realistic CAP Rate with the required cost backup for Local Country Nationals (LCNs) is impossible. We recommend that labor categories for LCNs (#14-17) be removed from the CAP Matrix and be priced separately in accordance with H.3 as additional labor category at the TO level and that offerors price out required LCN support for the STOs to demonstrate ability to reasonably price LCNs.

Government response: All offerors shall provide CAP Labor Rates for all labor categories in Attachment 1.

46. PWS 1.6.6, Paragraph 1.6.6 states “Contractor personnel shall comply with all applicable security and safety regulations, guidance, and procedures, including local, referenced in the TO and in effect at the work sites. All personnel must meet requirements in accordance with Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 8570.” Department of Defense Directive 8570 provides guidance and procedures for the training, certification, and management of all government employees who conduct Information Assurance functions in assigned duty positions. It is our understanding that this will only apply to contractor personnel required to perform (or assigned) these duties specified in support of this contract and will be specified at the TO level. Please confirm our understanding.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section H.6(A). All personnel must meet requirements in accordance with Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 8570 who are associated with or perform duties at the master level and/or TO Level.

47. PWS 1.6.8.1, 1.6.8.1.1, Paragraph 1.6.8.1 states “This subsection is applicable to ALL Contractor personnel.” Paragraph 1.6.8.1.1 states “The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring all personnel performing work under this contract possess and maintain current certifications as indicated in PWS 1.6.6: security requirements during the execution of this contract.“ Referring to Department of Defense Directive 8570 provides guidance and procedures for the training, certification, and management of all government employees who conduct Information Assurance functions in assigned duty positions. It is our understanding that this will only apply to contractor personnel required to perform (or assigned) these duties specified in support of this contract and will be specified at the TO level. Please confirm our understanding.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section H.6(A). All personnel must meet requirements in accordance with Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 8570 who are associated with or perform duties at the master level and/or TO Level.

48. STO 1, Mexico, Page 4, Para 1.6.6.1 – States that the Mexico Army will provide security between Veracruz and the airport. To allow proper pricing any other security services, (1) will they provide security at the billeting and messing areas, (2) will they provide security from the airport to billeting/work areas for crew shifting into and out of Mexico?

Government response: Mexico Army will not provide security at the billeting and messing areas but will provide security from the airport to billeting/work areas for crew shifting into and out of Mexico. Local police forces and hotel security provides security at the billeting and messing areas as part of their normal duties but extra security is provided solely for the contractors. NOTE: This is a sample requirement and will not be issued. Also, Factor 5 Price has been revised.

49. 1.6.6 Security Requirements, p6, Please clarify the end of the second sentence should read

"…and must maintain the level for the life of the TO."

Government response: See Amendment 0003, paragraph 1.6.6, Security Requirements.

Yes, the end of the second sentence now reads “…and must maintain the level for the life of the

TO.”

50. RFP Section(s): Section C, PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS) RFP Page(s): 6 of 81, Requirement: “1.6.6 Security Requirements: Security Requirements:

Each TO will specify the security requirements necessary to accomplish the requirement.

Contractor Personnel shall have the specified clearance as stated in TO prior to commencement of work and must maintain the level for the life if the contract. The security requirements are in accordance with the DD254 attached to the specific TO. Contractor personnel shall comply with all applicable security and safety regulations, guidance, and procedures, including local, referenced in the TO and in effect at the work sites. All personnel must meet requirements in accordance with Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 8570.”

Question: Is the awardee required to have a facility clearance?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, PWS paragraph 4.3.

51. PWS 1.6.17, Paragraph 1.6.17 states “Security Assistance Team (SAT) Orientation

Training: Unless stated differently in the applicable TO, Contractor personnel will report to USASATMO Headquarters Building at Fort Bragg, NC, for the Security Assistance Team

Training and Orientation Course (SATTOC) prior to deployment.” It is our understanding that this will only apply to US contractor personnel required to perform (or assigned) these duties specified in support of this contract and will not include local country nationals and third country nationals hired in support roles and will be specified at the TO level. Please

Government response: See Amendment 0003, PWS paragraph 1.6.17. Correct, SATTOC training is only required for CONUS-based personnel deploying OCONUS.

52. PWS 1.6.8.1, 1.6.8.1.2, Paragraph 1.6.8.1 states “This subsection is applicable to ALL

Contractor personnel.” Paragraph 1.6.8.1.2 states “Contractor personnel performing work under this contract shall be able to read, write, speak, and understand the English language to effectively carry out all contract requirements. They shall have a command of both the written and spoken English language to properly clearly, and effectively communicate in person or via electronic devices (telephone or Email) with co-workers, customers, and the general public.” It is our understanding that this will only apply to contractor personnel required to perform (or assigned) these duties specified in support of this contract and will be specified at the TO level and will not include local country nationals and third country nationals hired in support roles and will be specified at the TO level. Please confirm our understanding.

