Attachment_0010-_DRAFT_RFP_QAs.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Contract Award - ATSOS Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- W9133L-17-R-0008
- Issued by
- Department of the Army National Guard
About this file
Questions and Answers from the Draft RFP.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 35
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Section | UCF Sec | Topic | Question | Answer |
| Attachment_0001_-_Price_Model_(ATSOS) Tab I.a.1-Total IDIQ Pricing. | Attachment 0001 | Pricing | Discussion: No instructions are provided regarding what information is to be priced for this tab. |
Question: What information is the government asking industry to provide on this spreadsheet? (e.g. price per student or price per flight hour?)
| This is the pricing for all possible Tiers of support envisioned during the life of the IDIQ. The cost/ tier we envision as being driven by student thruput for AATS and simulator running hours for the Simulator I/Os. | |||
| Reference: Attachment_0001_-_Price_Model_(ATSOS) Task Order 001 and 002 II.a.1 - TO Final Pricing. | Attachment 0001 | Pricing | Discussion: Each Task Order we are asked to price has a period of performance of 1 year. However the Pricing Model is asking for various options years. Also the TO Final Pricing worksheet doesn't list all the data requested in the other task order pricing worksheets. |
Question: Will the government clarify the period of performance to be price in Attachment 1 and each Task Order document?
and Question: How would the government like subcontract labor to be identified?
| The offeror should provide pricing for Tiers of support for the entire duration of the ordering period (starting 16 May) on the I.a.1 fTotal IDIQ Pricing Tab. The II.a.1 TO Final Pricing tab should be a sum of the two sample Task Orders. The sample Task Orders should assume pricing for the first year of the IDIQ and the second year of the IDIQ for the option year (as applicable). We ancipate award of Task Order 0001 at time of the award of the IDIQ. Task Order 0002 may be awarded at a later time. | |||||
| Reference Attachment 0001 - Task Order Pricing Sheets: | Attachment 1 | Price Proposal | Is the column for proposed personnel for Key Personnel only or is the USG looking for names for all labor categories being proposed? | This is for all proposed personnel and is in part meant to ensure compliance with the Service Contract Act. | |
| Reference Attachment 0001- TO Pricing Sheets: | Attachment 1 | Travel | Travel Pricing: Recommend a travel plug number. | Travel will not be evaluated during the comparison of price proposals. | |
| Sample Task Orders | Attachment 2 | Please clarify, are the Sample Task Orders awardable? If not, what is the proposed timeline between IDIQ award and release of Awardable Tasks? | The Sample Task Orders have been removed from the final RFP. | ||
| TO 002 PWS | Attachment 3 | TASK ORDER 002 – Aviation Simulator Instructor Operator, page 3, paragraph 5.2 states: “The quantity of service required for this Base Operation is identified in Table 5.2 of this Task Order. The service identified by this paragraph can also be referenced in Table 5.2, ‘Base Operations/Hours Per Simulator Per Year’, of the IDIQ PWS.” A Table 5.2 by this name does not exist in the PWS. However, on page 39 of 107, the PWS states: “Aviation Simulator Instructor Operator (I/O): The Contractor shall provide aviation instruction and simulator operation at the simulator sites identified in the Task Order, IAW Tables 5.2a and 5.2b of this PWS. Table 5.2a shows historical information of personnel provided for corresponding simulator operation and Table 5.2b shows the anticipated Tier Structure.” | |||
| Question: Will the Government confirm that the 24 Simulator Locations listed in Table 5.2b are the correct reference and that this results in a requirement of 48 Aviation Simulator I/O for Task Order 002? | Historically, regional sites have required two I/Os. The number of SIM IOs should be determined by the number of contractors that would be required to operate a device for up 8 hours per day while leaving approximately up to 2 hours each day for other administrative requirements. | ||||
| Attachment 3 | TASK ORDER 002 – Aviation Simulator Instructor Operator, page 3, Table 1.1 indicates that the AVCATT/NCM3 Quality Assurance Position and the AVCATT/NCM3 Simulator Scheduler Position are Key Personnel. In various places throughout the PWS these positions are referred to as the AVCATT Scheduler and QA Contractor. | ||||
| Question: Will the government consider adding qualifications required so that resumes can be properly evaluated as well as using consistent terminology and describing the duties associated with the position in a single location? | The correct titles for the position are AVCATT NCM3 Simulator Scheduler and AVCATT/NCM3 Quality Assurance (synonymous with Quality Assurance contactor in that portion of the PWS and RFP). This will be reflected in the final RFP. | ||||
| TO 002 PWS | Attachment 3 | Attachment 2 PWS TO 2 Table 5.1.2 indicates UH60 IP and CH47 IP twice or is this in error and should be UH60, | |||
| UH72 and CH47 to coincide with Sim positions? Can we assume UH72 IP positions at EAATS | This is an error and will be updated prior to final RFP | ||||
| Attachment 0008 - OCI Questionnaire | Attachment 8 | OCI | When is the OCI questionnaire due? Shall offerors submit as part of their proposal, or under separate cover? | The questionnaire will be due with the proposal. This will be clarified for the final RFP. | |
| Multiple references for Sample Task Orders | Attachments 2-3 | Task Orders | Are the Sample Task Orders live or notional? | The Sample Task Orders have been removed from the final RFP. | |
| Multiple references for Sample Task Orders | Attachments 2-3 | When does the Government intend to issue TOs? | The Sample Task Orders have been removed from the final RFP. | ||
| Multiple references to the GFR | General | Source Selection | Contracting officer, contracting specialist, and COR are identified in the solicitation. In order to prepare for the Pre-Award Survey, who is the contract GFR and where will he/she be located? | GFRs will conduct the pre-award survey in conjunction with the evaluation board. GFRs from the AATS locations will be identified upon award. | |
| DRFP Page 2, Item No. 0001 - ATSOS Services | Sec A | CLINs | Please confirm that “name of requirement” will be replaced by the appropriate verbiage in the final solicitation. | This CLIN will be updated on the solicitation | |
| DRFP Page 2, Item No. 0001 - ATSOS Services | Sec A | CLINs | Can the USG define “non-conforming services” or provide a DRFP section reference for the definition? | IAW FAR 46.407, these are services not conforming in all respects to contract requirements. This is a determination left to the discretion of the Contracting Officer. | |
| DRFP Page 4, Section B.3.1.1 | Sec A | Pricing | Will the Pricing Table be incorporated into the awarded contract? | The pricing table provided by the vendor in their proposal will be enforceable for the duration of the ordering period. | |
| DRFP Page 4, | Sec B | CLINs | CLIN DELIVERY/TASK ORDER MINIMUM/MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND CLIN ORDER VALUE. Can the USG confirm that the minimum and maximum values will be filled out in the Final RFP? | Yes- this will be completed prior to issueance of the final RFP. | |
| Reference Section B, Item 0002, Pg. 2: | Sec B | Cost allowability | We understand that G&A is an allowable cost under this CLIN. Please specify this in the Final RFP. | While the government requires other than certified cost and pricing information during the proposal phase, this is NOT a cost reimbursement contract. Travel costs may be reimbursed IAW the JTR. | |
| Reference Section B, Item 0001, Pg. 2: | Sec B | Non-conforming services | Please define how the USG will determine the value of non-conforming services? | This will be at the discretion of the contracting officer. The government cannot determine the value of non-conforming services without knowledge of how the services failed to conform to the requirements of the PWS. | |
| Reference Section B.2, Pg. 3: | Sec B | POP | This section contradicts the Period of Performance Table on page 7 and Section F.1 on page 61. We recommend the Period of Performance be standardized throughout the RFP and all attachments. | The government will incorporate this recommendation into the final RFP | |
| PWS POP Table, Section B.2 | Sec B | POP | The Period of Performance (PoP) Table on page 7 of 171 indicates a six month Base PoP with four Option Years; Section B, B.2, Page 3 of 171 indicates a five year base period with the possibility of a six month extension. Question: Will the Government clarify the Period of Performance and Options? | The IDIQ will have a 5 year ordering period. Task Orders may have a separate POP. This will be clarified in the final RFP. | |
| DRFP Page 4, Section B.3.1.2 | Sec B | TO Structure | Does the USG anticipate issuing Cost Reimbursement TOs? | The Government does not anticipate using Cost Reimbursement Task Orders, or CLINs with the exception of Travel CLINs. | |
| DRFP Page 4, Section B.3.1.1 | Sec B | Travel | For evaluation purposes, does the Government intend to provide a plug number for approved contractor travel; or are contractors to provide a forecast or estimate for evaluation? If so, what level of detail does the Government require? | The Government will provide anticipated travel for each task order and expect a vendor proposal for the travel amounts. The sample Task Orders are both anticipated to be awarded in the future. | |
| Reference Section B.3.1.2, Pg. 4: | Sec B | Travel | Cost Reimbursement Pricing. And Section M5.4.1.2. The USG gives planning assumptions for travel, which can only be calculated against a Sample Task. In execution, the awardee will be required to have travel approved and comply with the JTRs. To ensure fair competition and an apples to apples evaluation, we recommend the USG provide a plug number for travel. | Travel will not be evaluated during the comparison of price proposals. Travel proposals should be based on the sample Task Orders | |
| DRFP Page 52, Technical Exhibit 2, Deliverables Table. | Sec C | Deliverables | 1.4.1. This section states that, “The QCP will be submitted to the COR NLT 45 days after contact award.” But on DRFP Page 166, M.5.2.1.3 SUBFACTOR 3-QUALITY CONTROL PLAN, states, “The Government shall evaluate the strength and quality of the Offeror’s Quality Control Plan under the Management Approach Factor.” Can the Government confirm the delivery requirements and due date of the QCP? | The evaluation of a draft QCP will be required during preaward evaluation. After contract is awarded, the vendor must provide a finalized QCP within 45 days. | |
| DRFP Page 52, Technical Exhibit 2, Deliverables Table. | Sec C | Deliverables | 1.4.12.2. Does the government require identification media (contractor badges and/or CAC cards) to be returned to the KO from the multiple sites; or to a local authority (COTR)? | The selected vendor may return identification media to the local government representative | |
| DRFP Page 57, Technical Exhibit 2, Deliverables Table. | Sec C | Deliverables | 5.5.1. Recommend submission of the Task Order Monthly Report NLT 15th of the month following execution, vice the month of execution. | The government concurs | |
| DRFP Page 5, PWS | Sec C | General | Can the USG confirm that the PWS and subsequent sections will be numbered? | Yes- this technical error will be corrected prior to release of the final RFP. | |
| Reference PWS. | Sec C | General | The specific qualifications by labor category are spread throughout the PWS. It is difficult to fully identify all education and experience requirements by labor category. This is further aggravated by the lack of enumeration of key paragraphs. We recommend all labor category descriptions be consolidated in a separate section of the PWS and that each labor category requirements be presented in a standard format I.e. Clearance required, Education required, experience required, and then duties performed. | The government anticipated an update to this information prior to issuance of the final RFP | |
| Reference PWS Table 5.1.2. | Sec C | Historical information | This table identifies the annual student throughput and prescribes a standard student: Instructor ration, by type of training. However, it does not articulate the number of classes per year and average number of students per class. This information is essential to determine efficiencies in the level of staffing. The legend in the table references projected course schedules are available in a spate attachment, but this attachment was not included with the draft RFP release. | Historical information and future ancitipated classes will be included in the final RFP. The IDIQ structure is meant to enable a greater or lesser number of classes than what is currently provided. | |
| DRFP Page 47, Technical Exhibit 1 - Performance Requirements Summary | Sec C | PRS | The first line in the table (1.4.4.1 Place and Performance of Services) and the fourth line in the table (1.4.4.1) seem to contain duplicate information. Can the USG confirm whether or not these are discrete tasks that will be captured/surveilled separately? | These are discrete tasks that will be separated by Task Order | |
| DRFP Page 49, Technical Exhibit 1 - Performance Requirements Summary | Sec C | PRS | Line 5.1.6 (Provide Aircraft Maintenance Test Pilot) states that the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQL) for this metric is to, “Maintain operational readiness rate within the prescribed tolerances.” It does not seem reasonable to place the burden on maintaining the OR Rate within prescribed tolerances on the MTP – there could be many reasons outside of the MTP’s control for OR Rates falling below tolerances. Will the USG consider revising the AQL for this metric? | This will be redefined for the final RFP | |
| DRFP Page 51, Technical Exhibit 1 - Performance Requirements Summary | Sec C | PRS | Line 5.2.6 (Identify needed corrections or training shortfalls in the I/O training manual) states that the Acceptable Quality Level (AQL) for this metric is for the contractor to, “Provided in monthly status report as appropriate for all applicable instances.” In order for the contractor to meet the intent of this metric, will it be acceptable for the contractor to either (1) include needed corrections or (2) state that no corrections are needed? If not, can the USG provide clarification on the AQL for this metric? | It would be acceptable for the contractor to provide recommended changes to the I/O training manual in the monthly report or state that there are no corrections needed. | |
| Reference PWS page 18 (In-Flight Instructor Pilot qualifications). | Sec C | The PWS states that the IP must have at least 2 years of USAACE / AATS flight line IP experience. The 160th SOAR retains a full-time In-Flight IP Cadre for advanced flight training, as well as aircraft type and series qualifications and Instructor Pilot training. These POIs are validated by USAACE and periodically reviewed by DES. We recommend the list of qualifications be expanded to include 2 years of experience at any USAACE approved / OASS program. | The government will incorporate this recommendation into the final RFP | ||
| RFP pages 6-46; RFP Section C/PWS. | Sec C | General | Discussion: It is unclear where the PWS/Section C begins and ends. The content in the Draft RFP from pages 6-46 seem to be the PWS. Page 29 has a section called “Services.” However, Tables 5.1, 5.1.2, and 5.2.a all cite PWS paragraphs with numbering unsupported by any content on pages 6-46. |
Question: Will the government please refine the elements of the PWS as noted above?
| Yes. This will be updated prior to issuance of final RFP | |||
| Reference: AATS Simulation Instructor/Operator PWS pg 19. | Sec C | General | Discussion: The paragraph in question does not have a subparagraph marked (A). Other paras seem to have this. |
Questions: Should there be a subparagraph marked (A) in the para? Is there data/information missing?
| Yes. This will be updated prior to issuance of final RFP | ||||
| Reference Definitions and Acronyms, Pg. 23: | Sec C sub 1 | Definitions | Major Subcontractor and Critical Subcontractor are not defined under Definitions and Acronyms. We recommend the government develop a definition with two central components. First, any subcontractor performing more than 30% of the total work should be deemed Critical and Major. Second, any Key Personnel positions manned by a subcontractor constitutes a Major or Critical Subcontractor. This approach ensures consistency among all offerors. It is also consistent with FAR and Small Business Administration guidance on “Over-Reliance”. Defining this up front ensures that the NGB awards to a an SDVOSB fully capable of priming the effort without burdensome arrangements and additional costs associated with Large Businesses “propping up” and SDVOSB. It also mitigates the risk of the growing trend of size- standard challenges and protests that impact award and transition timelines. | Major Subcontractor has been defined. The limitations on subcontracting do apply to this requirement as well. |
| Period of Performance Para/Table on pg 7. | Sec C sub 1 | Phase in period | Discussion: The Table has no Transition period listed but paragraph G.7 lists a 15 day “phase-in period”. |
Question: With 105 supporting personnel noted, will the Government consider adding a longer phase-in period and/or a transition period in order to accomplish the numerous personnel requirements?
| The Government anticipates an award prior to the POP dates of the Task Order that will allow vendor mobilization. If that is not possible, additional implementation information will be addressed in the Task Orders. | |||||
| Sec C sub 1 | POP | Page 7 of 171, PoP Table indicates Base Period is 16 MAY 17 to 15 MAY; Pricing Spreadsheet, Page 1 indicates Base Period is 16 MAY 2017 to 15 MAY 2018; Task Order 001, paragraph 1, states: “Period of Performance (PoP) for this Task Order begins on 16 NOV 16 and ends on 15 NOV 17”; Task Order 002, paragraph 1, states: “Period of Performance (PoP) for this Task Order begins on 27 AUG 17 and ends on 26 AUG 18”. | |||
| Question: Please clearly specify the PoP dates for the IDIQ and the Task Orders and ensure that they remain consistent throughout the solicitation. | The IDIQ will have a 5 year ordering period. Task Orders may have a separate POP. This will be clarified in the final RFP. | ||||
| Reference Distance Learning (page 17, 34, 43): | Sec C sub 1 | We understand that the requirement to develop distance learning is support to OASS approved Programs of Instruction. The task is Distance learning development, not program design, is this correct? | That is correct. This will be updated in the final PWS prior to issuance of the RFP | ||
| PWS Section 1 | Sec C sub 1 | Page 6 of 171, 4th line from the top of the page states: “Regional Sites will require two I/O to provide the required training periods mission planning and after action reviews.”; TASK ORDER 002 – Aviation Simulator Instructor Operator, Table 1.1 indicates that 22 Simulation Instructor Operators are required; Table 5.2 indicates that there are 13 regional sites. | |||
| Question: If there are 13 regional sites and two I/O are required per site, should the requirement be 26 I/O for this Task Order? Please clarify. | Historically, regional sites have required two I/Os. The number of SIM IOs should be determined by the number of contractors that would be required to operate a device for up 8 hours per day while leaving approximately up to 2 hours each day for other administrative requirements. | ||||
| PWS Section 1 | Sec C sub 1 | Page 20 of 171, bottom paragraph, states: “Contract Manager (CM): The contractor shall designate a CM who shall ensure performance under this contract…” |
Question A: Is it the Government’s intent that the Contact Manager is the same position as the Program Manager?
| Question B: If “Contract Manager” is a required position, please provide a description of the position, qualifications required, and add it to the appropriate pricing table(s). | The Contract manager is the company POC for contract matters. This individual may be at a company headquarters or directly performing on the contract. The requirement is only that this individual is identified. | ||||
| Table 5.1.2 | Sec C sub 5 | Anticipated courses | Table 5.1.2 (page 32 of 171) Notes section at the bottom states: ”6 The daily required number of instructors shall be based on the projected in-resident number of students by course as indicated in the tables below”; “*Note* For planning purposes, projected course schedules are available in a separate attachment.” Neither of these are included in the solicitation. | ||
| Question: Will the Government add a table with “projected in-resident number of students by course” as well as a projected course schedule? The information provided in Table 5.1.2 only includes # students/year which is not sufficient to determine the required number of instructors. | This attachment will be included in the final RFP. | ||||
| Section 5, PWS | Sec C sub 5 | General | In order for Offeror’s to provide the Government proposals organized in a way that aids in the evaluation of proposals, will the Government consider outlining the Performance Work Statement beyond the first level? Example: At the beginning of the PWS (page 5 of 171), Section 5.0 is listed as “Requirements”, but this “5.0” header does not repeat itself within the PWS. Further, it is recommended that the AATS Requirements header on page 30 of 171 be modified “5.1, AATS Requirements,” the Task Management, Staff Coordination, and Organizational Support header as found on page 32 of 171 be labeled ‘5.1.1’, and so on throughout the document. | Yes. This will be updated prior to issuance of final RFP | |
| Table 5.1, page 30; Historical contractor demand and location data Table | Sec C sub 5 | Historical information | Discussion: The third paragraph under the header “AATS REQUIREMENTS” says that Table 5.1 “provides historical number of personnel utilized to meet current mission demand.” However, the unnumbered table on pg 43 titled “Historical contractor demand and location data” seems to provide similar and conflicting data. |
Questions: What is the difference between the data in the two tables? Which represents the historical demand? Will the government please clarify which information best represents historical staffing and locations?
| Yes. This will be updated prior to issuance of final RFP | |||
| Table 5.1.2 and associated Tables in the Task Orders | Sec C sub 5 | Historical information | Discussion: In Table 5.1.2 footnotes 5 and 6 both establish student to instructor ratio standards. However, these standards are only applied EAATS positions in Table 5.1.2. |
Question: Shouldn’t footnotes 5 (and maybe 6) be applicable to WAATS and HAATS also?
| Ratios apply to all AATS locations. This will be updated prior to issuance of final RFP | |||
| Page 29 of the draft RFP. | Sec C sub 5 | Historical information | Table 5.1 provides historical number of personnel utilized to meet current |
mission demand. Historic number of personnel provided for information and estimating purposes only However page 42 of the draft RFP also titled Historical contractor demand and location data is contradictory in that it shows
| CH47, UH-60, and structural repairman. No where in the RFP does it address those positions. | All aircraft maintenance tasks will be removed from the PWS before issuance of the final RFP. | |||
| Reference Key Personnel. | Sec C sub 5 | Key Personnel | The tables that articulate Key personnel are not clear. Table 5.1 only addresses AATS Scope, and this table is split between page 30 and 31 with a Labor category description in the middle. It shows the Task Management, Staff Coordination, and Organizational support as being key, but the required number is TBD, but is historically two. Key personnel for the AATS task should be specified. Key personnel for I/O scope is not articulated in the PWS, but is listed in STO 2 Attachment, Table 1.1 under paragraph 5.2 the Task Management, Staff Coordination, and Organizational support as being key, but the required number is TBD., but is historically two. AVCATT/NCM# QA and Simulator Scheduler are clearly articulated as key, with one each required. Simulator Operator instructor list 22 under Key Personnel / Number required, implying 22 I/Os are considered key. We recommend: |
a. All tables be clarified and standardized
b. A minimum number of key personnel required for the Task Management, Staff Coordination, and Organizational Support be specified, as it drives resume requirements and is an evaluated factor.
c. No Simulator I/O or other Labor Category be deemed as Key.
d. If the USG insists on a high number of Key Personnel, and associated resumes, the number should be a low percentage of low density Labor Categories, not 100% of any labor category.
| The requirements have been updated for clarity | ||||
| PWS Section 5 | Sec C sub 5 | Page 9 of 171, Unnumbered Table (Title: Simulator Instructor Operator Historical Performance Location); Page 39 of 171, Table 5.2a (Title: Historical Support provided for Aviation Simulators); Page 43, 44 of 171, Unnumbered Table (Title: Historical contractor demand and location data). | ||
| Question: The data provided in these three tables with regard to Simulator Locations and Quantities of I/O is not the same, please provide correct data. | This will be updated prior to issuance of final RFP | |||
| DRAFT RFP, Section C PWS | Sec C- sub 5 | Maintenance Tasks | Discussion: Historical contractor demand and location data lists several items that were not previously identified in Tables 5.1, 5.1.2, 5.2a and 5.2b. These items were either not discussed or have a different headcount.: Simulation Scheduling and Operations Coordination 1 |
CH‐47 Repairman 4 UH‐60 Repairman 15 Aircraft Structural Repairman 1 AVCATT Scheduler 1 Simulator Operator (Regional) 32 Question: Will the government please define and clarify the historical contractor demand and location information?
| All aircraft maintenance tasks will be removed from the PWS . Historical information will be provided via attachment. | ||||
| Page 43 Table | Sec C-gen | EWH Historical Info | Historical contractor demand and location data. Question: Is there any anticipated change in AATS level of effort and manning associated with flight/simulator training as a consequence of the USAACE transition to the UH-72A as the primary flight training aircraft? | There is no current requirement to increase UH-72 simulation utilization at the AATS. The UH-72 hours at the AATS are projected based on AATS course requirements and use by regional units. Increased flexibility to address mission demands in the task orders is the primary benefit envisioned by awarding the contract as an IDIQ. |
| Page 7 Para: 4th | Sec C-sub 1 | BackGround | AVCATT and the Non-Rated Crew Member Manned Module (NCM3) Question: Does ‘increase the usage of ARNG simulators’ include plans to increase usage through formal TRADOC or USAACE experimentation efforts? These type experimentation exercises require significantly different ‘extended hours’ planning to support the necessary staffing requirements. | The requirement is to encourage existing ARNG units to utilize simulators in their assigned region. The requirement is not to advocate for increased TRADOC or USAACE requirements. |
| DRFP Page 6, WAATS | Sec C-sub 1 | Background | WAATS paragraph lists only UH-60A/L. Does government envision conducting UH-60M training as well? | The Government will change the PWS to reflect UH-60M as well |
| DRFP Page 11, COMSEC/IT Security | Sec C-sub 1 | COMSEC | Requirement states “contractors are to abide by COMSEC procedures.” However Attachment_004_-_DDForm_254 Section 10 indicates that the Contractor will not require access to Communications Security (COMSEC Information). Please confirm whether or not access to COMSEC is required? | Contractors may need to use COMSEC for aviation training. According to our security office, the DD254 this block should not be checked unless the contractor builds COMSEC-- this is not a requirement of the contract. |
| Page 6 Para: Back-ground | Sec C-sub 1 | FWAATS | Question: Even through West Virginia (FWAATS) is mentioned in the BACKGROUND AATS paragraph, no other callout for FWAATS support is included in the Historical Support tables or projected task order support tables. Will the Contractor be required to staff and support FWAATS training? | All references to FWAATS have been removed. We do not provide contracted services on this contract to the FWAATS. |
| DRFP Page 27, EQUIPMENT (EAATS) | Sec C-sub 1 | GFE | Can the USG confirm that the list of equipment provided will be Government Furnished Equipment? | Equipment furnished by the Government is identified in the PWS |
| DRFP Page 7, Period of Performance Table | Sec C-sub 1 | POP | This section states that, “This contract will be a Base with four Option Periods.” However, DRFP Page 3, Section B.2 states that the, “contract is a five (5) year base period with the possibility of extension up to an additional six (6) months.” Further, DRFP Page 170, Section M.5.4.2 states that, “The Government will have a five (5) year base ordering period without options; but may extend this period IAW section M.5.4.2.1 below.” Can the USG confirm the Period of Performance for this solicitation and whether or not there will be Option Periods? | The final RFP will be updated to reflect that the IDIQ will have an ordering window of five years. The Task Orders will have separate POPs. |
| DRFP Page 7, Quality Control (QA) | Sec C-sub 1 | QA/QC | Under the General Information header, there are two “Quality Control” sections, one of which is titled “Quality Control (QC)” and the other “Quality Control (QA).” Can the USG clarify whether or not the second section should be changed to “Quality Assurance (QA)?” | For the Final RFP, the government has changed Quality Control (QA) to “Quality Assurance” and changed Quality (Control) to (Assurance) Surveillance Plan |
| DRFP Page 7, Quality Control (QA) | Sec C-sub 1 | QA/QC | Can the USG confirm that the Quality Control Surveillance Plan (QASP) should be renamed to Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)? | For the Final RFP, the government has changed Quality Control (QA) to “Quality Assurance” and changed Quality (Control) to (Assurance) Surveillance Plan |
| DRFP Page 5, SCOPE | Sec C-sub 1 | Scope | Scope states, "This IDIQ contract is to provide Aviation Instruction as well as maintenance support to the equipment used for the purposes of instruction"; and, "Contract will provide support to flight training, aircraft maintenance, simulation training…" There are no references to direct aircraft maintenance tasks or technicians in the PWS. Does the government intend to solicit those services in a separate TO? | All aircraft maintenance tasks and references to aircraft maintenance tasks will be removed for the AATS portion. |
| DRFP Page 5, SCOPE | Sec C-sub 1 | Scope | Scope states, "Contract will provide support to flight training, aircraft maintenance, simulation training, classroom instruction, and school house support activities including the One Army School System (OASS) integration, and Aviation Life Support Equipment (ALSE) maintenance.” In order to provide the Government the flexibility to add additional platform (AH-64D/E, UH-60M, UH-60V, UAS, etc.) support to this contract, would the Government consider modifying this scope statement to read, "Contract will provide support to flight training, aircraft maintenance, simulation training, classroom instruction, and school house support activities, for platforms and simulation devices in use or anticipated to be used by the ARNG, including the One Army School System (OASS) integration, and Aviation Life Support Equipment (ALSE) maintenance.” | The Government agrees with this suggested change and will include this verbiage for the final RFP. |
| DRFP Page 20, Post Award Conference / Periodic Progress Meetings | Sec C-sub 1 | Travel | This section states that, “The Government will not reimburse the Contractor for attendance at Post Award Conference and Periodic Progress Meetings.” Additionally, DRFP Page 70, Section H.4 states, “Technical meetings and/or post-award/pre-performance conferences may be necessary to resolve problems and to facilitate understanding of the technical requirements of the contract. Participants at these meetings/conferences shall be members of the contractor’s technical staff and technical representatives of the Government. These meetings/conferences shall be scheduled with the agreement and arrangements made between the Contracting Officer (KO) or the Contracting Officer’s representative (COR) and the contractor. In addition, during the life of the contract, periodic meetings, which are designed to review program status, assess contractor performance, refine current processes, and plan future actions will be held at both Contractor and Government sites. The Contractor’s attendance at such meetings is required. Records of these meetings/conferences shall be made by the contractor and approved by the Government. All costs associated with the attendance at these meetings/conferences shall be incidental to the contract and not separately billed.” As offerors must capture the cost for this travel for planning/pricing purposes, can the USG provide an expected amount of travel or, perhaps, a not-to-exceed number of trips? | The governemnt will provide forecasted travel requirements in each Task Order and will reimburse meetings required by the Government. |
| DRFP Page 22, Travel Expenses | Sec C-sub 1 | Travel | This section references, “the contractor’s labor hour price.” Can the USG confirm that the reference should actually be to the contractor’s Firm Fixed Price ATSOS Services CLIN? | That is correct. This will be changed prior to the final RFP |
| Page 16 Para: Min General Quals | Sec C-sub 1 | The Contractor shall provide all personnel necessary to perform all services required of this contract, starting on day one and lasting through the entirety of the contract. Question: The Government references a brief Phase-In period in paragraph G.7 (page 65). This would enable retention of qualified personnel, observation of current performance using existing SOPs, and assumption of responsibility following discussions with COR site leads. Will the referenced Phase-In period of fifteen (15) business days occur, or is the Contractor required to be prepared to provide all personnel and service on ‘day one’ as referenced on page 16? | The personnel provided by this contract will not require training by the Government in order to provide the services they were contracted for. There will be no Phase-In period for this action. | |
| Page: 34 Para: Section C | Sec C-sub 5 | Distance Learning Requirement | DISTANCE LEARNING COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT / WEB DEVELOPMENT. Question: Is Web Developer/DBA required to be located at EAATS, or can that function be performed from another site? | Historically, the task was performed only at the EAATS, however the task will be required to be performed for all AATS locations. The contractor can determine best location to serve all the three AATS locations as well as the number of personnel required to perform the task. Offerors are encouraged to find creative ways to meet the requirements of the contract while also reducing costs to the government. |
| DRFP Page 43, Historical contractor demand and location data | Sec C-sub 5 | Distance Learning Requirement | The Information Technology, Information Management (IM), Digital Classroom Support line shows the Number Contractors amount as three (3), but the numbers in the Location cell show a total of four (4) (i.e. 2 x WAATS / 2 x EAATS). Can the USG clarify which numbers are correct? | Will update and correct to current numbers for final RFP |
| DRFP Page 30, CAC readers for contractor owned computers | Sec C-sub 5 | GFE | At which sites will the government require the contractor to provide computers in support of a TO? What other specifications are there for those computers? | Computers and CAC card readers are provided for all contractors with the exception of the AVCATT/NCM3 Quality Assurance contractor(s) |
| DRFP Page 30, AATS REQUIREMENTS | Sec C-sub 5 | Historical information | This section identifies Table 5.1 as the historical number of personnel utilized. Please confirm that the section should refer to 5.1.2. | Future information regarding historical information will be provided via attachment to the solicitation. |
| DRFP Page 30, Table 5.1 | Sec C-sub 5 | Key Personnel | Table lists only one position as Key. Under the number required, it is listed as TBD. Can government clarify and define required key personnel more clearly? | A chart will be provided in the final RFP showing key personnel and required qualifications. |
| DRFP Page 32, Task Management, Staff Coordination, and Organizational Support | Sec C-sub 5 | Oversight | The government's description of the task (highly technical nature, number of positions, and general risk of flight training) is a logical defense of increased management. Did the government actually intend to mitigate those factors by requiring "optimal, maximum, sufficient, or appropriate" oversight, vice the direction to provide "minimum oversight?” | A reference to minimum oversight will be removed in the final RFP. This requirement will be changed to "appropriate" oversight, which offerors may describe in their proposals. |
| DRFP Page 9, Simulator Location of Performance | Sec C-sub 5 | Simulator Locations | DRFP states that the simulator sites are "throughout the 50 United States." Yet, in subsequent section (page 22), combat deployment with a unit is a requirement. Additionally, there do not seem to be provisions in the DRFP for contractor to support simulation devices in any of the four territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, or US Virgin Islands), should the government chose to place simulation devices there? Can the government clarify the requirement for to the contractor to support simulation devices outside of the 50 United States? | All currently anticipated locations are listed in the PWS and the Price Model. Deployment to an OCONUS theater will not be needed at the present time. |
| DRFP Page 31, Table 5.1.2, Tiers | Sec C-sub 5 | Tiers | Given that TO performance is FFP, recommend the government clearly define the term "Tier" in this context. Clarify pricing requirement for this FFP CLIN. | For the purposes of this contract, a "Tier" of support is a pre-priced level of support that may be ordered on future Task Orders. |
| Page 30 TABLE 5.1 | Sec C-subsec 5 | Administrative | TABLE 5.1 PWS REF numbering. Question: TABLE 5.1 includes a column titled “PWS REF” and cites various paragraph numbers, yet the Section C PWS within the draft solicitation does not contain PWS paragraph numbering corresponding to TABLE 5.1 numbering. Does the numbering remain consistent from the Draft PWS issued with the Sources Sought request? | All numbering will be corrected in final RFP. |
| Period of Performance Para/Table on pg 7; Para F.1, Term of Contract, pg 61 | Sec F | POP | Discussion: The PoP paragraph/table on page 7 lists a six-month base contract with four 1-year options as the contract PoP. Paragraph F.1 on pg 61 lists the term of the contract as a five-year base. |
Questions: What is the PoP of the contract? What is the division between base and option timeframes?
| This will be updated prior to issuance of final RFP. The IDIQ will have a base ordering period of 5 years. The Task Orders may have base and option periods as necessary. | ||||
| DRFP Page 65, Section G.7 (Phase-In period) and DD Form 254. | Sec G | DD 254 | Specific personnel security clearance requirements are vague. The DD 254 is for a previous contract. Will the current form convey to this IDIQ? Will the government provide that form in the final RFP? Will the government issue separate forms per TO? | The government will provide separate DD 254s for each task order. New DD 254s will updated after award. |
| DRFP Page 65, Section G.8 Contract Management | Sec G | Deliverables | Can the USG confirm that the “(a) contract maintained Documents. All deliverables shall be provided as specified in the Technical Exhibit B of the PWS” should read “(c) contract maintained Documents. All deliverables shall be provided as specified in the Technical Exhibit 2 of the PWS”. | This Exhibit should read “technical exhibit 2” vice “B.” This will be changed on the final RFP |
| DRFP Page 65, Section G.6 Post-Award Conference | Sec G | Post-Award Conference | Can the USG clarify the location for the Post-Award Conference and the number of USG personnel that will attend? | The location will be the National Guard Bureau at 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington VA. Approximately 6 USG personnel will attend. |
| Reference Section H.7 Insurance | Sec H | Insurance | There appears to be other insurance requirements missing from this section. For example, DBA Insurance for any OCONUS travel or TO work and Non-owned Aviation Insurance for hull damage and personnel protection. Please confirm the requirements for these insurances and specify limits. | The government does not anticipate repair work or OCONUS travel for this requirement. |
| Reference Section H.7 Insurance | Sec H | Insurance | We assume that unique items such as OCONUS insurance requirements (i.e. DBA, medical and evacuation), Visas, and DoS salary uplifts, all of which vary significantly by OCONUS location and can greatly affect the offeror’s OCONUS TO proposals, will be negotiated at the TO level as Travel ODCs and will not be part of the pricing. Please confirm. | The Government does not anticipate any OCONUS travel requirements |
| DRFP Pages 76-77, H.14 Contractor Personnel. Key Personnel resumes and Prohibition on exclusivity agreements | Sec H | Key Personnel | This section states that, “Those 'key personnel" must be available to work on the TO for a minimum of 180 days or to TO completion, whichever occurs first.” However, DRFP Page 142, Section L.6.3.3.2 states that they, “shall remain in their position beginning on the effective date of the contract through the first two years of the contract term.” Can the USG clarify their intent? Couldn't mandating such an arrangement be construed as personal services? | This is an attempt to ensure that key personnel, who are evaluated during source selection, are not swapped for alternate individuals without commensurate experience shortly after contract award. The use of key personnel in this manner does not imply an employer/ employee relationship. |
| DRFP Pages 76-77, H.14 Contractor Personnel. Key Personnel resumes and Prohibition on exclusivity agreements | Sec H | Key Personnel | This section states that, “Those 'key personnel" must be available to work on the TO for a minimum of 180 days or to TO completion, whichever occurs first.” However, DRFP Page 142, Section L.6.3.3.2 states that they, “shall remain in their position beginning on the effective date of the contract through the first two years of the contract term.” This comment implies that the Government intends to issue only task orders that are at least two years’ duration. Can the Government clarify its intent relative to this section? | This section will be clarified to reflect different POPs for Task Orders. |
| Reference Section H.14, pg. 75-76 – Contract Personnel: | Sec H | Key Personnel | Key Personnel proposed by Contractor and accepted by the USG for TO performance must be available to work on the TO for a minimum of 180 days. The majority of this effort occurs in Right to Work States, and will be “Employment at Will”. Offerors ware required to prove staffing (and retention) in Volume II. Additionally, Section L requires that the offeror “indicate the Key Person’s intention to accept the offer. What metrics will the USG use to track this and what is the proposed ramification if a key person does not accept the job offer after award or leaves before the 180 days? | This is an attempt to ensure that key personnel, who are evaluated during source selection, are not swapped for alternate individuals without commensurate experience shortly after contract award. The Government will expect that an individual with the same or better qualifications will be selected to fill the role of the key personnel and that the change of personnel will be approved by the Contracting Officer. |
| H.14/ L.3.3.2, M.6.1.4 | Sec H | Key Personnel | Question A. Does the Government intend for the ATSOS contract to be a personal services type contract? If not, will the Government delete the requirements in the references above and hold the offeror accountable to perform to the standards and qualification requirements as stated documents such as AR 95-1, DCMA INST 8210-1C, 48 CFR 252.228-7001, the labor category descriptions beginning at the bottom of page 32, and in other clearly defined requirements such as “Satisfactory completion of an APART”, “must be a U.S. citizen”, etc. |
Question B. Employment law governing each of the performance locations envisioned by the ATSOS contract is “at will”. Based on the Government’s statements listed in the references above, such as “Those “key personnel” must be available to work on the TO for a minimum of 180 days or to TO completion, whichever occurs first” and “the Letter of Commitment shall indicate the Key Person’s intention to accept employment, total compensation to include reimbursable and non-reimbursable costs under the contract, benefits, commitment to relocate as necessary, and they shall remain in their position beginning on the effective date of the contract
| through the first two years of the contract term”, is it the Government’s intent to require the offeror to enter into binding employment contracts with the personnel it identifies in its proposal? If not, will the Government delete the requirements to show commitments that are contrary to ‘at will’ employ. | This is an attempt to ensure that key personnel, who are evaluated during source selection, are not swapped for alternate individuals without commensurate experience shortly after contract award. The use of key personnel in this manner does not imply an employer/ employee relationship. The requirement to seek Contracting Officer approval before the replacement of personnel does not impact the legal rights of the vendor to hire/fire employees under state law. However, the replacement of key personnel without prior approval will violate the terms of the contract. | ||||
| Reference H.10 OCI j.(1) Reps and Disclosure | Sec H | OCI | (1) does not state when and how the contractor shall submit Attachment 0008- OCI Questionnaire/Survey. Should it be submitted in Volume 1 along with Attachment 0004? Please confirm | This will be due at time of proposal. | |
| DRFP Page 75, Section H.13 On-Ramp/Off-Ramp Procedures | Sec H | On/Off Ramp | The last sentence in this section is incomplete. Can the USG provide the remainder of the information? | The partial sentence has been removed. This section is stating that the government reserves the right to anounce a new competition and doesn't anticipate the establishement of procedures at this time. | |
| DRFP Page 76, Section H.14 Contractor Personnel | Sec H | Personnel | Can the USG confirm that paragraph e should be paragraph c and that additional paragraphs were not inadvertently removed? | Yes. This will be updated prior to issuance of final RFP | |
| H.8 Security Requirement | Sec H | Security | Discussion: Reference states (emphasis added): “(a) The Government requires may require a Secret security clearance for the performance of certain duties on some task orders issued under this contract.” The word “may” does not define specific security requirements and will thus not allow contractors to obtain the required Facility Security Clearance (FCL) through DSS as other requirements in the Solicitation note (see additional questions, below). DSS will only set-up, assist, inspect and allow contractors to apply for and obtain a FCL with specific security clearance requirements as defined in the PWS and/or contract documents. The statement, above, does not qualify for security clearance programs under DSS (verified with our local DSS rep.). Question: Will the government allow a successful contractor to apply and obtain a required FCL following contract / task order award instead of requiring FCL at RFP close? | Will adjust statement to clarify requirement prior to issuance of the final RFP. Successful offeror must obtain FCL prior to contract award. | |
| H.8 Security Requirement | Sec H | Security | Discussion: Reference states “The personnel shall be cleared personnel in accordance with the clause in Section I, FAR clause 52.204-2 “Security Requirements”. If satisfactory security arrangements cannot be made with the Contractor, the required services shall be obtained from other sources.” |
And, in paragraph c: “(c) The level of classified access required shall be indicated in the individual TO.”
Question: The statements, above, do not qualify for security clearance programs under DSS (verified with our local DSS rep.), therefore, if a contractor (Prime) is delayed from obtaining the noted security requirements due to a back-log in Defense Security Services (DSS) approval mechanisms, will the government allow a teammate of the Prime (Subcontractor) with appropriate security approvals to execute those requirements on behalf of the team until such time as the Prime can obtain appropriate security systems through DSS?
| Yes, a teaming agreement can help the prime meet this requirements if needed. | ||||
| Reference Section H.9, pg. 72: | Sec H | Travel | Lodging and per diem expenses shall be billed at the lesser of actual costs incurred or the current per diem rate. Lodging is understandable but M&IE is typically billed at the current locality rate. Language should state that M&IE will be billed using current USG per diem rates. | This will be updated prior to issuance of the final RFP. |
| DRFP Page 88, FAR 52.216-22 (d) | Sec I | Clauses | Can the USG confirm that the last line in this section should be changed from, “one year after then completion of the ordering period,” to “one year after the completion of the ordering period?” | Yes. This will be updated prior to issuance of final RFP |
| DRFP Page 110, DFAR 252.217-7027 (a) & (d) | Sec I | Clauses | How will the fill-in’s be completed for this clause? | Fill Ins have been updated. |
| DRFP Page 116, DFAR 252.237-7023 (b) | Sec I | Clauses | Can the USG provide the missing information found in the second sentence of this section, “These services are listed in attachment --, Mission-Essential Contractor Services, dated --------?” | This clause will be removed as performance during a crisis will not be reuqired. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .