Attachment_0010_(QAs-Am_0003).pdf

Reference Topic Question Answer Impact on solicitation.

W9133L-17-R-0008-

ATSOS_(6APR17)

Page 121, Reference:

L.6.2.3.2

Instructio ns to Offerors

Question: Should the submitted proposal identify L.6.2.3.2. Factor 1, Subfactor 3: Proposed Personnel as Tab C? Yes. A table has been added to clarify this submission. Table was added at end of section L.

Attachment_0009- _Historical_Info_and_Pro jected_courses Page 2, Reference:

Historical Support provided for AATS

Historica l Info

Information Technology, Information Management (IM), Digital Classroom Support 3: 2 x WAATS (AZ) / 2 x EAATS (PA)

Question: Will the government clarify if it's 3 or 4 personnel at what locations for the IT portion?

The historical number of contractor support for this service was 4. This number is historical and should only be used to inform potential vendors of the past requirement. The Government is not specifying the number of people required for the current PWS.

Attachment_0001_- _Price_Model_(ATSOS), Reference: I. Total IDIQ Pricing

Pricing Info

Question: Does the government want a Monthly FFP price for each item? Yes. The Government wants a monthly price for each tier of performance. This pricing structure will determine the price of all potential future orders.

Attachment_0001_- _Price_Model_(ATSOS), Reference: II. Pricing Elements Pricing

Info

Question: Was it the government intent to only request the buildup for the AATS portion of the pricing provide in Tab I. total IDIQ Pricing?

Question: Which sections of the AATS portion does the government wasn’t us to include?

(Admin, Flight UH-60, etc.)

Question: Which Tier of support does the government want us to provide?

No. All Tiers, all ordering years, and all tasks should be priced.

Attachment_0001_- _Price_Model_(ATSOS), Reference: III. Rate Build

Pricing Info

Comment: Government requests we assume Tier 4 support. However there are no hours. This is only a rate build up sheet.

Question: Will the govnerment please clarify / revise the request and document?

The anticipated hours should be based on your estimation of the support required to provide the services described. The assumption of Tier 4 support is only for the pricing elements and rate buildup sheets on the price model. The Task Order for evaluation andticipated Tier 2 level support.

W9133L-17-R-0008-

ATSOS_(6APR17),

Reference: Key Peronnsel in PWS, Section L

Key Personne l

Comment: The PWS only delineates 3 Key personnel. Section L conflicts with the PWS.

There were several previously asked questions about Key Personnel and the government said it would provide a chart showing Key Personnel and required qualfications. The most important is the clear identification of Task Management, Staff Coordination and Organizational Support.

Comment: The government states the Offeror cannot identify additional Key Personnel at their discretion.

Question: Will the govrnment clarify the exact personnel they wish to identify as Key Personnel and provide the charts previously identified in the Q&A and the deconflict the PWS and Section L requirements, specifically to PWS 5.1.1 Task Management, Staff Coordination and Organizational Support.

The key personnel are identified in section L.6.2.3.2(2), which references sections 5.1.1, 5.1.6, 5.2.7, and 5.2.8 of the PWS. The qualifications for those positions are found in those sections of the PWS.

W9133L-17-R-0008-

ATSOS_(6APR17)

Reference: Section L.6.1.8 and Section M.2

Facility Clearanc e

Comment: FACILITY CLEARANCE COMPLIANCE REVIEW / Several questions were asked about obtaining an FCL prior to award and the use of subcontractor in case of DSS delays. None of the government answers made it into the final RFP and/or revisions to Sections L and M.

Question: Will the government update Section L and M to reflect their answers from previous Q&A (#86, 87, 117)?

Section L.6.1.8 states that the Secret Security Clearance is required upon receipt of proposals, but that a partner/ joint venture may possess the clearance. Section M.2 also states this requirement. Added in section L.6.1.8 that "the entity that submits the offer must possess the clearance."

Pg 19, 1.4.8.6.1

Personne l Qualifica tions

Comment: The reference states that IPs must have 2yrs and /or 250 hours as IP in USAACE or OATS certified location.

Question: Since HAATS isn't OASS Certified, is it certified as a ASAACE training facility?

HAATS is an OASS accredited school with proponent approved POI.

Reference/Comment:

L.4.6

Past Performa nce

Offeror shall not submit information on more than five previous contracts. Offerors shallsubmit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime contractor and each major subcontractor inperformance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the effortsrequired by this solicitation.Question: If the offeror and major subcontractors have more than five contracts, does the government wish for thesubmission to be limited to the five most relevant?

Yes. Section L.6.3 will be modified to remove the word "all " in the fourth sentence.

Section L.6.3 was modified to remove the word "all" from the fourth sentence.

10 Row 3 of Q&A Price Proposal Answer provides guidance for pricing sample task orders, but sample TOs have beenremoved

Confirmed. The sample Task orders have been removed. The pricing for the duration of the IDIQ should be provided IAW the format in Attachment 0001 (Price Model). Attachment 0002 is the Task Order for Evaluation, which will be used to compare prices during sources selection. The pricing model will also be evaluated for balance.

11 Row 9 of Q&A Price Model

Attachment 2 PWS TO 2 Table 5.1.2 indicates UH60 IP and CH47 IP twice or is this in errorand should be UH60, UH72 and CH47 to coincide with Sim positions? Can we assume UH72 IP positions atEAATS. Discussion: Still lists CH47 twice.

The table references the appropriate PWS para. The two CH47 positions reflect Rated and Non-rated cremember training and are relfected in different PWS paragraphs 5.1.7 Rated crewmember (instructor pilot) requirement and 5.1.8 (non-rated crewmember flight instructor).

12 Row 10 & 11 of Q&A

Sample Task Orders

Answer states sample TOs have been removed, but sample TO is still included asattachment 3, and answer in Row 3 of Q&A gives guidance for pricing sample TOs.

Clarification. The sample Task Orders were meant for evaluation purposes in the Draft RFP. These have been removed to provide a price model for the entire IDIQ and a Task Order for evaluation, which will be used solely for evaluation purposes and will not be awarded. The sample

13 Row 58 of Q&A QA/ QC Answer states this will be updated prior to final RFP; it has not been updated.

The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan and Quality Control Plan are logically distinct. The QCP is created by the vendor and a draft is due with the proposal submission. The QASP is how the government intends to surveil vendor performance. The previous answer to the draft RFP was to address a typo where the QCP section was listed as "QA."

14 Row 59 of Q&A QA/ QC Answer states this will be updated prior to final RFP; it has not been updated. See answer to question 13 above.

15 Row 60 pf Q&A Aircraft Maint.

Answer states all aircraft maintenance and reference to aircraft maintenance tasks will beremoved for the AATS portion, but para. 5.1.8.1.4 still references aircraft mx. Aircraft maintenance is a topic of academic instruction.

16 Row 60 of Q&A Aircraft Maint. Answer states this will be updated prior to final RFP; it has not been updated.

Maintenance as a topic of academic instruction has remained. References to maintenance tasks other than website maintenance, ALSE maintenance, and Maintenance Test Pilot tasks have been removed.

References to repairman tasks have been removed.

17 Row 87 of Q&A

Facility Clearanc e Answer states this will be updated prior to final RFP; it has not been updated.

See question 7 above.

18 Row 96 of Q&A SubK pricing

Answer states this has been removed for the final RFP; however, a related clause, 52.215- 13Subcontractor Certified Cost or Pricing Data-Modifications, is still included.

Confirmed. This was removed in one section but not another. Will be removed in following Amendment. This Clause was removed from section I.

19 Row 109 of Q&A

Key Personne l Qualifica tions

The question requests clarification on whether key personnel resumes are required for theIDIQ and on the task orders; the answer states a chart will be provided showing key personnel and requiredqualifications, but does not provide clarification on the requirement for resumes.

See question 6 above.

20 Row 110 of Q&A

Time for proposal to be valid Answer states the requirement has been changed, but the RFP has not been updated toreflect this.

Clarification. This has been modified to remove the previous requirement that pricing be valid for 270 days. The government wants to ensure that any delay in award of the IDIQ (e.g. due to pre-award protest) will not necessitate another competition. Because vendors are pricing out Tiers of support meant to be valid for a period of five years, this requirement was not perceived as being particularly onerous. If this is not the case, please advise in a follow-up comment.

21 Row 118

Facility Clearanc e Answer states this will be updated prior to final RFP; it has not been updated.

See question 7 above.

22 Row 119

Time for proposal to be valid Answer states this will be updated prior to final RFP; it has not been updated.

See question 20 above.

Attachment_0001_- _Price Model_(ATSOS) Tab II. Pricing Element.

Price Model

The tab includes price build-ups for CLIN 0001 AATS Services and CLIN 0003 CMRA, but does not include a price build-up for the Simulator Instructor/Operator (Sim I/O) labor categories. As the price for Sim I/O labor categories will be used to determine the pricing required in Tab I. Total IDIQ Pricing in the Price Model, can the USG provide guidance on how offerors should capture the Sim I/O price-build up in their proposals?

Clarification. The Pricing Elements should be for all areas of the requirement.

To clarify this, the Pricing Worksheet removes the word "AATS" in column C.

The pricing worksheet will be updated in a following amendment.

This document has been updated and will be included with the amendment W9133L-17-R- 0008-0003.