Government response: See Amendment 0003 PWS Paragraph 1.6.8.1.13. The English language requirement applies to all personnel unless specified differently at the TO level. The default is for all personnel to be able to communicate in English. Each TO will specify any specific positions that are exempt from this requirement. For example, the TO may state that 3 LCNs hired as painters to refurbish classrooms are not required to meet the English language requirements.

53. PWS 1.6.8.1, PWS 1.6.8.1.3, Paragraph 1.6.8.1 states “This subsection is applicable to ALL

Contractor personnel.” Paragraph 1.6.8.1.3 states “Contractor personnel performing work under this contract shall be U.S. citizens unless the provisions of Army Regulation 25-2, Information Assurance have been fully completed and approval has been granted by the Government for the non-U.S. citizen to perform the required support.” It is our understanding that this will only apply to contractor personnel required to perform (or assigned) these duties applicable to Army Regulation 25-2 in support of this contract and will be specified at the TO level. Please confirm our understanding.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, PWS paragraph 1.6.8.1.3 of the RFP. Correct, AR 25-2 requirements will only apply for personnel required to access US Army information systems. This requirement will be detailed at the TO level when applicable.

54. PWS 1.6.8.1, PWS 1.6.8.1.4, Paragraph 1.6.8.1 states “This subsection is applicable to ALL

Contractor personnel.” Paragraph 1.6.8.1.4 states “Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring all personnel performing work under this contract possess and maintain current Information Assurance Technician (IAT) Level I professional certification during the execution of this contract.” It is our understanding that this will only apply to contractor personnel required to perform (or assigned) IAT duties in support of this contract and will be specified at the TO level. Please confirm our understanding.

Government response: Correct, IAT requirements will only apply for personnel required to perform IAT functions. This is rarely a requirement on SATMO missions. This requirement will be detailed at the TO level when applicable.

55. PWS 1.6.8.1, PWS 1.6.8.1.6.1, Paragraph 1.6.8.1 states “This subsection is applicable to

ALL Contractor personnel.” Paragraph 1.6.8.1.6.1. states “Contractor personnel performing work under this contract that require access to Army installations, facilities and controlled access areas shall complete AT Level I awareness training within 30 calendar days after award of contract or effective date of incorporation of this requirement into the contract, whichever is applicable. The Contractor shall submit certificates of completion for each affected employee to the COR within 30 calendar days after completion of training by all Contractor personnel.” It is our understanding that in accordance with DoDI 2000.16, AT Level 1 will not be required for LCN and TCN personnel unless specified at the TO level.

Please confirm our understanding.

Government response: Correct, AT Level 1 training is not required for LCN or TCN unless specified in the TO.

56. PWS 1.6.8.1, PWS 1.6.8.1.7, Paragraph 1.6.8.1 states “This subsection is applicable to ALL

Contractor personnel.” Paragraph 1.6.8.1.7 states “The Contractor shall brief all personnel performing work under this contract on the local iWATCH program [training standards provided by the requiring activity Anti Terrorism Office (ATO)]. This local developed training will be used to inform employees of the types of behavior to watch for and instruct employees to report suspicious activity to the COR. This training shall be completed within 30 calendar days of contract award and within 60 calendar days of new employees commencing performance of work under this contract, with the results reported to the COR NLT 45 calendar days after contract award.” It is our understanding that iWATCH training will not be required for LCN and TCN personnel unless specified at the TO level. Please

Government response: Correct, iWATCH training will not be required for LCN and TCN personnel unless specified at the TO level.

57. PWS 1.6.8.1, PWS 1.6.8.1.11, Paragraph 1.6.8.1 states “This subsection is applicable to

ALL Contractor personnel” Paragraph 1.6.8.1.11 states “Contractor personnel shall possess valid U.S. (State) and international driver’s licenses that remain valid for the entire deployment period.” It is our understanding that this will only apply to contractor personnel required operate motor vehicles in support of this contract and will be specified at the TO level. Please confirm our understanding.

Government response: Incorrect, this requirement applies to all contractors regardless of their duty requirements, unless the TO requirements differ.

58. STO 3, Thailand, Page 4, Para 1.6.8.2.2.2 – Please verify that no FAA certifications or Thai

DCA endorsements required.

Government response: Contractors are instructing but not performing maintenance. There are no FAA certifications or Thai DCA endorsements required.

59. 1.6.8.1.3, p7, Please clarify who performs the Army Regulation 25-2 approval for foreign national and other non-U.S. citizen participation. Does the regulation apply to local nationals?

Government response: See Government’s response to question 53.

60. 1.6.8.1.4, p7, Please clarify if the requirement is for all personnel possessing and maintaining IAT Level I professional certification.

Government response: See Government’s response to question 54.

