Questions.docx

The RFQ does not specify the method or address for quote submission. Please confirm that quotes are to be submitted via email to hbourne@bop.gov (or identify the correct address), and identify acceptable file formats, any file-size limits, and the required content and organization of the quote (e.g., completed SF-1449 with pricing and Block 17, technical submission, past performance).

hbourne@bop.gov any format The Evaluation Criteria identify twelve technical evaluation factors. Is there a page limit for the technical submission, and does the Government expect a narrative response addressing each factor individually? Do the resumes and photocopies of documents evidencing education, training, and experience required by SOW §2.2 count against any page limit?

No page limit

The PPQ directs references to email completed questionnaires to hbourne@bop.gov by the offer due date, and the Evaluation Criteria require offerors to submit past performance information (contract numbers, points of contact, etc.) with their quote. Please confirm: (a) the number of references and completed PPQs required or recommended; (b) whether recent CPARS assessments may be substituted for PPQs; and (c) any recency and relevancy parameters (e.g., performance within the last three or five years, similar size and scope).

Provide written references or contact info for recent engagements.

Were questions submitted under predecessor RFQ 15BNAS26Q00000085 answered by the Government? If so, will those questions and answers, and any amendments issued under the predecessor RFQ, be published and made applicable to this RFQ?

NA

The fill-in at FAR 52.212-2(a) lists the evaluation factors as “Technical, Past Performance, Price” but retains the template’s bracketed instruction text and does not state the factors’ relative order of importance, while the Evaluation Criteria (Attachment 4) state that technical and past performance, when combined, are significantly more important than price. Please confirm that the relative importance stated in Attachment 4 governs. Additionally, Attachment 4 states that submittals will be rated based on “the Decisional Rule criteria” — please identify or provide the rating methodology (e.g., adjectival ratings and definitions) that will be applied.

Evaluation will be based on the criteria outlined in Section M. Technical approach and past performance are significantly more important than price.

The Evaluation Criteria state the contract will include a 12-month base period, four one-year option periods, “and an optional 6 month extension,” but the Schedule contains CLINs only for the base period and Option Years One through Four, and the RFQ does not include FAR 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services) or 52.217-9 (Option to Extend the Term of the Contract). Will FAR 52.217-8 and/or 52.217-9 be incorporated? Should offerors price the six-month extension, and how will the extension and option periods be evaluated under FAR 52.212-2(b)?

Put 6 month extension in. 52.217-8 will be added

Is contractor travel to the MSTC (Aurora, CO) separately reimbursable (e.g., at Federal Travel Regulation per diem rates) or to be included in the firm-fixed CLIN prices? The Schedule contains no travel CLIN, and SOW §2.5 requires reporting of travel conducted but does not address travel cost treatment.

No reimbursement for travel, should be included in the quote

SOW §4.0 provides that payments will be made for work completed in the prior month and that “final payment during the year” will be made after review of all deliverables with no identified issues. Please confirm the invoicing frequency and basis (monthly versus milestone/deliverable-based), and whether the final-payment provision contemplates a holdback or retention — and if so, the amount or percentage and the criteria for release.

Paid after the yearly session

The SOW does not specify the required duration of each annual training session (e.g., days/hours of instruction), the anticipated number of participants per session, or the number of trainers/facilitators expected. Please provide these parameters, which are essential to pricing.

The classes will hold up to 40 and the class is 3, 8 hour days- 24 hours

The ongoing technical assistance requirement (“…ongoing consultation with the FBOP with any issues, challenges, or new requests…”) is open-ended. Please provide an anticipated level of effort (e.g., estimated hours per month or per year), expected response times, and confirmation that this support may be performed remotely.

There will be updating of the material each year- I cannot definitively quantity hours, but after the first year curriculum is approved it should be substantially less.

The curriculum lead-time requirements conflict: §2.1.1 requires curriculum submission a minimum of four months before the initial training; §5.0 requires all curriculum components completed 90 days prior to the initial training date; and Deliverable 0004 states the FBOP will provide session dates a minimum of three months in advance. If dates are provided three months out, a four-month submission deadline cannot be met. Which lead time governs, and how much advance notice of training dates will the contractor receive?

Curriculum must be delivered 90 days prior to training. Government will provide dates at least 90 days in advance.

Section 5.0 references “key requirements identified in Sections 1.2, 2.1.1, and 2.1.3 of this SOW,” but the SOW contains no Section 2.1.3 (Section 2.1 comprises 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 only). Please confirm the intended reference.

The correct reference is 2.2.3

Section 2.1.1 describes participant takeaway materials as “FBOP furnished,” while §3.0 lists training materials (presentation slides, handouts, etc.) and a Resource and Information Guide as contractor deliverables, and §2.6 provides that the FBOP will furnish supplies for on-site work. Please clarify who develops, produces, prints, and distributes participant materials, and in what quantities and format(s) (printed and/or electronic).

The contractor is responsible for providing all participant materials.

Section 8.0 cites the information security policy as “Program Statement 1237.16” on p. 8 and as “FBOP Policy Statement 1237.13, Information Security Programs” on p. 9. Please confirm the correct, current policy number that will govern performance.

1237.13

Will contractor personnel require access to DOJ/FBOP IT systems (triggering the DOJ 2640.2F U.S.-citizenship restriction), or is performance limited to physical access to MSTC? Will the FBOP accept reciprocity of existing favorable national security clearances (e.g., Secret) and PIV credentials to expedite HSPD-12 credentialing and DOJ/BOP suitability processing, and what investigation tier, process, and typical timeline will apply? May curriculum development begin prior to completion of credentialing?

Contractor personnel require visitor-level suitability checks, not DOJ IT access.

If the training shifts to a virtual format (VTC or online), who makes that determination and by when will the contractor be notified? Should quotes be priced for both delivery modes, and will the Government or the contractor furnish the virtual delivery platform?

Will be at MSTC or where the govt decides. Unless we cannot travel, then it will be virtual- we make that decision. Same costs either way.

Section 2.3 requires the post-award conference no later than 30 days after contract award, while Deliverable 0001 states 30 business days post-award — please confirm which governs. Additionally, §2.4 requires the draft Project Plan to be provided at the Post-Award Conference and the final Project Plan within 30 business days after the conference, while Deliverable 0002 lists the “Draft Project Plan” as due 30 business days after the Post-Award Conference. Please confirm the intended draft and final Project Plan due dates.

Kickoff within 10 days. Draft plan due 30 days after kickoff.

Will the resulting contract include defined performance standards, acceptable quality levels, or a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)? If so, please provide them prior to the quote due date so they may be considered in pricing.

QASP will be provided post award and align with SOW deliverables

Section 2.2 requires proof that candidates “meet all qualifications” and references positions, certifications, and degrees, but specifies no minimum education, certification, or licensure requirements. Are there minimum credential requirements for trainers and key personnel?

The qualifications are the experience and expertise that was asked for in the posting.

Section 2.2 requires written notification to the FBOP within three calendar days of a key personnel vacancy. Is there a maximum allowable timeframe for providing an equivalent replacement, and what is the Government’s anticipated turnaround for reviewing and approving proposed replacement personnel?

30 days Will the Government please consider extending the proposal deadline to ensure Offerors have sufficient time to incorporate the answers from the Government into their proposals?

This will not be extended