PWS Table 5.1, Page 32 Key Personne l

Table 5.1 lists "Task Management, Staff Coordination, and Organizational Support" as a "Key Personnel." However, PWS Section 5.1.1 describes Task Management, Staff Coordination, and Organizational Support as a function, not as an individual or singular position. Can the USG clarify its intent of listing the functions described in PWS Section 5.1.1 as a "Key Personnel?"

As a performance based contract, all duties under this IDIQ are based on requirements, not individuals performing the requirements. For this task however, the government anticipates that the individual performing these actions will be classified as "key personnel." Therefore, this individual must have certain qualifications that will be evaluated at time of source selection, and any changes of this individual during the adminstration of the contract requires notification to the Contracting Officer.

RFP Section L.6.2.3.2, Factor 1, Sub-factor 3 - Proposed Personnel

Key Personne l

RFP Section L.6.2.3.2 (2) states that, "The Offeror cannot identify additional Key Personnel at their discretion. Key Personnel are limited to Task Management, Staff Coordination and Organizational Support positions as described in section 5.1.1 of the PWS; the Aircraft Maintenance Test Pilot described in section 5.1.6 of the PWS; the AVCATT/NCM3 Quality Assurance personnel described in section 5.2.7 of the PWS, and the AVCATT/NCM3 Simulator Scheduler described in section 5.2.8 of the PWS." However, PWS Section 5.1.1 appears to allow offerors to propose a mix of personnel to "provide appropriate oversight of all personnel at each location dependent upon the complexity of the Task Order requirement." Based on this interpretation of PWS Section 5.1.1, will the USG accept the identification of a Chief Pilot at EAATS as a Key Person?

An appropraite task managment plan is at the contractors discretion. The Government will not add "Chief Pilot" as a key position. The contractor can title the members of their internal management team as they deem appropriate.

RFP Section L.6.1.9 and Attachment_0001- )DRAFT_RFP_QAs Facility

Clearanc e

RFP Section L.6.1.9 states that, "The CAGE code listed on the Facility Clearance Worksheet shall be the CAGE code of the entity that possesses the SECRET Facility Clearance. If the CAGE code for the Offeror, or managing partner stated on the Facility Clearance Worksheet does not possess a SECRET Facility Clearance, the offeror will be found noncompliant. The offeror's proposal will not be further evaluated and will not be further considered for award." However, the USG's response to the question in Excel Row 88 implies that the Prime offeror can use a teaming arrangement to mitigate the Prime NOT possessing a SECRET Facility Clearance at the time of its proposal submittal. Can the USG clarify its position on this requirement?

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.

RFP Page 66 - Section G.7 Contract Management (b) Meetings and Conferences

Participat ion in Meetings

Paragraph (b) says in part "Participation in meetings and conferences shall be at no additional cost to the Government" however in the government's response to questions regarding the DRFP requirement in Section H, the Government indicated that the Government would in fact reimburse travel costs associated with meetings and conferences. Please remove prohibition in Section G.

This requirement will be removed from section G.7. as reflected in a future amendment.

RFP Page 73 - Section H.9 Travel (a)

Travel- Per Diem/ Actuals

The final sentences in paragraphs says "Lodging and per diem expenses shall be billed the lessor of actual costs incurred or the current Government per diem rate set for the locations. Receipts for actual allowable travel costs incurred must be submitted with invoices for reimbursement for all T&M and hybrid task orders. FAR regulation allows contractors to pay per diem costs in accordance with the established per diem rates and not pay actuals. Requiring receipts for per diem is not in accordance with the FAR.

The Terms and Conditions of this IDIQ will permit reimbursement of only actual costs associated with travel. Section H7 has been modified to remove all reference to reimbursement "per diem." Section H7 has been updated to remove all reference to "per diem."

RFP Page 117 - Section L.6.1.2 (Tab A) Executive Summary

Executiv e Summary

Please confirm that the summary cover letter to the proposal should include all subparagraphs in Sections L.6.1.2 (L.6.1.2.1 through L.6.1.2.7) and that a copy of this letter should be included in Tab A.

Yes. This is a correct statement of the requiremenets for the coverletter.

RFP Page 118 - Section L.6.1.5 through Section L.6.1.11

Submissi on

Please confirm that the required information in the referenced clauses should be included in Tab C. Yes. These items should be included in Volume 1 TAB C.

RFP Page 117 – Section L 5.5 and Page 123 – Section L 6.3

Submissi on

The required major subcontractor commitment and consent letters are not listed as part of the sections where page limits do not apply. Can the government confirm if the commitment letter and consent letter are considered part of the limited page count for volume III?

Yes. These are incldued in the Appendix to Volume II, which includes a list of Key personnel, letters and resumes and has an unlimited page limit. However, L.6.3 is a reference to the Past Performance proposal, which does have a page limit. The written consent of the major subcontractors to disclose past performance infomation can be included in TAB C of Volume I. The definition of a Major subcontractor has also been added to the PWS in section 2.1.11.

PWS has been updated to include the definition of a major subcontractor in section 2.1.11.

RFP Page 117, L.6.1.2.6 Subcontr acting

Requirement states "Joint Venture and Teaming Information". Other paragraphs request a copy of the Teaming Agreement & Subcontractors mapped to task areas of expertise (L.6.1.2.3); POC information for subcontracts exceeding $10M (L.6.1.2.5) and Subcontractor financial capability (L.6.1.2.7). Please clarify what information is required in response to this item.

Clarification. The offeror should identify what requiremnets of the PWS will be met by subcontractor personnel. Multiple means of providing the information is possible and is at the discretion of the offeror.

33 Section L.4.6 Submissi on

Section L.4.6 states “Offerors shall submit proposals (3 hard copies) in a sealed package…” and “One copy of the proposal must also be provided electronically, via the U. S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) Safe Access File Exchange

(SAFE).”

Question: Will the Government confirm that Offerors are to submit 1 Original and 2 Copies of each Volume? Will the Government confirm that no electronic copies (CD/DVDs) are to be submitted along with the hard copy submission?

Yes. Three hard-copy versions should be submitted. No CDs/ DVDs should be submitted, but an electronic version should be submitted through the AMRDEC

SAFE.

34 Section L.5.1

Price Submissi on

Section L.5.1 instructs Offerors to submit one softcopy and 3 hardcopies of proposal Volumes I, II and III. This section makes no mention of Volume IV, Price Proposal. Further, this section states that auxiliary supporting price data should be submitted with Volume I.

Question: Will the Government clarify the requirements of Section L.5.1?

Clarification. Volume IV will be required with the other hardcopy proposals.

The supporting price data should be included with Volume IV. A future amendment will include this update.

Section L.5.1 updated to reflect that all volumes should be submitted in hardcopy and softcopy. Also claifies that price proposal should be exclusivily provided in Volume IV.

35 Section L.6.1 Submissi on

Section L.6.1 provides the structure of Volume I submissions with associated Tabs. Sections L.6.1.5 through L.6.1.10 appear to fall outside of the Tab structure.

Questions: Should the requirements of L.6.1.5 through L.6.1.10 be included in Tab C of Volume I?

Yes. This information should be included in Tab C of Volume I.

36 Section L.6.3

Past Performa nce

In Section L.6.3, the Government states “Offeror shall not submit information on more than five previous contracts.” However, the Government then states, “Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.”

Question: These two requirements would seem to conflict. Will the Government please clarify the requirement for past performance contract descriptions? Or will the Government confirm that Offerors are to provide a maximum of five relevant past performance references awarded during the past three years from the issue date of this RFP?

See Question 9 above.

Multiple Questions and Answers, Section 1.4.8.5, PWS 5.1.6, Section L and the Price Model

Maint.

Test Pilot

Multiple Questions and Answers, Section 1.4.8.5, PWS 5.1.6, Section L and the Price Model. The answers to Questions states that all Maintenance tasks have been removed from the RFP. Changes from the draft did delete most references to maintenance personnel and tasks. However, the RFP Question: Please verify that the MTP is required and remains in the RFP as a Key Person. If it is correct, the designation as a Key Person seems in error. Maintenance has been de-emphasized throughout the RFP, yet the MTP is designated a Key when Instructor Pilots are not, even though they have a greater responsibility to the primary PWS Objectives. We recommend the MTP not be designated key. If the MTP requirement is in error, we recommend all references to the MTP be deleted.

The MTP position remains a requirement, airframe and component repair tasks have been removed. Based on the need for the MTP position a the WAATS this position remains for key personnel.

38 Section H.7 and Q and A. Insurance

Reference Section H.7 and Q and A. There appears to be other insurance requirements still missing from this section. Non-Owned Aviation Insurance for hull damage, personnel protection, and most importantly Third Party liability, are not included. The nature of this work will require the contractor to operate air craft, in a training mode, in public airspace and over public lands. If a third party is injured, even without a negligent act by the contractor, the USG and the contractor are exposed to legal risks. The Ground Flight Risk Clause does not mitigate this risk. Large businesses often “self-insure” against this risk. An SDVOSB is unlikely to have the financial depth to self-insure. Should an incident occur, without Non-Owned Aviation insurance the performing SDVOSB places continuity of services at risk. If the USG does not specify this requirement, offerors may assume risk unknowingly or deliberately to reduce cost.

Questions: We recommend the USG require Non-owned Aviation Insurance with a minimum of Combined Single Limit Bodily Injury & Property Damage $20,000,000 Each Occurrence (including Passenger Legal Liability) with respect to Non-Owned Aircraft having thirty (30) Passenger Seats or Less. This reduces risks to the USG and is consistent with the logic behind requiring other minimum levels of insurance. If the Government declines this recommendation please provide rational on why Non-Own Aviation insurance is not a requirement for this contract.

The Government does not require any additional insurance other than what is required under section H.7.

Technical Exhibit 1, as to PWS paragraph 5.2.5.2 QAR

Technical Exhibit 1, as to PWS paragraph 5.2.5.2 RFMSS Fire Desk Operator.

Comment: The Surveillance Method Column for this task is incomplete. A sentence begins to describe the role of the QAR, but it is an incomplete sentence. Please complete the Who and Methods part of this PWS section.

This information was truncated due to formatting. The updated solicitation has corrected this error. The formatting of this section has been updated.

Section L 6.2.3.2 Volume II - Technical Approach

Submisio n

Section L 6.2.3.2 Volume II - Technical Approach has no listed "Tab C". In the Draft RFP, TAB C was for the Sample Task Orders. Factor 1 Subfactor 4 is in Tab D, QCP.

Please Clarify: Is Tab C supposed to be reserved for the : Factor 1, Subfactor 3 – documentation of Proposed Personnel, should Subfactor 4 move up to Tab C and delete Tab D, or are offerors supposed to just skip Tab C?

See Question 30 above.

L.6.1.2.6. Joint Venture and Teaming Information. Teaming

L.6.1.2.6. Joint Venture and Teaming Information. There is no detailed information listed under this heading / requirement.

Question: What specific information does the Government require about Teaming in this section of Volume I?

Clarification. This section requires an identification of any joint venture/ teaming agreements that are established by written agreement.

42 L.6.1.2.7.

Teaming/ Financial capabiliti es

L.6.1.2.7. This section requires offerors to “Include a narrative addressing the financial capability of the prime Contractor, critical subcontractors, teaming Contractors…”. The section does not define what information will substantiate financial capability. Additionally, the terms “critical subcontractor” and “Teaming Contractors” are not defined. The only category of subcontractor defined in the RFP is Major subcontractor, and Major subcontractors are not listed in this section.

Question: We understand the requirement is to prove, in narrative format, that the Prime and any Major subcontractors are financially capable of meeting the requirements of this solicitation and that the offeror can select the narrative and financial data to prove this. We also understand that there is no requirement for this substantiation for any party other than the Prime Contractor and Major Subcontractors. Is this understanding correct?

That is correct. There is no requirement to include a narrative regarding financial capability for anyone other than the prime contractor and major subcontractors.

Draft RFP which contained Task Positions

Addition al Removal of requirem ent

Reference the Draft RFP which contained Task Positions for: 1xSim Scheduler/Ops (EAATS), 4 x CH-47 Repairer (EAATS), 8x UH-60 Repairer (EAATS) and 7x UH-60 Repairer (WAATS), 1x Aircraft Structural Repairer (WAATS) a total of 21 additional personnel.

Question: We understand the maintenance and repair positions were deliberately removed from the RFP however, the 1 x Simulator Scheduler / Operations position at EAATS was removed. Please confirm this is the Government’s intention.

It is the Government's intention to remove the sim scheduler position and to include the scheduling of the simulator devices into the tasks of the simulator instructor operators

44 PWS Para 1.4.13.2.1

QA

Personne l

PWS Para 1.4.13.2.1. states “The AVCATT/ NCM3 Quality Assurance contractor is expected to travelapproximately 50% of the time and the Contractor shall provide office space and a computer for this individualwhen not traveling”. Please clarify who determines where this person maintains an office – such as corporateheadquarters or does the government have a preferred location?

The Government does not have a preferred location, this is at the offerors discretion IAW their proposed technical/ managment approach. The vendor must ensure the requirements of the PWS are being met.

L.6.2.3.2.(2), Factor 1, Subfactor 3

Key Personne l Letter of Commit ment

The requirement for the Letter of Commitment to indicate the proposed person’s intention to accept employment, and to relocate if necessary, are typical and reasonable. However, we feel the instruction to state “total compensation to include reimbursable and non-reimbursable costs under the contract” in the letter creates an undue burden. We consider the requested information to be highly confidential, and in fact it may still be under negotiation at the time of proposal submission.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the government remove the requirement.

Clarification. The requirement is to indicate in the letter of commitment that the individual is willing to accept those items (i.e. all possible benefits) as part of their compensation. We are not requiring that this information be provided as a part of the letter of commitment.

46 Page 6 Para: 1.1.2

Topic:

Simulato r Instructor /Operatio n Cross-

Question: The Governments stated “The fleet will continue to increase in numbers as more modern aircraft simulators are fielded and will require a corresponding number of Instructor Operators.” Is there a Government approved process for cross-training current Sim I/Os to meet these changes?

Does the same process apply to onboarding replacement Sim I/O personnel? (i.e. How does a UH- 60 qualified Sim I/O become qualified as a UH-72 Sim I/O?)

The qualification requirements for SIM I/O are included in the PWS section

1.4.8.11. The vendor is responsible for training its staff to accommodate new technology. The tier strcuture will enable the government to provide additional support if needed.

47 Page 32 Para: 4.3

Topic:

Contract or supplied computer s

Question: The PWS and Q&A address contractor supplied computer requirements including CAC readers. Do contractors acquire these items commercially or through CHESS? Do the computers become Government Owned when placed into service on the Government network? Are the items reimburseable?

The contractor is required to be able to access websites and applications that require a CAC. CAC readers are available commericially. The intent of PWS 4.4 is that the Government will not provide a computer for the AVCATT/NCM3 Quality Assurance service. The Government sees nothing in the PWS that requires the AVCATT/NCM3 individual add their computer to a DOD network.

Contractor provided computers for contractor employees will not become Government property once on a network, but there are DOD requirements for any computer added to a DOD network. The government will not reimburse the costs for this computer or take ownership of this computer upon completion of the contract. All other computers are provided by the Government.

Section 4.3 and 4.4 have been removed from the PWS in section C.

48 Page 32 Para: 4.4

Topic:

DoD-complian t computer

Question: Is there a definitive reference defining what constitutes a ‘DoD-compliant computer’?

Are there minimum configuration requirements?

Please see answer to question 47.

49 Page 19 Para 1.4.8.5

Topic:

MTP

Experien ce

The solicitation states: The Aircraft Maintenance Test Pilot shall have the following experience, certifications, and qualifications: … Question: Will the USG define the requirements for a Functional Check Pilot for the UH-72?

There is no requirement for a UH72 Functional check pilot. 5.1.6 only references UH60 airframes.

Page: 19 Para: 1.4.8.5.1 Topic:

‘Similar’ aircraft

The solicitation states: IAW with DCMA INST 8210-1C required to be qualified in mission, type, design, and if appropriate, series of aircraft and have no less than 1,000 hours pilot-in-command time with 300 hours in similar type aircraft for which duties will be performed. Question: Will the USG define ‘similar ’ as it pertains to the type aircraft for which duties will be performed?

As used with respect to the certification, ratings, privileges, and limitations of airmen, means a specific make and basic model of aircraft, including modifications that do not change its handling or flight characteristics. Similar airframes would be the same type Mission and Design.

Page 20 Para: 1.4.8.6.6

Topic: IP Experien ce Each Aircraft

The solicitation states: Experience as an SP, IE and/or IP in a OASS school, MTOE or TDA organization at the company and/or battalion level. Paragraph 1.4.8.6.8 states Instructor Pilots assigned to the HAATS location must be dual qualified Instructors in both the UH-60 and UH-72 aircraft.Question: Will the USG clarify if Instructor Pilots assigned to the HAATS location must meet the requirements of para 1.4.8.6.6 in both aircraft?

Instructor Pilots at the HAATS are required to be dual qualified in the UH60 and UH72. It is acceptable, for example, for the contractor to provide an instructor Pilot who has been an SP, IE or IP at an OASS, MTOE or TDA in the UH60 but not in the UH72, as long as the contractor is also received a rating as an IP or CFI from

Page 33 Para: Table 5.1.2

Topic:

HAAT

Flight Require ments

The solicitation states in Table 5.1.2: HAAT, Flight UH-60/UH-72, Remarks Cell shows “#hours/month” with no footnote.Question: Since each of the other flight courses show “#students/month 5”, was it the intent of the USG to list #hours/month, or #students/month 5?

Table 5.1.2 Flight UH60/UH72 will be corrected to read "# students/month with note 5"

Table 5.1.2 has been updated.

Page 33 Para: Table 5.1.2

Topic:

Tier Pricing for Evaluatio n

The Government has indicated in Section M that only the ‘Task Order for Evaluation’ will be evaluated competitively (M.5.3.1) and that is set at Tier 2. Question: Since the incumbent has an advantage of knowing what tier each location/position will likely be requested in the first Task Order Request, what prevents them from bidding very low on Tier 2 requirements they know will be requested at Tier 3 in order to win the IDIQ, and then bidding the Task Order Tier 3 location/positions and significantly higher rates?

The government intends to address this in two ways. The governemnt will evaluate balance between the tiers and among ordering years. An unbalanced price proposal may be rejected IAW FAR 15.404-1(g)(3). Supporting information should be provided in the price proposal. Additionally, the future course requirements have already been posted as an attachment to the solicitation.

The incumbent vendor has the same information for future requirements as the other offerors. Section M.5.3.1.1 discussed this in detail as well as section L.6.4.1.

54 Attch 9

Topic:

Historica l Info and Projected Courses

The solicitation Attachment 9 states:The CH-47D power management mountain qual course is listed for the HAATS site.Question: Will the USG clarify if there is a requirement for Instructor Pilots assigned to the HAATS location to be qualified as a CH-47 IP?

No contractor services are required for the CH47 at the HAATS. Table 5.2 lists the anticipated tier structure and flight instruction requirements for the HAATS.

Page 143 Para:

M.5.3.1.2

Topic:

ODCs

The solicitation states: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s labor rates, level of effort, staffing costs, and other costs necessary for operations such as: travel, deliverables and Other Direct Costs, for the program.Question: What ODCs should be priced and how may they be burdened?

This is at the discretion of the contractor. The government is interested in seeing how rates are built for the purposes of price analysis.

56 Page 122 Para: L.6.2.3.2

Topic:

Incumbe nt Personne l

Normally the Government desires that contractors retain incumbent personnel who are qualified to continue on the contract as a means to retain institutional knowledge and subject matter expertise.

Section L requires Signed Letters of Commitment for Key Personnel. The incumbent contractor has their prohibited incumbent personnel from providing their resume or executing a letter of commitment with any other firm, so bidders except the incumbent will mean a 100% replacement of all Key Personnel. Question: Is is the Government’s intent to force all bidders except the incumbent to replace all Key Peronnel currently performing this work?

The government will seek to address concerns regarding the exlusivity agreements.

References: Attachment J- 10 Response to Offeror Questions (Q&A), on row 34

In response to a question about in-flight instructor pilot qualifications and a recommendation to use procedures in use by the 160th SOAR the Government responded “The government will incorporate this recommendation into the final RFP”. Question A: The Government’s response to a question specifically about special operations aviation training implies that the National Guard is considering adding some type of special operations aviation training to its training portfolio at the AATS. Is the Government seeking special operations aviation training capability and/or giving preference for personnel with special operations aviation qualifications? Question B: Is the Government aware that the 160th SOAR does not fly the same aircraft as the conventional Army and that they have their own OASS Accredited school because they fly MH-60 and MH-47 aircraft not traditional UH-60 and CH-47 aircraft that area taught and flown at the AATS?

The government does not anticipate any services under this IDIQ except those described in the PWS and pre-priced in the pricing model.

References: Attachment J- 10 Response to Offeror Questions (Q&A), on row 120

Future capabiliti es

In response to a question about relevant flight experience and a recommendation to allow “…relevant experience in managing flight instruction…” in such aircraft as Mi-17 and MH47 be equated to the National Guard’s requirements the Government responded “The government will incorporate this recommendation into the final RFP”. Question: The Government’s response to a question specifically about non-standard and special operations aviation activities implies that the National Guard is considering adding some type of non-standard or special operations aviation operations capability to its AATS portfolio of missions. Is the Government seeking non-standard or special operations aviation capability and/or giving preference for personnel with non-standard or special operations aviation qualifications?

The government does not anticipate any services under this IDIQ except those described in the PWS and pre-priced in the pricing model.

References: Section H, Paragraph H.16, Page 77

Exclusivi ty Agreeme nts/ Required Training

Section H, Paragraph H.16, Page 77 prohibits “Exclusivity Agreements for Personnel” includes the statement “Due to the limited availability of qualified personnel” and “…the contractor shall not maintain nor enter into exclusivity agreements of any type with current or potential employees…” [emphasis added]. Attachment J-10 Response to Offeror Questions (Q&A), on row 64, in response to a question about having qualified personnel “…on day one…” the Government responded “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.”.

Attachment J-10 Response to Offeror Questions (Q&A), on row 124, in response to a question about prohibition of exclusivity agreements for personnel, the Government responded by stating “The requirements of this RFP can only affect a future contractual relationship”. RFP Section I clause 252.216-7006 Ordering (May 2011) (a) on page 95 states “…orders may be issued from 16 May 2017…” and there are many other areas in the RFP documents that indicate the POP will begin 16 May 2017. RFP Section L, paragraph L.4.7. on page 115 states “Offers must be received at the below address no later than 2 P.M. EST on Monday, May 8, 2017”. These and other statements in the RFP clearly indicate that the Government intends to evaluate offerors’ proposals, make a determination of best value, and award the resulting contract within an 8-calendar day period. Question A: The incumbent contractor, recognizing the limited availability of qualified personnel available to support the ATSOS contract, has coerced its personnel to sign “exclusivity” letters stating that they will not provide their resumes or allow their names to be used by any offeror other than the incumbent and its SDVOSB ‘front’ company. Multiple personnel who work for the incumbent contractor have shared the content of these letters with us and told us they will face legal action from their employer if they allow their names to be used by any other offeror. The statement that “…personnel provided by this contract will not require training by the Government…” is not accurate (as implied in paragraph H.16 on RFP page 77), since many of the personnel (especially the Instructor Pilots) must receive training from the Government – at the AATS - before they can perform contractual duties. For example, a qualified Instructor Pilot in a

NGB-AQ will seek to address concerns regarding the exclusivity agreements as well as the implications of not having a phase-in period and the site specific training required. The government anticipates time between the award of the IDIQ and the initial Task Order that will potentially address this concern.

References: Section C, Paragraph 1.4.15. Page

OCI/

Exclusivi ty Agreeme nts

References: Section C, Paragraph 1.4.15. Page 24 describes Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) and clearly states that it applies to both the contractor and subcontractor, in this case, the incumbent contractor and its SDVOSB ‘front’ company. Section H, Paragraph H-10, Page 73, (and many others) specify other OCI requirements. The following questions also rely on the references and concerns stated in #3 above. Question A: Section H, Paragraph H-10, subparagraph a. on page 73 specifically states that “the primary purpose of this clause is to aid in ensuring that…(1) The contractor does not obtain an unfair competitive advantage by establishing the ground rules for a future competition;” among others. Subparagraph c. (1), Page 74 describes Biased Ground Rules and states “This type of conflict may arise in situations where a company sets the ground rules for a future competition”. The contractor currently supporting the National Guard (the incumbent contractor), in support of its SDVOSB ‘front’ company, has coerced uniquely qualified personnel, whom the Government has spent considerable resources to train, to sign “exclusivity’ agreements in anticipation for the ATSOS contract solicitation. This action creates bias in the ground rules for the ATSOS solicitation. Does the incumbent contractor’s current contract include OCI clauses, including the “biased ground rules” portion? If so, will the Government acknowledge that the incumbent contractor has violated its contract, thereby disqualifying the incumbent contractor, and its SDVOSB ‘front’ company, from participation in the ATSOS contract competition due establishing an OCI by creating bias in the ground rules for the ATSOS contract competition?

Question B: Subparagraph c. (3) describes Unequal Access to Information and states “This type of conflict may arise when a contractor has access to nonpublic or proprietary information as part of its performance under a contract that gives it an unfair advantage in a competition for a later contract. The Government provided training to the incumbent contractor’s personnel at considerable expense to the Government. By doing so, this ensured those personnel were uniquely qualified to meet the ATSOS statements of “The personnel provided by this contract will not require training by the Government to provide the services they were contracted for” and “There will be no Phase-In period for this action.”. Will the Government acknowledge that if the

NGB-AQ takes OCI very seriously and will seek to address concerns regarding the exclusivity agreements. To label a company a "front" implies an attempt to conceal the true identity or activity of a person or group in control. NGB has specifically required in section L.6.1.2.3 that major subcontractors be identified and limited to less than 50% of the work IAW FAR 52.219-14. In common usage a "front" also implies improper or potentially illegal activity and NGB-AQ sees no reason at this time to suspect any of the potential offerors or their subcontractors of such activity. The exclusivity agreements are also discussed in the answer to question 59.

Reference: RFP Attachment J-6, PPQ PPQ

Reference: RFP Attachment J-6, “Past Performance Questionnaire”, paragraph 2 asks that the completed questionnaire be returned “NLT 13 April 2017”. RFP paragraph L.6.3.4 states that completed questionnaires are to be emailed to the Contracting Office no later than the proposal due date. Question: Will the government please resolve this apparent conflict?

The change to make PPQs due with the proposals has been addressed in Solicitaiton Amendment W9133L-17-R-0008-0001

62 REF: PWS 5.1.9 Other Changes to Solicitation:

Task 5.1.9 has been ammended to include line 5.1.9.18. Additional task requirement will read as "The contractor I/O shall act as a RFMSS Fire Desk Operator in the Army range and facility scheduling system (RF-MSS). The contractor shall use RFMSS to schedule every simulator training period. Each simulator period shall be scheduled in RFMSS within 12 hours of receipt. Each simulator training day shall be closed out within 24 hours." Task added.

63 Other Notes Solicitation:

Resumes are only required for key personnel-- they are not required for all potential positions.

65 Other Notes Solicitation:

Clause 52.222-17 (non-displacement of qualified workers) requires that all Service Contract Act covered employees have certain rights under successor contracts. The successful offeror must comply with the Service Contract Act, but the Government realizes there are many potential ways to provide the requirements in the PWS as discussed in section L.6.4.2. The Government will permit vendors to provide resumes for key personnel who are not incumbent employees. If that key person cannot perform under the contract due to the requirements of the SCA and Clause 52.222-17 that concern may be addressed post-award.

64 Other Notes Solicitation:

Questions were submitted to the Government after the due date for submissions.

Potential offerors are encouraged to review the responses in this document and resubmit their questions if they have not been addressed NLT 0900 EST on 22 MAY 17. Please submit questions in a format consistent with this document (Reference, Topic, Question).