61. RFP Section(s): PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS), Sample Task Order #3, Thailand RFP Page(s): 3 of 20 Requirement: “1.6.8.2. Team Composition. Suggested team composition has been directed by the Royal Thai Army: OH-58 Maintenance Pilot” Question : Is the OH-58 Maintenance Pilot a flying position?

Government response: No the OH-58 Maintenance Pilot is a classroom/ground instructor; this is not a flying position. No flight training is required under this STO.

62. 1.6.11.1, The referenced paragraph states that all key personnel will be designated in writing at the Post Award Conference, and that key personnel may be required at the TO level. STO 1 and STO 2 identify Key Personnel requirements. We understand that these are illustrative requirements and that NO Key Personnel need to be identified, and there are no subsequent resume requirements for this solicitation. Is our understanding correct?

Government response: STO 1, STO 2, and STO 3 reflect notional missions so there are no resume requirements associated with the STO.

63. 1.6.1.1, The contract level PWS states that the offeror will submit a written Quality Control

Plan within 30 days of TO award. The STOs call for the QCP NLT 10 days after TO award.

Which is correct?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, PWS Paragraph 1.6.1.1. The Contractor shall provide their final written Quality Control Plan (QCP) at the TO level no later than (NLT) 30 days after issuance of the TO unless otherwise specified in the TO.

64. RFP Attachment 4, STO 3, It is our understanding that neither the Advisor 1 (SME 2 - OH-58

Maintenance Pilot) nor the Advisor 2 (SME 1 - OH-58 TI) will perform crewmember or flight duties while deployed with the TAFT. Please confirm our understanding is correct. This understanding affects the cost of each labor rate as well as the cost of Foreign Workers' Compensation (Defense Base Act) insurance.

Government response: Correct, there are no flight duty requirements for STO 3 and Advisor 1 and Advisor 2 will only perform classroom/hangar duties. This is common on SATMO missions when the Partner Nations cannot acquire/maintain a recognized Air Worthiness Release (AWR) for their legacy aircraft.

65. Para B1 states: B.1. The total contract maximum for the Security Assistance Training Management Organization (SATMO) Aviation Training, Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) suite of contracts is$240,000,000, which includes the five

(5) year ordering period. The Government may, by bilateral modification, extend the ordering period of this contract for up to an additional 5 years provided the estimated ceiling (total contract maximum) designated in the Schedule has not been exceeded… The total duration of the ordering period of this contract, including the extension, shall not exceed 10 years… Will we be given an opportunity to re-negotiate rates and escalation after 5 years during the bilateral modification or do we need to escalate for 10 years since there is only one CLIN provided for Labor?

Government response: See Government’s response to question 37.

66. CLIN 002 and CLIN 003 only allocate $2,000,000 for ODCs and Travel respectively. Does the Government believe that the allocated funds are sufficient to execute the task orders over the 5 year base period?

Government response: See Amendment 0003. CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0003 have been revised to remove the $2,000,000.00 allocation.

67. Since Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance coverage is mission–specific and location-specific, would the Government consider adding this to Attachment 1 – CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix, Table 2 USASATMO Standard Labor Category Additions with an “As Required (A/R)” value?

Government response: See Government’s response to question 43.

68. Since Hardship is closely aligned with Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger pay (IAW Department of State Allocation Rates) and is location-specific, would the Government consider adding this to Attachment 1 – CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix, Table 2 USASATMO Standard Labor Category Additions with an “As Required (A/R)” value?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Attachment 1, CAP Labor Rate Price Matrix, Note 9.

69. RFP, Page 53, Para 252.216-7006 (a) – “Such orders may be issued from 27 March 2015 through 26 March 2023.” Please clarify if the Contracting Officer will amend this clause to more accurately reflect the timeframe by which this contract shall be awarded.

Government response: See Amendment 0003, Section I. DFARS 252.216-7006 was revised.

70. RFP Page 73, Para 3 – (1) Given its fluidity, we have found it appropriate to include DBA as an ODC versus part of any capped rate. Request verification this is the case in this solicitation.

Government response 1: See Government’s response to question 43.

(2) Request clarification on what exactly constitutes the CAP Rate and the meaning of “fully burdened.” Given this rate is applicable to all locations, the capture of mandated allowances such as Danger Pay, Hardship Pay, COLA, DBA insurance, etc., becomes problematic and, with each location essentially having a separate rate, fit more readily into an ODC category

Government response 2: See Amendment 0003, Section L Factor 5 Price, for instructions.

(3) For purpose of pay and allowances, are deployed personnel considered TDY or PCS? If TDY, is the Lodging and MI&E reimbursable under Travel or ODC?

Government response 3: Permanent Change of Station (PCS).

71. STO 1, Mexico, Page 1, Para 1.4.1.1 - Is there already an approved flight training syllabus based on the 65 flight hours and 180 hours of ground school training? Is this available and can a copy be provided to Offerors?

Government response: No, this is a sample requirement and there is no existing syllabus to provide to Offerors.

72. STO 1, Mexico, Page 1, Para 1.4.2.1 - Is there a standardized pre-deployment site survey (PDSS) form?

Government response: There is no standard PDSS form. SATMO PDSS will normally consist of the SATMO SAT Manager conducting the PDSS with the contractor personnel to familiarize them with the mission area and set conditions for mission execution. Contractors participating in a PDSS are not normally to provide a report of the PDSS actions.

73. STO 1, Mexico, Page 6, Para 1.6.11 -- NOTE: Based on the high level of overt criminal activity in the mission area, all team members are authorized the Hostile Fire/Imminent Danger addition to their Labor Category. Please clarify as to what reference do we cite to justify this cost, we can find no reference that identifies Veracruz, Mexico as an IDP area.

Government response: See Note 4 on Attachment 1 – CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix: Station Danger Pay and Post (Hardship) Differential Pay allowance factors, IAW Department of State Standardized Regulations (DSSR), may be used to increase labor category rates for specific dangerous or austere mission locations.

74. STO 1, Mexico, Page 6, Para 1.6.10.3.2 – Instructor Pilots. (1) Will the Instructor Pilots be required to operate IAW FAR part 141? (2) Will they be required to possess FAA licensing?

(3) Will they be required to obtain a Mexican Directorate General of Civil Aeronautics (Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil, DGAC) endorsement on their pilot licenses? (4) Will they be required to possess ICAO licenses?

Government response: No (1-4). Under this notional STO, TAFT pilots operate under Fuerza Aérea Mexicana (FAM) military authorities and are exempt from civil licensing requirements.

75. STO 1, Mexico, Page 7, Para 1.6.14 - Will Contractor personnel be required to obtain work

VISA's/work permits to fly in Mexico?

Government response: This is a sample requirement; therefore, no VISAs/work permits are required.

76. STO 1, Mexico, Page 12, Para 1.10.9 - Will the Contractor be required to obtain export licenses for ITAR commodities?

http://centreforaviation.com/profiles/government-bodies/civil-aviation-authority-uaeac-colombia

Government response: This is a sample requirement; therefore, the contractor is not required to obtain export licenses for ITAR commodities.

77. STO 1 Mexico, - Will the Contractor operate under a SOFA or civilian law?

Government response: Civilian law.

78. STO 2, Turkey, Page 1, Para 1.2 - Background – “The USASATMO Aviation Maintenance TAFT shall train Turkish Army aircraft mechanics and maintenance personnel on all levels of helicopter maintenance procedures ….” Please clarify regarding the “all.” As written, this would include “Sustainment Maintenance” which includes maintenance above the battalion – up to Depot. Also, “maintenance personnel” would include “maintenance test pilots.” Does the Government intend for the Contractor to train maintenance test pilots?

Government response: 1. “All” has been changed to read “unit and intermediate” in this paragraph. 2. This STO does not include a requirement to train maintenance test pilots. In this STO “maintenance personnel” refers to non-pilot aircraft mechanics and allied shops personnel that would be 15-series Enlisted, NCOs, or 151A Warrant Officers in the US Army.

79. STO 2, Turkey, Page 1, Para 1.3 - Objectives – “Major tasks were selected based on the past Mobile Training Team’s (MTT) after action report (AAR) and Office of Defense Council (ODC) assessment, guidance and intent, observed needs from previous training, higher headquarters guidance and anticipated operational employment requirements.” Are these reports available to the Contractor during our Proposal preparation?

Government response: There are no reports available; the previous MTTs are notional as are the MTTs AARs.

80. Turkey, Page 6, Para 1.6.11.1 - Is there a requirement for either FAA certifications or

Turkish government (Ministry of Transport or Ministry of National Defense) endorsements to provide operational or intermediate level maintenance on these aircraft?

Government response: This is a sample requirement; therefore, FAA or Turkish endorsements are not required.

81. STO 2, Turkey, Page 6, Para 1.6.11.1 - Is equivalent experience on other models of the UH-

60 acceptable (MH-60R/S, HH-60J, MH-60G)?

Government response: UH-60L experience is required for this notional STO.

82. STO 2, Turkey, Page 13, Para 1.10.11 - Will the Inlet Barrier Filters (IBF) require ITAR licensing to export to Turkey?

Government response: This is a sample requirement; therefore, the IBF does not require ITAR licensing to export to Turkey.

83. STO 2, Turkey, Page 18, Para 4.3 - Equipment – Is the Government knowledgeable concerning the willingness of the IBF manufacturer to sell IBFs to entities other than the

Government response: This is a sample requirement for proposal purposes only; thus, assume the IBF manufacturer sells IBFs to entities…