A3 - Additional Questions 6-15-2022.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Attached to
- USALearning Training and Education Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 24322622R0002
- Issued by
- Office of Personnel Management
About this file
This combined synopsis/solicitation requests proposals for the USALearning Training and Education Support Products and Services indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract. The solicitation seeks solutions and services for formal and informal learning ISD and support, simulators, live and virtual events, and organizational training and planning. Offerors must submit proposals by May 20, 2022 via Microsoft Teams, including pricing in the required workbook format. The contract will have a one year base period and six optional periods, with performance at government and contractor facilities. The North American Industry Classification code is 611430 and it is a total small business set-aside. The government will award to the highest technically rated offerors with reasonable pricing.
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
Questions 1
| Solicitation Document | Q&A Number Amendment 2 - Page/Paragraph | Requirement / Portion - Q&A Amendment 2 | Questions/Concerns/Comments - Q&A Amendment 2 | Government Response | ||
| i.e. Attachment 1 Requirement Description | Applicable Question Numbers. | Identify the requirement or portion to which exception is taken. | Describe in detail, questions, concerns, comments, etc. | All highlighted below (Column E) include changes to the applicable documents. | ||
| Attachment 2 Instructions-Evaluation | Q61 | The second part of Q61 in Q&A was not answered--Can the government please clarify whether Relevant Experience Projects may come from additional small business partners in addition to members of a Joint Venture and if so, how many Relevant Experience Projects each small business partner can submit? | More specifically, can the Government please confirm that a small business subcontractor can provide one (1) of the six (6) required project references in addition to a prime SBA-approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture’s submission of the other five (5) projects. | Answer: Yes. The Mentor-Protégé Joint Venture’s can utilize sub-contractors references. Please refer to Volume 1 d. 5. No Changes. | ||
| Attachment 2 Instructions-Evaluation | Q69 and Q77 | Response to Q69 and Q77 regarding Volume 1.e is still unclear as to whether each individual member of a CTA must demonstrate they meet all evaluation criteria in the proposal, or whether this is referring to the combined experience of the collective team. | Can the Government please confirm the expectation that all evaluation criteria should be demonstrated by the collective CTA team and not by each team member individually? | Answer: Volume 1 - e. 3. deleted Paragraph 3 in its entirety. "All evaluation criteria must be held by either: (a) All team members of the CTA. Scoring will only be awarded at the levels met or exceeded by all members of the existing Partnership or Joint Venture; or (b) By the Offeror (i.e., the Joint Venture itself or Prime Small Business contractor)". | ||
| Attachment 2 Instructions - Evaluation | Q151 | “Updated Attachment 12 Past Performance Questionnaire to read the rater will return the completed form back to the Offeror, so they may submit their proposal per the Government's Instructions for Offerors.” | Will the government accept the first version of the PPQ form? Our clients have already filled out this version and we wish to avoid our clients completing duplicate work. | Answer: Yes. No changes. | ||
| A2+-+Attach+2+Instructions+-+Evaluation | p. 22 of 25 | Item d - Project Management Professional (PMP)®, Program Management Professional (PgMP® or PfMP®) Certifications. | Is item d treated as one category? The scoring sheet has 2 separate lines for this with PMP (line 140 in scoring excel) scoring 100 points and a separate line for PgMP (line 141 in scoring excel) scoring 150 points. Can we score 250 points for category item d or just one either for PMP or PgMP? | Answer: You can receive points for both Certifications. One individual listed per category. The same individual can be listed for both categories. Offeror would receive points for each category were an individual is provided. No changes. | ||
| A2+-+Attach+2+Instructions+-+Evaluation | p. 11 of 25. item (ii) | Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures where "Mentor may submit a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience Projects….." | A Mentor protégé JV with a large business as mentor has an undo advantage over a small business. Request the large business be limited to only one past performance. | Answer: The Government considered the request. No changes. | ||
| A2+-+Attach+2+Instructions+-+Evaluation | Page 11 of 25, Subsection e.ii Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) | Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures where "Mentor may submit a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience Projects….." | Since this is a small business setaside, we request government allow past performance from ONLY the small businesses in JV or CTA arrangements as there are many small business that have qualifications to submit a compliant proposal. | Answer: The Government considered the request. No changes. | ||
| A2+-+Attach+8+Proposal_Checklist+Template+5-23-22F | Page 3 of 7, Volume 3 - Relevant Experience | 1. Does your proposal include a Relevant Experience Project template (Attachment 11), for EACH of the six Relevant Experience Projects submitted? (Required for all Offerors) | The checklist document lists six (6) projects. If the OCONUS expereince project is considered different from the six (6) projects, then can we submit the 7th project as part of the Volume 3 Relevant Experience to demonstrate OCONUS experience? Also, will the government update Attachment 8 - Proposal Checklist Template to include the 7th project for OCONUS experience? | Answer: Updated Attachment 8 to read "1. | Does your proposal include a Relevant Experience Project template (Attachment 11), for EACH of the six required Relevant Experience Projects and one optional Relevant Experience Project submitted? (Required for all Offerors)." | |
| Old Attachment 13 New Attachment 17 | Q221-Q224 | “Answer: Deleted Labor Rate Tab from Attachment 13. Please reference Attachment 17 for Labor Category Descriptions.” | Regarding Attachment 17 – Illustrator (or/also Graphic Designer) Media Specialist i requires 5 years of experience while Illustrator (or/also Graphic Designer) Media Specialist ii requires only 3 years of experience. Please clarify whether it is intentional that the level i requires more experience than the level ii. | Answer: Attachment 17 - Updated experience levels i and ii as applicable. | ||
| Attachment 13 | Q221-Q224 | “Answer: Deleted Labor Rate Tab from Attachment 13. Please reference Attachment 17 for Labor Category Descriptions.” | The following labor categories are not included in Attachment 17. Could the government please provide descriptions for the following labor categories: • Sound Engineer • Sound Engineer – Senior • UI/UX Designer ii • | Event Coordinator i | ||
| • | Event Coordinator ii | |||||
| • | Moderator/Meeting Facilitator | |||||
| • | Training Facilitator i | |||||
| • | Training Facilitator ii | |||||
| • | Training Facilitator iii | |||||
| • | Knowledge Management Specialist i | |||||
| • | Knowledge Management Specialist ii | |||||
| • | Knowledge Management Specialist iii | |||||
| • | Social Media Manager | |||||
| • | Social Media Content Developer | Answer: Attachment 17 has been updated and addressed with the following: |
• Sound Engineer listed on p25 • Sound Engineer, Senior listed on p25 • UI/UX Designer ii - added, p31 • Event Coordinator i -added p7
• Event Coordinator ii -added p7
• Modertator/Meeting Facilitator- Added- p17 •Training Facilitator i -added p29
• Training Facilitator ii -added p29
• Training Facilitator iii -added p30
• Knowledge Management Specialist i -added p12
• Knowledge Management Specialist ii -added p13
• Knowledge Management Specialist iii -added p13
• Social Media Manager -added p25
• Social Media Content Developer - added p25
| A2_-_Attach_13_Pricing_Workbook_6-2-2022F.xlsx | |||
| A2_-_Attach_16_Sample_Task_Order_Pricing_Workbook_6-2-2022F.xlsx | Roles listed under each Functional Area | (Assumed) Use only roles mapped to each functional area. | As per the Attachment 13 Pricing workbook, the government has mapped the roles (Labor Names) for each Functional Area. Do we have to use only these mapped roles for the sample task order, or can we use a more appropriate Role (Labor Name) from the Labor from the A2_-_Attach_17_Labor_descriptions.pdf, even if they are listed under a different functional area? |
| For example - For FA2 Simulator, Live & Virtual, in the Attachment 16 Sample task order, we feel there is a need for a Project Manager and Quality Assurance Specialist, but those roles are not mapped to the FA2 Simulator, Live & Virtual in the Attachment 13 Pricing Workbook; they are listed under FA1, Formal & Informal Learning ISD & Support Services. | Answer: Updated Attachment 13 Row 22 and 23, 88 and 89 to reflect the correct order. | ||||
| Attachment_13_Pricing | Q296 | “Answer: Yes. Added Management Consultant i to Attachment 13.” | There is another similar labor category level discrepancy in Attachment 13, CLIN 4. There are two instances of Animator 2D/3D iii in this CLIN and no instance of Animator 2D/3D ii. Should one of the level iii labor categories be a level ii labor category? | Answer: Attachment 13 - Row 91 changed to read Animator 2D/3D from iii, to Animator 2D/3D ii. (All tabs) | |
| A2+-+Attach+13+Pricing+Workbook+6-2-2022F | Row 22 and 23, 88 and 89 | The order of Accessibility Specialist I and Accessibility Specialist II are swaped in the outyears (Base YR2 onwards) compared to Base YR1. | Can the vendor fix this issue in Attachment 13 or will the government provide a new Attachment 13? | Answer: Updated Attachment 13 to correct rows 22,23, 88 and 89. (All Tabs) | |
| A2_-_Attach_13_Pricing_Workbook_6-2-2022F.xlsx | Base Year and other tabs | Keep each position in the row from the template. | The order of Accessibility Specialist i and ii positions in rows 22 and 23 is not consistent across the tabs. This also occurs for some other rows. |
| Would the government either provide an updated spreadsheet or allow us to align the positions in the same cells on each tab? | Answer: Updated Attachment 13 to correct rows 22,23, 88 and 89. (All Tabs) | ||||
| A2+-+Attach+13+Pricing+Workbook+6-2-2022F | Row 257 | Travel Not-To-Exceed in all years but in Base YR5 it says "Person 50-100 miles (daily mileage based) | Can the vendor fix this issue in Attachment 13 or will the government provide a new Attachment 13? | Answer: Updated Attachment 13 Row 257 Base YR 5 to reflect correct Travel. | |
| A2_-_Attach_13_Pricing_Workbook_6-2-2022F.xlsx | 6MO EXT tab | Use the hours listed | 6MO EXT Tab has the hours listed as 1920 hours instead of 960 hours. | Answer: Updated Attachment 13 6MO EXT Tab from "1920" to "960" hours. | |
| A2_-_Attach_13_Pricing_Workbook_6-2-2022F.xlsx | Summary Tab | Use the hours listed for total amount calculation | Column P on the Summary tab has incorrect amounts as the calculation is using 1920 hours instead of 960 hours. | Answer: Updated Attachment 13 Summary Tab from "1920" to "960" hours. | |
| Attachment 15 Sample Task Order | Q328 and Q333 | 328 “Answer: Yes. Either is acceptable. No changes.” |
| 333 “Answer: Yes. Separate attachment - PDF document. No changes.” | These answers contradict each other. Can the government please clarify if the WBS, staffing plan, and milestone schedule should be included as appendices within the same document as the sample task order technical proposal or as separate PDF attachments? | Answer: Clarification either is acceptable. No changes. | |||
| Attachment 15 Sample Task Order | Q380 | “Answer: No. The requirement is for iOS only. No changes.” | It is impossible to guarantee Apple will choose to carry an app we have developed. We can apply via the proper procedure but there are no guarantees Apple will carry the app in their app store. We request the Government remove this phrase of the requirement: “will be made available through Apple App Store.” | Answer: 2.2 Changed from "The Contractor shall ensure that the mobile application will be designed to play on iOS devices and will be made available through Apple App Store" to The Contractor shall ensure that the mobile application will be designed to play on iOS devices and will be made available through Apple App Store or internal portal or URL. | |
| Attachment_15_Sample Task Order | Q400 | “Answer: 1. For purposes of this requirement, assume that all knowledge management postings, including journal articles, have been provided by and curated by the Government. 2. N/A. No changes.” | These answers seem contradictory. We interpret this to mean the government will provide and curate the 400 articles and the contractor will select 50 of the articles. Please clarify? | Answer: Paragraph 2.1.3 a. and b. For clarification the Government will select 50 articles from the 400 that will require the contractor to convert 508-compliant PDF files and perform associated metadata tagging and alt tagging of images within the articles. No changes. | |
| A2+-+Attach+15+Sample+Task+Order | p. 2 of 24 | Section II: Technical Approach; Bullet 3 WBS | 1. Hierarchical Outline - reflect three (3) levels below the root level. Can the Government define "root level" for FA1, FA2 and FA3? | ||
| Since there are scoring points associated with this, appreciate Government providing more guidance on root level for FA1, FA2 and FA3. | Answer: Root Level is defined as follows: First level: Project title of final deliverable |
Second level: Major deliverables or controls account Third level: Work packages that are deliverable to the customer. No changes.
| Attach_15_Sample_Task_Order | Page 2, #2 under Section II: Technical Approach | A staffing plan as an attachment that shows the labor positions required for each functional area requirement. If a subcontractor team member is proposed, it should indicate the company providing that role. Staffing plan is limited to two (2) pages. | Given the number of functional area requirements (16 total: 3 for FA1, 12 for FA2, and 1 for FA3) and the minimum 10 point type size, it is not possible to have each requirement in a column if the page is in portrait orientation. May we use landscape orientation for this page? If so, it is also challenging to fit all of the labor position rows on two pages. So, would the government consider allowing either a smaller type size or more pages for this attachment? | Answer: Updated Attachment 15 Sample Task Order Section II Technical Approach from (two pages) to (eight pages). |
| Attach_15_Sample_Task_Order | Page 3, paragraph 1 | A one-page draft milestone schedule will be included as an attachment in the proposal (Note: Milestone schedule is not included as part of the page count. As a minimum, the milestone schedule should include: |
o Estimated delivery dates for each deliverable.
o Schedule of events for reviews, meetings, or conferences.
| o Project close-out for return of all source files, GFM/GFI and final invoice. | Some of the requirements have multiple iterations of deliverables: there are 5 Level II lessons and 5 Level III interactions in FA1, and 4 one-day virtual workshops in FA3. | ||||
| If we were to put dates for each of these individually (with multiple rows for deliverables such as Storyboards, and Alpha through Final Testing), it would be impossible to fit these on one page with 10 point type. We have created extra columns for the "repeats" (courses 2-5 and workshops 2-4) in order to fit on one page. Please let us know if this approach meets the expectation. If not, would the government consider allowing a smaller type size or more pages for this attachment? | Answer: Attachment 15 Volume 1 4. Deleted page limitation for the milestone schedule. | ||||
| Attach_15_Sample_Task_Order | Page 3, last bullet point | Each Functional Area (FA) will have one (1) WBS that may be up to two (2) pages, or a total of 6 pages for all FA areas combined. | We have found it challenging to fit the WBS for Functional Areas 1 and 2 to two pages. We understand the government's intent to limit the complexity and level of detail for the WBSs, but we have had to combine what we would ordinarily list as separate tasks into one row in several cases. Would the government consider allowing a smaller type size or more pages for this attachment? | Answer: Updated Sample Task Order Section II Technical Approach 3. 4th Bullet from "Each Functional Area (FA) will have one (1) WBS that may be up to two (2) pages, or a total of 6 pages for all FA areas combined" to Each Functional Area (FA) will have one (1) WBS that may be up to four (4) pages, or a total of 12 pages for all FA areas combined". | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions-Evaluation | Pg. 22 | Volume 5 - PMP/PgMP or PfMP Certifications | The PgMP requirement in the draft solicitation Attachment 1 for USALearning Integrator Learning EcoSystem Support Products and Services (Notice ID SP-HRS-2266) state's that if the incumbent doesn’t have requested certification, it must be obtained within the first 120 days following contract award. Question: On the USALearning Training and Education Support Products solicitation, will the Government consider allowing companies to claim these points and obtain the PgMP certification within the first 120 days following contract award? If it is not required at contract start for the USALearning Integrator Learning EcoSystem Support Products and Services opportunity, it seems only fair that the same consideration is given to small businesses on this opportunity. Having to have this certification at the time of submission seems like an onerous ask for small businesses. | Answer: USALearning Integrator Learning EcoSystem Support Products and Services (Notice ID SP-HRS-2266 Draft Solicitation) and the USALearning Training and Education Support Products solicitation are two different requirements and stand alone. The USALearning Training and Education Support Products solicitation Volume 5 - Certifications and Clearances states "The following Certifications and Clearances are not mandatory requirements to be eligible for this IDIQ contract; however, Offeror’s who have these Certifications and Clearances in place are considered more favorably". No changes. | |
| N/A | General Question | Request for change to the RFP submission requirement for the Work breakdown Schedule (WBS) requirement from three (3) WBS to one (1) WBS which includes three FA elements and adding one (1) page to address task order management activities. In analyzing the requirement for the special attachment Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (6-pages), we identified a gap in WBS deliverables that did not account for task order management activities. As currently written, the WBS requirement for each Functional Area (FA) has its own WBS. But since the 3 FAs are part of one task order they should be sub-level components of a single task order (TO) WBS deliverable. Supporting activities outlined in the RFP require vendors to kick-off a single (TO), deliver a task execution plan (TEP), a quality assurance and surveillance plan (QASP)which would incorporate the delivery elements of each FA. As the requirement is currently written, we are to submit 3 separate WBS. The related task order management activities (i.e., Task Execution Plan, QASP, Recurring Reporting, and other task order management related tasking) would be duplicated across the current submission approach. But since it is really one task order, we should change the RFP requirement for the WBS requirement from three (3) WBS to one (1) WBS which includes three FA elements and adding one (1) page to address task order management activities. The challenge we have identified would also impact pricing if not changed. The current WBS model does not provide adequate representation of project management at the task order level. By making the requested change, it would allow for a more complete and accurate submission. | |||
| Answer: Updated Sample Task Order Section II Technical Approach 3. 4th Bullet from "Each Functional Area (FA) will have one (1) WBS that may be up to two (2) pages, or a total of 6 pages for all FA areas combined" to Each Functional Area (FA) will have one (1) WBS that may be up to four (4) pages, or a total of 12 pages for all FA areas combined". No change to the requirement for the (3) WBS, However any shared resources, such as project manager that are shared between the tasks can be indicated as such. | |||||
| General Question | Do all of the submission documents for the OPM USALearning proposal need to be submitted during the same session or can we submit documents over multiple sessions – possibly over more than one day? | Answer: Yes. You can submit documents over multiple sessions and you can submit up until the closing of the proposal submittal time. No changes. | |||
| General Question | Will the Teams workspace be available ove the weekend and holiday (June 18, 19 & 20)? | Answer: Yes. No changes. | |||
| General Question | Will assistance be available during that time to help resolve any upload issues (June 18, 19, & 20)? | Answer: The Government recommends that you try to upload documents prior to the deadline to avoid an untimely proposal. No changes. | |||
| General Question | Would the Government move the time to later in the day (5:00 pm EDT), June 21st, to provide enough time to upload all of the required documents? If a company experiences upload issues, it will be difficult to resolve them prior to a 10:00 am deadline. | Answer: The Government recommends that you try to upload documents prior to the deadline to avoid an untimely proposal. The Government will extend the proposal due date as requested. The new proposal due date Monday July 11, 2022 at 5:00 P.M. EST Amendment 3. | |||
| General Question | Request the Government to extend the proposal submission to June 30, 2022, considering that the Amendment 2 comprising of Questions n Answers and the revised solicitation documents were released on June 2, 2022. | Answer: The Government will extend the proposal due date as requested. The new proposal due date Monday July 11, 2022 at 5:00 P.M. EST Amendment 3. | |||
| General Question | We request the Government to extend the proposal submission to June 30, 2022, considering that the Amendment 2 comprising of Questions n Answers and the revised solicitation documents were released on June 2, 2022. Also, to provide responses to above questions that will allow us to submit a compliant proposal. | Answer: The Government will extend the proposal due date as requested. The new proposal due date Monday July 11, 2022 at 5:00 P.M. EST Amendment 3. | |||
| General Question | Request for change to the RFP submission requirement for milestone deliverable as part of the Sample Task Order response. The current requirement allows for a 1 page response to a milestone chart at 10 pt font. Using the Government's milestone/deliverable outline and those we have added from integration of Attachment 2 scope we have exceeded the Government 3 page table by 1 page. We request page relief from this requirement so we can submit at a minimum the same milestones the government has listed in their deliverable and milestone table. | Answer: Attachment 15 Volume 1 4. Deleted page limitation for the milestone schedule. To clarify there is no longer a page limitation. |
24322622R0008 USALearning® Integrated Learning EcoSystem Support Products and Services Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract
Attachment RFP Questions &P of &N
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .