Questions_and_Answers.pdf

Amendment 0002 Questions and Answers NY/NJ OA/CTS RFP No. 1630J1-18-R-00008

Question

RFP Section and Page

RFP text reference Question

1 J, List of Attachments, pp.

46-47

We would like to confirm that the vendor should simply acknowledge the follow attachments in the Technical Volume:

• J-5 GSA Vehicle Listing

• J-6 NY NJ OACTS Master

Property Listing

1 Answer: Separate acknowledge is not necessary for Section J attachments which are incorporated into the RFP and subsequent contract. Offeror’s signature on the SF33 suffices as acknowledgement.

2 L.4,

p. 54

Government anticipates that this solicitation will result in adequate price competition and therefore will not require offerors to submit Certified Cost or Pricing Data.

Would DOL please clarify the meaning of “Certified Cost or Pricing Data”?

2 Answer: See FAR part 2.101 Definitions

3 L.6.F (b), Oral Presentations, p.56

b. Offeror Attendees – A maximum of 5 presenters… , the Center Director must be a presenter

Would DOL confirm that the “Center Director” is the same position as the Key personnel, “Project Director”?

3 Answer: Yes the “Center Director” on p. 56 is the “Project Director.”

Please see revised RFP.

4 L.I, Organization of Proposals,

pp. 61-62

The oral proposal will be the only submission presented by the offeror that will be evaluated, not including the Business Management Proposal, which will be evaluated separately. All other materials provided by the offeror are for reference material only.

Each volume shall be written on a stand-alone basis. Cross-referencing within and across

Would DOL please explain if the Oral presentation should reflect exactly the content of the proposal volumes, Technical and Staffing?

The first paragraph under L.I, p.61, says that only the Oral presentation will be evaluated yet the second paragraph on p. 62 notes that the evaluators will evaluate the volumes. Thank you.

proposal volumes shall not be permitted. The DOL personnel must be able to evaluate each volume independent of the other volumes.

4 Answer: All offerors must decide what information to submit relative to the Oral Presentation.

The following sentence has been removed: “The DOL personnel must be able to evaluate each volume independent of the other volumes.”

5 L.6 Instructions to the Offeror 1.3:

Relevant Experience,

p. 66

Part 2:

Past Performance,

pp. 67-68

Should Relevant Experience be the beginning of Part 2, in the Relevant Experience Volume 3, followed-up by Part 2: Past Performance, within Volume 3? Should Relevant Experience be the narrative introducing Past Performance?

5 Answer: Relevant Experience and Past Performance are separate Evaluation Factors. Please see revised RFP there is no written submission required for Past Performance.

6 Part 2:

Past Performance,

p. 67

a. Firms Without Relevant Past Performance: An offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Each offeror that believes it is without relevant past performance will, in the proposal transmittal letter, attest to the fact that neither the firm nor its principals possess a record of past performance relevant to

We are a new SDVOSB that possesses abundant relevant experience in outreach and admissions but no formal, recorded and available past performance records. Could we confirm that we should just attest to this in the transmittal letter and that it will be enough to write about our relevant experience in the Volume-3 Relevant Experience Volume? Then, we would be excused from submitting the Questionnaires as well? We understand that we will receive a neutral rating.

the requirements of the RFP and that no proposal section on Past Performance is included in the proposal submission. Offerors with no Past Performance history will receive a neutral rating.

6 Answer: All offerors must follow the requirements of the RFP and make their own determinations relative to proposal submissions.

7 On pages 21 and 22 under 3 and 4 of the RFP (Initial and Final Inspection and Acceptance of Career Transition Placements), should the word “arrivals” be replaced with the word “placements” in all cases in these two sections?

7 Answer: Yes please see revised

RFP.

8 For the last item in the table on page 57 and on page 66 1), g., “Compliance with Subcontracting goals”, does this evaluation criteria apply considering this solicitation is a small business set-aside?

8 Answer: Yes the compliance with subcontracting goal subfactor does apply as the evaluation factor of Relevant Experience relates to the offeror’s experience within the three (3) preceding years which may include work that had subcontracting goals.

9 Pages 67-68 and page 73 state that past performance is a requirement, however on page 59, it is not listed as part of the proposal.

9 Answer: Past Performance is an Evaluation Factor. Past Performance is not listed in the table on page 59 as there is nothing due in writing directly from the offeror relative to past performance.

10 Amendment 1 deletes the table on pages 11 and 12 and states there is no replacement OA goal table. If the arrival goals are not articulated for each center, then 1) how will the successful offeror’s performance be measured, and

2) are the annual arrival goals still 2,200 as shown on page 19 of the RFP?

10 Answer: The new operator will be expected to recruit students primarily for Job Corps Centers in the states of New York and New Jersey. In addition, based on established WIOA criteria, which states that the applicant would be enrolled at the center closest to the applicant’s residence with some exceptions based on Career Technical Trade (CTT) offerings which may include all centers in the Region I area.

The annual arrival goals are correct as indicated on page 19 totaling 2,200.