Attachment_0010_(Follow_Up_QAs-A5).pdf

Reference Question Answer Impact on solicitation.

Table 5.1.2 Base on the Table 5.1.2 is confusing – For EAATS Sim UH60 Tier 4 indicates Simulator Hr./mo.

of 820 - however there are only 720hrs per month available. We are unable to correlate the sim hours to hours in a day. Please clarify if this applies to multiple sims for the UH60.

The EAATS currently has 3 UH60 simulators including 2 x UH60A/L ABHFS and 1 x UH60A/L SFTS. The EAATS will add a UH60M BAT this FY bringing the total to four devices.

RFP Page 118-126, L.6.2.2, L-6.2.3, and L.6.4.3

Sections L.6.2.2 and L.6.2.3 list the following as Subfactors in Evaluation Factor 1 - Technical Approach: Subfactor 1 IDIQ Technical Approach Subfactor 2 Management/Staffing Plan Subfactor 3 Proposed Personnel Subfactor 4 Draft Quality Control Plan The new table in at the end of Section L, just after Section L.6.4.3, however, lists the following as the Subfactors in the Technical Approach: Subfactor 1 Overall IDIQ Technical Approach Subfactor 2 Draft Quality Control Plan Subfactor 3 Proposed Personnel Subfactor 4 Quality Control Plan Can the Government confirm that Subfactor 2 should still be the Management/Staffing Plan, as captured in Section L.6.2.3?

Yes Section L.6.2.3 is correct. Subfactor 2 is Management/ Staffing Plan. That correction has been made in the table. Table is updated to match sections L&M.

RFP Page 122, Section L.6.3 and Attachment_0010_(QAs- Am_0003)

Section L.6.3 states that, "The Offeror shall also submit the written consent of its major subcontractors to allow the disclosure of its subcontractor’s past performance information to the Offeror. In addition, letters of commitment shall be included for all major subcontractors for their past performance to be considered." However, the Government stated in Q&A #31 in Attachment_0010 that, "The written consent of the major subcontractors to disclose past performance information can be included in TAB C of Volume I." Can the Government confirm whether major subcontractor consent letters and letters of commitment should be included as part of Vol III Past Performance or in TAB C of Volume I?

This information should be included in TAB C of Volume I. Volume III has a page limit, this information does not need to take up the limited space in that volume.

Attachment_0010_(QAs- Am_0003)

The Government states in Q&A #23 that the Price Model (Attachment_0001_-_Price Model_(ATSOS)), "has been updated and will be included with the amendment W9133L-17-R 0008-0003." Can the Government confirm when the updated Pricing Model will be available to Offerors?

The updated version is enclosed with these responses. The updated pricing worksheet removes a label from Tab II. (Pricing Elements)-- no other significant content or formatting changes were made from the original attachment. Because changes are minor, the proposal due date will not be extended due to changes in the price model.

Updated Price proposals should have the "AATs Services" label in column C of Tab II. Pricing Elements changed to "Services."

RFP Paragraph 1.4.8.1, Would government provide the source for the Army Training Requirements and Resources System School Manager Certification course or method of certification?

ASM Research provides ATRRS -101 Training. The training is located in Fairfax, VA. There is no requirement to have a certifaction, however access to ATRRS roles and responsibilities are governed by ARNG-TRI, National Guard Bureau.

Personnel providing services at the AATS locations must have approved access from ARNG-TRI. Upon request Government personnel at the AATS can provide local training on ATRRS prior to access approval being granted.

Attachment_0010_(QAs- Am_0003) - Excel

Questions 27 and 34 refer to a future amendment. Does the government plan to release another amendment related to pricing? Please see answer to question 4 above.

Section L&M-General

1) There is a current incumbent contractor performing this effort.

2) The Key positions are governed by the Service Contract Act respective AWD.

3) The Government requires the competitors to provide resumes for key positions.

4) The Government expects competitors to obtain and present letters of commitment requiring the candidate for the key positions to commit to working this contract for a specified period of time.

5) The Executive Order 13495 requires the bidder/awardee to provide the individual under service contracts, the first right of refusal for the position which they are qualified.

So, the bidders are to obtain letters of commitment from candidates for key positions, which the bidder is required, per the EO 13495, to offer to the incumbent personnel first right of refusal?

Why would any candidate provide a bidder a letter of commitment (except if they are working for the incumbent contractor), when they will not be offered the position until after the incumbent employee in that position, having first right of refusal, declines the position? Additionally, there is no need for the key resumes when we are required to hire the incumbents per the EO. This provides a distinct competitive advantage to the incumbent contractor in bidding this effort since no other competitor can provide the required resumes, nor letters of commitment. We request complete removal of the Solicitation requirements in Section L and M for the presentation of key resumes and letters of commitment. If the Government does not remove the requirement, we further requests the Government provide a list of all current incumbent personnel, in the PWS defined key positions, and their respective contact information (at a minimum email and phone), where we can obtain their resumes and letters of commitment to work for us should we win the competition. Additionally, we requests the Government notify the incumbent contractor to allow competitors to contact these individuals and provide their resumes and letters of commitment.

1. NGB-AV has an interest in the safety of their pilots by ensuring that AVCATT training attendees receive proper training and that Aircraft are safe after maintenance (for the Maintenance Test Pilot). The Government addresses this interest by seeking the most highly qualified individuals provide the services anticipated for "key personnel." The Government is interested in seeing resumes for individuals that exceed the minimum qualifications. The Government also has an interest in ensuring that these key positions are able to be filled by qualified individuals at time of award, whether they be incumbent personnel or new employees.

2. The "key personnel" positions may be incumbent contractor employees or other proposed candidates. Incumbent employees may decline the position in the future.

3. Nothing in the solicitation requires that the vendors commit to hiring non-incumbent proposed employees who provide letters of commitment. If a vendor is an unsuccessful offeror its likely many of their potential employment agreements will fail to take effect because they did not receive the contract award.

4. Nothing in the solicitation prohibits the incumbent to provide multiple letters of commitment for several potential offerors.

The current vendor has stated that it does not currently have, nor will it enter into, exclusivity agreements with its employees.

5. The potential offeror asks "[w]hy would any candidate provide a bidder a letter of commitment (except if they are working for the incumbent contractor), when they will not be offered the position until after the incumbent employee in that position, having first right of refusal, declines the position?" It's not the Government's role to advise or intervene with hiring practices in private industry unless required by statute or regulation. Likely potential candidates can be incentivized to provide letters of commitment even when future employment is not guaranteed.

6. Only four tasks are identified as requiring "key personnel" in a requirement that historically has required over fifty contractor employees. Requiring this relatively small subsection of personnel to have their qualifications identified during sources selection does not favor the incumbent.

7. The Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Clause (52.222-17), which implements EO 13495, in section (d)(2), does not permit the contracting officer to release the service employee list prior to award.

8 Section L&M-General Upon review of the "Regional" sites, I have not been able to find a SCA AWD for the Cape Cod, MA location, neither in the solicitation or on the SCA AWD website. Please advise. The regional is located at Otis Air National Guard Base in Barnstable County. Thre is 1 x UH60 TBOS located at the site. Wage Determinations have been amended to include this location.

Section L&M-General

The Section L&M request we price using a 1920 hour productive manyear. Per the Area Wage Determination, we are required to provide, per Executive Order 13706, up to 56 hours per year of paid sick leave. After clarification from DOL, this is in addtion to the minimum vacation of 10 days per year and 10 holidays per year. Is it not correct the productive manyear should be 2080 - 56 - 80 - 80 = 1864 hours? Additionally, several of the the AWDs ( Minnesota, Michigan, Utah) require 11 paid holidays vice 10; hence the productive manyear for those locations would be 1864- 8=1856. Correct?

This is a performance based contract and vendors are permitted to propose alternate ways to meet the requirements of the PWS. The Pricing element information is used for the government to gain an understanding of the components to the price provided. The reference to 1,920 has been removed in its entirety. Vendors may propose different hours in column D of tab II (Pricing Elements). A rating of price proposals will be based on the Total IDIQ pricing in tab I. Offerors shall ensure they comply with FAR Part 22 and all applicable labor laws.

Reference to 1,920 has been removed from section L.6.4.3.

10 Amendment 4

In additional clarification provided by the Government, it is stated "The following is provided as an additional response to questions 59 and 60: The incumbent vendor has informed the Government that their company does not maintain, nor will it enter into exclusivity agreements of any type with current or potential employees performing under their contract. ". Though the Government takes this position, it does not remove the unlevel competitive advantage of the incumbent and/or their team. Are there no incumbent personnel in the key positions under the incumbent contract? If there are, please provide the names and contact information for all incumbent personnel, such that competitors may contact those individuals. Per EO 134095, the awardees’ of the contract is required to provide first right of refusal to all incumbent personnel. Therefore, please explain the need for bidders to provide resumes and letters of commitment when we are required to provide the incumbent personnel with the first right of refusal for the positions which they are qualified for?

Please see answer to question 7 above.

Attachment 1-Price Model & Answer to Q&A #23

Reference: Attachment 1-Price Model & Answer to Q&A #23. Government stated that Attachment 0001 – Price Model had been updated and will be attached with the amendment W9133L-17-R- 0008-0003.” Question: Attachment 0001 –Price Model was not attached to Amendment 0003.

Will the Government be posting an updated Attachment 0001-Price Model? If so, will the Government be extending the submission date to allow time for Offerors to complete the updated Price Model?

Please see answer to question 4 above.

Section L Volume IV – Price. Section L.6.4.3

Reference: Section L Volume IV – Price. Section L.6.4.3 instructs Offerors to propose all hourly rates based on a 40-hour work week (1,920 hours per year). Question: Please confirm that Offeror’s are to use 1,920 hours for each full-time equivalent (FTE) being proposed. Please see answer to question 9 above.

Attachment 0002 – Task Order for Evaluation

Reference: Attachment 0002 – Task Order for Evaluation. The Travel Estimate Tab states: “FOR

PURPOSES OF EVALUATION FOR THE IDIQ ASSUME THERE ARE NO TRAVEL

EXPENSES. THIS SHEET IS PROVIDED ONLY TO SHOW CONSISTENCY WITH THE

ANTICIAPTED TASK ORDER REQUEST FORM”, however, the Task Order Request for Quote has a line item for Travel Expenses for each period of performance. Questions: We understand that the Task Order Request for Quote Tab of Attachment 0002, Travel Expense line item for each period of performance will contain zero dollars ($0.00) IAW with the instructions on the Travel Estimate Tab. Please confirm.

That is correct. Assume a $0 amount for travel for the Task Order for Evaluation.

Q&A #55 & M.5.3.1.2 – Other Direct Costs.

Reference: Q&A #55 & M.5.3.1.2 – Other Direct Costs. M.5.3.1.2 states that The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s labor rates, level of effort, staffing costs, and other costs necessary for operations such as travel, deliverables, and Other Direct Costs. The Government will review CLINs for reasonableness, affordability, and realism….. However, the Government’s response to Q&A states that it is up to the discretion of the contractor and that the Government is interested in seeing how rates are built for the purposes of price analysis. Questions: 1.) Attachment 0001 – Price Model does not provide CLINs for Travel or Other Direct Costs (ODCs), furthermore IAW with the instructions on Attachment 0002 – Task Order for Evaluation we are NOT required to provide travel expenses. We assume that these instructions apply to ODCs as well. Please confirm. 2.)

IAW with L.6.4.3 we understand that we are to provide a narrative detailing the composition of costs that were used to develop our indirect rates (i.e., OH, Fringe, G&A, etc.), and the Government is not requiring Offeror’s to include in Volume IV a detailed breakdown of all items with their associated cost included in the proposed indirect rates, however, the Government reserves the right to request this detail IAW FAR Part 15.306. Please confirm.

The Government doesn't require a narrative breakdown in Volume IV with more detail than in the pricing elements and rate information in the price model-- we are interested in how you arrived at those figures. You are correct that attachment 0001 does not provide CLINs for Travel or Other Direct Costs. Travel Costs will be estimated at the Task Order Level. The Governement is interested in a pricing of ODCs only in the pricing elements to see how vendors arrived at their prices.

15 Section L.6.2.3.2.

Reference: Section L.6.2.3.2. The RFP requires "Proposed Key Personnel must be United States citizens, and have current SECRET clearances". Question. We understand that, like the Facility Clearance, Key personnel are required to have the SECRET clearance by award and upon arrival at the Government site. This enables offerors to propose personnel who have recently held SECRET Clearances and are in the process of re-adjudication. Is this understanding correct?

That is correct. The company requirements for security clearances are discussed in question 19 below.

16 Section L.6.2.3.2 (2)

Reference: Section L.6.2.3.2 (2) states: “The Offeror shall provide the following information in regards to proposed personnel…”, “The Offeror shall submit written resumes addressing the elements described below, for all Key Personnel…”,

5. Chronological Work History: Start with current position and work backwards….D. “Name, Title, Phone Number, and Email of Supervisor”, and 10. “References: Name, title, address, current telephone number, e-mail. The proposed Key Personnel should list three references. It is the Government’s preference that Offerors provide references that are not currently Federal employees.

Include the following statement: By submission of this information, the Key Person and Offeror authorize Department of the Government to contact references and previous employers provided to verify accuracy. By submission of each resume, the Key Person and Offeror authorize the Government to contact any references and previous employers to verify accuracy of information provided in the resume….It is the Prime Contractor’s responsibility to perform background checks, to vet and validate qualifications, verify previous employment and contact references stated on resume. As the Prime, if the proposed personnel are currently employed and aren’t comfortable providing employer contact information due to sensitivity of the situation and potentially jeopardizing their current jobs, we work with the candidates to obtain the verification information without contacting their supervisor and jeopardizing their current employment. In addition, even with providing contact information for previous employers on the resume, there isn’t a guarantee the supervisors are still with the said company. Primes usually have to contact other authorized personnel within the company’s HR department to verify employment for us.Questions:

1. Why is the Government doing employment and verification checks on Key Personnel and not allowing the Prime to do this? Why is this information needed on the resumes?

2. Will the Offerors be penalized if the information is not provided for current employers for fear of jeopardizing their current job?

3. If the information on previous employers’ supervisors is not current, will the Offeror be penalized?

This requirement will be removed. Vendor's may verify employement.

Section L.6.2.3.2 has been modified to remove the resume sections 5.D. and 10.

This information may be provided if resumes are already submitted.

17 Reference Q&As

It appears that the several of the questions as well as the Government’s response were cut off when the document was converted to pdf. We ask that the Government expand the lines to ensure the entire answer is visible and re-issue the Q&A. Yes. The Government will re-post the the last QAs to ensure all responses are viewable.

18 Volume II Tabs A-D.

The table does not match the volume II instructions. According to the instructions the proposal should be laid out as:

A- IDIQ Technical Approach – 15 pages. (The new table lists this correctly) B- Management Staffing Plan – 15 pages (The new table lists Tab B as Draft QCP 15 pages) We believe the table to be in error per instruction) C- Proposed Personnel – 10 pages. (The new table lists this correctly) D- Draft QCP – unlimited. (The table is correct) Can you please clarify that Tab B should be the Management Staffing Plan – 15 pages?

Yes. Please see answer to question 2 above.

Reference: W9133L-17-

R-0008-0003-ATSOS-

A3_(16_MAY_17)

including Q&A - Requirement for Offeror to possess an FCL at RFP close.

Discussion: The government provided answers to questions and inclusions within reference, above, regarding Facility Security Clearance (FCL) requirements are inconsistent throughout the Q&A responses and are not in accordance with the Defense Security Service (DSS) National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), Change 2, dated 5/18/2016. Specifically, the NISPOM specifies (highlights added): NISPOM Section 1. Facility Clearances (FCLs), paragraph 2- 100 (excerpt):

General. An FCL is an administrative determination that a company is eligible for access to classified information or award of a classified contract. Contract award may be made prior to the issuance of an FCL. In those cases, the contractor will be processed for an FCL at the appropriate level and must meet eligibility requirements for access to classified information. Question: Since access to classified information is NOT required by the Government Contracting Activity (GCA) and/or Cognizant Security Agency (CSA) (admin note: GCA and CSA are NISPOM acronynms) at the pre-contract award stage, will the government consider changing the FCL requirement to the following language (or similar)? "Following contract award, the government will issue a DD254 and security classification guidance to the awardee and will allow sufficient time for the awardee to obtain the required FCL or GCA/CSA will sponsor an interim DSS-approved FCL in accordance with DSS requirements."

The Governmennt concurs with this change to the requirement for security clearances. This information has been added to section H.8. and L.6.1.8. Sections L.6.1.8 and H8 have been updated.

Reference: W9133L-17-

R-0008-0003-ATSOS-

A3_(16_MAY_17)

including Q&A - Requirement for Offeror to possess an FCL at RFP close.

Discussion: The current requirements for an offeror to have an active FCL in place at RFP close is not consistent with DSS NISPOM guidance. Specifically, the government is requiring an offeror to have an active FCL prior to RFP close - when the only way to have that is from another contract FCL that has no connection whatsoever to the ATSOS contract. This is inconsistent with the NISPOM which states (excerpt, highlights added):

2-102. Eligibility Requirements. A contractor or prospective contractor cannot apply for its own FCL. A GCA or acurrently cleared contractor may sponsor an uncleared company for an FCL. A company must meet the following eligibility requirements before it can be processed for an FCL:

a. The company must need access to the classified information in connection with a legitimate U.S.

Government or foreign government requirement.

b. The company must be organized and existing under the laws of any of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico, and be located in the United States or its territorial areas.

c. The company must have a reputation for integrity and lawful conduct in its business dealings.

The company and its key managers must not be barred from participating in U.S. Government contracts.

d. The company must not be under FOCI to such a degree that the granting of the FCL would be inconsistent with the national interest.

Question: The way the current RFP is written severely restricts competition and favors the incumbent - the only company with an active FCL supporting the NGB within the AATS locations -and, therefore, will the government consider changing the requirement of the FCL to state the following language (or similar)? "Following contract award, the government will issue a DD254 and security classification guidance to the awardee and will allow sufficient time for the awardee to obtain the required FCL or GCA/CSA will sponsor an interim DSS-approved FCL in accordance with DSS requirements."

Please see answer to question 19 above.

Reference: W9133L-17-

R-0008-0003-ATSOS-

A3_(16_MAY_17)

including Q&A - Requirement for Offeror to possess an FCL at RFP close.

Discussion: By requiring an offeror to possess an FCL at RFP close, the government is severely limiting competition and not allowing the FCL processes noted within the NISPOM to be considered. Specifically, the NISPOM specifies (excerpt - highlights added):

2-107. Interim FCLs. An interim FCL may be granted to eligible contractors by the CSA. An interim FCL is granted on a temporary basis pending completion of the full investigative requirements.Question: Will the government consider changing the requirement of the FCL to state the following language (or similar)? "Following contract award, the government will issue a DD254 and security classification guidance to the awardee and will allow sufficient time for the awardee to obtain the required FCL or GCA/CSA will sponsor an interim DSS-approved FCL in accordance with DSS requirements."

Please see answer to question 19 above.

Reference: W9133L-17-

R-0008-0003-ATSOS-

A3_(16_MAY_17)

including Q&A - Requirement for Offeror to possess an FCL at RFP close.

Government Q&A reference - W9133L-17-R-0008- ATSOS_(6APR17) Reference: Section L.6.1.8 and Section M.2 and RFP Section L.6.1.9 and Attachment_0001-DRAFT_RFP_QAs Reference Q&A #7 - answer states: "Added in section L.6.1.8 that "the entity that submits the offer must possess the clearance." However, Later in Q&A #26 - answer states (emphasis added):

"Yes. The Governement will allow a teaming agreement to mitigate the Prime not possessing a SECRET Facility Clearance. The requirements for these procedures are explained in section L.6.1.8." Note: "Teaming Agreement" is NOT related to "managing partner" of a JV as noted elsewhere in the Q&A regarding FCL requirements. Question: Will the government consider changing the requirement of the FCL to state the following language (or similar)? "Following contract award, the government will issue a DD254 and security classification guidance to the awardee and will allow sufficient time for the awardee to obtain the required FCL or GCA/CSA will sponsor an interim DSS-approved FCL in accordance with DSS requirements."

Please see answer to question 19 above.

Reference: 52.215-2 (c) relates to Certified cost or pricing data.

Under FAR subpart 15.403-1 Discussion: Certified Pricing is not required if there is adequate price competition. Two or more responsible offerors competing independently normally satisfies this requirement.

Question: Will the government provide the justification for the inclusion of certified pricing on a FFP contract where competitive pricing is anticipated?

The Government does anticipate adequate competition and certification of cost and pricing data is not required at this time.

This Provision has been removed.

Provision 52.215-20 has been removed at multiple locations.

Reference: Draft PWS Page 44, AATS - Publications applicable to this PWS are listed below:

EAATS SOP / 05 JUN 15 / Mandatory Document will be emailed upon request from vendor

- FR 350-1 / JAN 2010 / Mandatory Document will be emailed upon request from vendor

- TM 1-1520- 237-10 / AUG 2014 / Mandatory Document will be emailed upon request from vendor

- TM 1-152- 240-10 / AUG 2014 / Mandatory Document will be emailed upon request from vendor

- And other documents identified as “Provided onsite; paper/digital”

Discussion: Per PWS notes and other documents to be “provided onsite/digital”, [vendor] desires to have these in-hand at the earliest opportunity.

Question: Will the government please provide all documents as noted, above, and any other documents otherwise not readily available via open sources as specifically related to this effort?