Questions Government Response 6-1-2022 .xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 124 KB Posted
- Attached to
- USALearning Training and Education
- Solicitation number
- 24322622R0002
- Issued by
-
Office of Personnel Management
About this file
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for training and education support products and services under the USALearning contract vehicle. The Office of Personnel Management seeks proposals for formal and informal learning, simulation, and organizational training support. Offerors must submit proposals by May 20, 2022 through the Microsoft Teams platform. The period of performance is one 5-year base period and two optional ordering periods.
The solicitation seeks solutions for analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation across three functional areas: formal and informal learning ISD services; simulation and live/virtual support; and organizational training and planning. Work will occur primarily in CONUS with potential OCONUS locations defined at the task order level. The government will award to the highest technically rated offerors with reasonable pricing. All proposals must comply with representations in the System for Award Management and include responses to 16 attachments related to requirements, evaluation criteria, provisions and clauses.
View the file
Other files
Show all 35
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions and Responses
| Solicitation Document | Page / Paragraph | Requirement / Portion | Questions/Concerns/Comments | Government Response |
| i.e. Attachment 1 Requirement Description | Applicable Page and Paragraph 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 1 | p.3 | Section 3.3 Background Investigations/Clearances | Would the government provide clarification in which instances a contractor would be required to pay OPM for costs associated with a background check. | Answer: Revised this section to clarify that "On a quarterly basis, the COR will submit a reconciliation report for eligible reimbursement costs associated with public trust investigation/clearance requests deemed outside the requirements of the IDIQ". Please see the revisions to these sections for clarifications on the costs. Section 3.3 Background Investigation (BI) / Clearances will be removed and added as Section 6 d. Public Trust Investigations / Clearances. The section headings will shift down in numbering. |
| Attachment 1 Requirement Description | Page 3; Section 4.2 | The Contractor shall establish a single management focal point, the Program Manager, to accomplish the administrative, managerial, and financial aspects of this contract and all subsequent TOs. This individual shall be identified as the focal point for all programmatic issues. | Question: Will the Government allow for PMO fees at the IDIQ level? | Answer: No. The PMO Fees should be included in the overhead rates for the IDIQ level. If PMO fees are proposed at the TO level, then they can be submitted directly at that level. No changes. |
| Attachment 1, Requirements Description | Page 4, Paragraph 1 | Requests for Task Order Proposals | Would the Government please define "other streamlined procedures". | Answer: 4. Task Order Management Section 4.4 Changed to Section 4.5 - Changed to read from OPM may use "other streamlined procedures" to order services under the IDIQ Changed to read OPM may use "other streamlined procedures IAW 16.505 Ordering" to order services under the IDIQ. |
| Attachment 1 | Page 5; Section 5.1 (a) (i) | "Contractor shall provide design, developing, delivering and validation of fully interoperable eLearning courseware that is sharable object content reference model (SCORM) courseware compliant." | Does "delivering" include hosting and implementing an LMS? | Answer: No. No changes. |
| Attach 1 Requirement Description | Page 6 | 5.1.aiii Provide Training and Instruction | Can you please provide a definition of what the medical and law enforcement hard skills are that need to be trained and give an example of what other subject areas of expertise may be requested. | Answer: Hard skills involve any subject area that falls within any Government Agency. No changes. |
| Attachment 1 | Page 6; Section 5.1 (a) (ii) | "Contractor shall develop, deliver, and manage…" | Does "deliver" include procuring software licenses or hosting a delivery platform? | Answer: No. No changes. |
| Attachment 1 | Page 6; Section 5.1 (a) (iii) | "Contractor shall provide instruction or facilitation at on-site at locations, or online using virtual meeting or training software." | Does "deliver" include procuring software licenses or hosting a delivery platform? | Answer: No. No changes. |
| Attachment 1 | Page 6; Section 5.1 (a) (iv) | "Contractor shall design, develop, and program assessments that are designed to measure the skills and knowledge the learner has mastered." | How are assessment to be "programmed?" | Answer: This is determined by the requirements and the software tools utilized by the customer agency. If not specified, then the programming method would be determined by the contractor as long as it meets the TO objects and requirements. No changes. |
| Attachment 1 | Page 6; Section 5.1 (a) (iv) | "Contractor shall design, develop, and program assessments that are designed to measure the skills and knowledge the learner has mastered." | Must assessments be delivered as SCORM packages? | Answer: Yes, when required. No changes. |
| Attachment 1 | Page 6; Section 5.1 (a) (iv) | "Program assessments into the customer agencies LMS or assessment systems (such as Questionmark)" | Will the Contractor be responsible for providing licenses to assessment software such as Questionmark? | Answer: No. No changes. |
| Attachment 1 | Page 7; Section 5.1 (b) | "is designed for modality on various mobile and computer devices in the learner’s possession." | Please explain what is meant by "modality." | Answer: What is the purpose of learning modalities? |
The purpose of learning modalities is to understand how people may use different senses to learn, and specifically, how individuals may learn differently. The purpose of a teacher identifying the learning modalities of their students is so that they can design learning activities to target the different learning modalities found in their classroom. This helps maintain an optimal learning environment. The use of training material on a mobile or on a different computer device can be combined together to meet an instructional objective. No. changes.
| Attachment 1 | Page 7; Section 5.1 (c) | "Allow agencies to easily manage content using the selected infrastructure of communities of learning (CoL), online forums, document management knowledge repository, wikis, and social media sites." | Will the Contractor be responsible for providing the "selected infrastructure?" | Answer: No. changes. |
| Attachment 1 | Page 7/8: Section 5.1 (c ) (i) | "Analyze/develop optimal online forum solutions. Considering COTS and open-source alternatives and build out a customer agency unique infrastructure to enable Customer |
agencies to manage its content using the selected infrastructure of CoL, online forums, knowledge repositories, and social media sites. This task will develop the backend infrastructure for a customer agency to implement and manage online knowledge in the system. This infrastructure development shall include a custom customer agency header, unique customer agency forum or CoP instance, secure access URLs, and accounts to manage and maintain the customer agency content employing the selected approach.
| Agencies may be provided with access to content administration controls in order to be able to create and edit its content. " | Is the assumption that offerors would be providing LMS/Hosting/Help Desk Services? | Answer: No. changes. | |||
| Attachment 1 | p.8 | Section 5.2 Functional Area 2: Simulators and Live Virtual, c. Mobile Games and apps | Would the government define what is a mobile app? is it only a an app downloaded from the app store for a respective OS or can it be a responsive designed web app designed for mobile use? | Answer: A mobile application, most commonly referred to as an app, is a type of application software designed to run on a mobile device, such as a smartphone or tablet computer. Depending on Task Order, multiple APP stores could be supported to include (but not limited too) Apple, Play, DOD, DON and other .EDU or .MIL (secured) locations. No, it is not a responsive designed web app designed for mobile use. No changes. | |
| Attach 1 Requirement Description.pdf | Page 8, a. Live & Virtual Systems. | Develop live simulations. Involves real people operating real systems. Military training events using real equipment are live simulations. These are considered simulations because they are not conducted against a live enemy.; Develop virtual simulations. Involves real people operating simulated systems. Virtual simulations inject a Human-in-the-Loop into a central role by exercising motor control skills (e.g., flying jet or tank simulator), decision making skills (e.g., committing fire control resources to action), or communication skills (e.g., as members of a C4I team). | Given that live and virtual simulations are typically procured through a Service's acquisition authority (i.e., PEO-STRI, PM TRASYS) it would seem unlikely that these requirements would flow through this contract. Further, given the small size standard, it is unlikely a small business would be in a position to provide these products. Would the Government consider striking the requirement for these simulation types? | Answer: No. No changes. | |
| Attach 1 Requirement Description.pdf | Page 8, a. Live & Virtual Systems. | Develop live simulations. Involves real people operating real systems. Military training events using real equipment are live simulations. These are considered simulations because they are not conducted against a live enemy.; Develop virtual simulations. Involves real people operating simulated systems. Virtual simulations inject a Human-in-the-Loop into a central role by exercising motor control skills (e.g., flying jet or tank simulator), decision making skills (e.g., committing fire control resources to action), or communication skills (e.g., as members of a C4I team). | Given that live and virtual simulations are typically procured through a Service's acquisition authority (i.e., PEO-STRI, PM TRASYS) it would seem unlikely that these requirements would flow through this contract. Further, given the small size standard, it is unlikely a small business would be in a position to provide these products. Would the Government consider striking the requirement for these simulation types? | Answer: No. No changes. | |
| Attachment 1 | Page 8; Section 5.1 (c) | "This task will develop the backend infrastructure for a customer agency to implement and manage online knowledge in the system." | Does the "backend infrastructure" include hosting the infrastructure and procuring software licenses? | Answer: No. No changes. | |
| Attachment 1 | Page 8; Section 5.1 (d) (iii) | "These may focus on using microlearning or activity-based events that can capitalize on xAPI, short streaming videos, pictures, voice dictation and other media inputs available through the device which may depend on cellular data access." | Does this include hosting and providing a delivery platform for microlearning delivery? | Answer: No. No changes. | |
| Attachment 1 | Page 9; Section 5.1 (d)(iv) | "Hosting and operations. The hosting and operations of virtual environments shall comply with all FedRAMP and other security requirements, including local system IT | |||
| policies" | Can the government clarify its meaning of hosting, which implies LMS/LCMS is part of this RFP? | Answer: Bullet iv is not applicable and has been deleted from the requirement documents. No changes. | |||
| Attachment 1 | Page 9; Section 5.2 (d) (iv) | The hosting and operations of virtual environments shall comply with all FedRAMP and other security requirements, including local system IT policies. | Can the Contractor provide or procure hosting services via a task order on this contract? Which CLIN should be used? | Answer: Bullet iv is not applicable and has been deleted from the requirement documents. No changes. | |
| Attach 1 Requirement Description | Page 10 | 5.3.1 ORGANIZATIONAL NEEDS ASSESSMENTS | What specific frameworks for assessments will be required? MITRE ATTACK, NIST/NICE, DoD8140, DCWF, Custom Frameworks etc. | Answer: There is no specific framework required. No changes. | |
| Attachment 1 Requirement Description | Page 11, Section 6c | The Contractor POC shall submit a weekly status report to the COR no later than Quarterly as set forth in | |||
| the table below. | Please clarify that the quarterly status report is not required weekly. | Answer: The report will be quarterly. Section 6c: We have deleted the reference to "weekly". | |||
| Attachment 1 Requirement Description | Page 11, Section C | The Contractor POC shall submit a weekly status report to the COR no later than Quarterly as set forth in the table below. | Question: Are these weekly report due weekly or quarterly? Is the Government expecting 13 weekly reports on the quarterly calendar dates? | Answer: The report will be quarterly. Section 6c: We have deleted the reference to "weekly". | |
| Attachment 1 | p.12 | Section 8. Te Refresh Requirements | Would the government provide examples of technical refreshes in addition to the scope provided? This will facilitate CLIN 00010 Simple Technology Refresh on the Pricing Worksheet. That way every vendor will be providing a cost for a similar effort. | Answer: Technical refresh would be ancillary to services provided and would be an ODC. Section 8 will be removed from this requirement and as a line item on the pricing workbook. | |
| Attachment 1 | Page 12; Section 8 | "As such, subject to the terms and conditions of the IDIQ Contract, the Contractor shall use commercially reasonable efforts to upgrade Services to support new learning technologies, methodologies, systems design, updated cyber and assistive standards and other services during the contract term consistent with upgrades provided to other customer agencies." | Does the government plan to issue task orders for technology refreshes? Are Contractor costs incurred to refresh technology to be included in the costing of the deliverable? | Answer: Technical refresh would be ancillary to services provided and would be an ODC. Section 8 will be removed from this requirement and as a line item on the pricing workbook. | |
| Attach 1 Requirement Description.pdf | Page 13, paragraph 10 | The Government may Off-Ramp a Contractor if any of the following events occur: an IDIQ Contract SB holder no longer qualifies as an SB because it is acquired by a non-SB concern or is no longer certified as a SB under the applicable NAICS for any reason; | Given the small size standard for a small business (12M), if a contractor is successful, it is possible they will exceed the SB requirements during the course of the contract. Would the Government consider removing this criteria for off-ramping? | Answer: No. No changes. | |
| Attach 1 Requirement Description.pdf | Page 13, paragraph 11 | Prior to the end of the Fifth Year and Exercising Optional Ordering Period 1: At the end of the fifth year of the contract and prior to exercising Optional Ordering Period 1 the Contractor will be required to certify its small business size status. In the event that the Contractor’s size standard changes from a small business concern to other than a small business concern and the Contractor has active task orders, including the exercise of options and modifications at the task order level, the Contractor shall continue performance of active task orders, but not have its Option exercised. | Given the small size standard for a small business (12M), if a contractor is successful, it is possible they will exceed the SB requirements during the course of the contract. Would the Government consider removing this criteria for option award? | Answer: No. No changes. | |
| Attach 1 Requirement Description.pdf | Page 13, paragraph 11 | Prior to the end of the Fifth Year and Exercising Optional Ordering Period 1: At the end of the fifth year of the contract and prior to exercising Optional Ordering Period 1 the Contractor will be required to certify its small business size status. In the event that the Contractor’s size standard changes from a small business concern to other than a small business concern and the Contractor has active task orders, including the exercise of options and modifications at the task order level, the Contractor shall continue performance of active task orders, but not have its Option exercised. | Given the small size standard for a small business (12M), if a contractor is successful, it is possible they will exceed the SB requirements during the course of the contract. Would the Government consider removing this criteria for option award? | Answer: No. No changes. | |
| Attach 1 Requirement Description.pdf | Page 15, paragraph 16.2 | OPM and its Customer agencies maintain ownership of all data, information, and derivative statistical information, software applications related to system functionality its personnel and organizations in accordance with FAR Clause 52.227-14, Rights in Data- General. | Would the Government accept that the performer retains rights to any software code for standalone training products (e.g., a learning game or constructive simulation) developed under this contract? | Answer: Moved 16.2 Data Ownership under 4. Task Order Management and now labeled 4.4 Data Ownership. Changed language to read "Data rights will be determined at the Task Order level in accordance with FAR 52.227-14 and any alternatives as applicable by the requirement." | |
| Attach 1 Requirement Description.pdf | Page 15, paragraph 16.2 | OPM and its Customer agencies maintain ownership of all data, information, and derivative statistical information, software applications related to system functionality its personnel and organizations in accordance with FAR Clause 52.227-14, Rights in Data- General. | Would the Government accept that the performer retains rights to any software code for standalone training products (e.g., a learning game or constructive simulation) developed under this contract? | Answer: Moved 16.2 Data Ownership under 4. Task Order Management and now labeled 4.4 Data Ownership. Changed language to read "Data rights will be determined at the Task Order level in accordance with FAR 52.227-14 and any alternatives as applicable by the requirement." | |
| Attachment 1 | p.16 | Section 16.4 Personnel Security Investigations (PSI) | Will OPM issue a DD254 for Secret Facility Clearance upon award to awardees? | Answer. Yes. Added language to 15.3 formally 16.4 "This information will be provided utilizing the DD254 form. Also, Provided a draft DD254 with the solicitation Attachment 18. | |
| Attachment 1 Requirement Description | Page 16, Section 16.4 | Contractor will have a minimum facility clearance level of SECRET within 6 months of contract award. | Concern: This is listed as not mandatory in "Attach 2 Instructions -Evaluation" page 21, "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." Question: Which is accurate, is the SECRET facility Clearance mandatory? | Answer: No. Please See Attachment 2, VOLUME 5, Instructions for Offerors. 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. | |
| Attachment 1 / 16.4 Personnel Security Investigations (PSI) | Page 16/ 16.4 paragraph | Facility clearance of Secret within 6 months of award | Please clarify if all Task Orders will require Secret facility clearance or just select Task Orders. | Answer: Only select Task Orders depending on USAL customer needs. Only those requirements that specify such clearance (SECRET or TS). No changes. | |
| Attachment 1 / 16.4 Personnel Security Investigations (PSI) | Page 16/ 16.4 paragraph | Facility clearance of Secret within 6 months of award | If a Task Order requires Secret facility clearance, are companies that are not at this clearance level at a disadvantage and unable to compete for the Task Order issued? | Answer: No. You do not need to have the DD254 at time of award but the prime will be required to have it completed within 6 months of award. No changes. | |
| Attachment 1 / On-Ramp | Page 13/ #9 On Ramp | On Ramp | Please clarify the intent on On Ramping companies. It is our understanding the limit is 7. Will it be reatined at the 7 level by Off Ramping companies and On Rampling replacements or will the pool of contractors grow over time? | Answer: No. The Government has determined that seven is a reasonable number of contractors to support this requirement. Having a manageable number of awardees' is critical. Please reference Attachment 2 Section Basis of Award. No changes. | |
| Attachment 1 / On-Ramp | Page 13/ #9 On Ramp | On Ramp | Is there a maintained limit of contractors on the IDIQ | Answer: The Government intends that there remain an adequate number of contractors eligible to compete for task orders to meet the programs needs. No changes. | |
| Attachment 1 Requirement Description; and Attachment 2 | Atch 1, Section 16.4 - Page 16 of 19; and Atch 2, Volume 5 para b., pp. 21-22 of 25 | Attachment 1 requires a vendor to possess FCL within 6 months of award, but the scoring specification in Attachment 2 is based on a vendor already having FCL. These are in conflict. | Can the Government clarify whether FCL is required as part of proposal submission or within 6 months after contract award? If the latter, the government should remove this as a scoring criteria, or at a minimum, provide partial credit to companies who can produce appropriate proof that they already have applied for FCL. | Answer: Added language to 15.3 formally known as 16.4 "This information will be provided utilizing the DD254 form. Also, Provided a draft DD254 with the solicitation Attachment 18. You do not to have the DD254 at time of award but you will be required to have it completed within 6 months of award. | |
| Attachment 1 Requirement Description | page 16, paragraph 16.4 | Contractor may be required to provide personnel at specified public trust or higher levels. Contractor will have a minimum facility clearance level of SECRET within 6 months of contract award. | To obtain a FCL, a contractor requires sponsorship by a government contracting activity (GCA) or a currently Cleared Defense Contractor (CDC). Upon contract award, will the GCA for USA Learning sponsor awardees who do not already have a SECRET FCL? | Answer. Yes. It is not the intent to have an FCL in place at the time of award. It will be required to have it completed within 6 months of award. No changes. | |
| Attachment 1 Requirement Description | page 16, paragraph 16.4 | Contractor may be required to provide personnel at specified public trust or higher levels. Contractor will have a minimum facility clearance level of SECRET within 6 months of contract award. | To obtain a FCL, a contractor requires sponsorship by a government contracting activity (GCA) or a currently Cleared Defense Contractor (CDC). Upon contract award, will the GCA for USA Learning sponsor awardees who do not already have a SECRET FCL? | Answer: Yes. It is not the intent to have an FCL in place at the time of award. It will be required to have it completed within 6 months of award. No changes. | |
| Attachment 1 Requirement Description | page 16, paragraph 16.4 | Contractor may be required to provide personnel at specified public trust or higher levels. Contractor will have a minimum facility clearance level of SECRET within 6 months of contract award. | It is our understanding that an active Task Order requiring FCL is required to qualify for an FCL. If that is the case, then an awardee would be ineligible for the required SECRET FCL without an awarded Task Order specifically requiring it, thereby making it difficult or impossible for the awardee to comply with this requirement unless they have the FCL prior to award. This essentially makes an FCL a minimum requirement. Is it the intention of the government to have FCL be a minimum requirement in order to bid? | Answer: No, It is not the intent to have an FCL in place at the time of award. It will be required to have it completed within 6 months of award. No changes. | |
| Attachment 2 | p.2 | Volume 1-Accessibility, c. Self-scoring worksheet, 6. Bullet #4 | Please confirm that this bullet as interpreted allows for submission of first tier team members past performance and that if the first tier team member is small business that full credit for work performed as prime will be received in evaluation. | Answer: Updated language for clarification Volume 1 c. 6. bullet 4. | |
| Attachment 2 | p.2 | Volume 1-Accessibility, c. Self-scoring worksheet, 6. Bullet #4 | Please confirm that any business that identifies itself as small in their Reps and Certs in SAM.gov can partner with another small business on this effort and that their past performance can be considered for use in the submission. Example: They are a small business under 541519 and are less than 150 FTEs in size. | Answer: To be eligible for award offerors must provide representations IAW FAR 19.301-1. No changes. | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions-Evaluation | Pgs. 3-4 | File Naming Methodology | Attachment 2 states: "Offerors may make minor adjustements to the file naming methodology so long as the resulting file names and organization are clearly understood." There is no file naming methodology provided in the solicitation documents. Please provide. | Answer: Removed sentence from Section Offeror's responses shall be submitted in accordance with the following instructions Paragraph 4 "Offerors may make minor adjustments to the file naming methodology so long as the resulting file names and organization are clearly understood" in its entirety. The Offeror will be responsible for establishing a file naming methodology that is clearly organized and understood as long as they comply with the requirement to include their company name or abbreviation and volume number in the filename. | |
| Attach 2 Instructions-Evaluation.pdf | Page 4, Paragraph 1 | The example for filename is: ABC Incorporated filename for Volume 1, SF-1499 is ABC.VOL.SF1499.pdf | Should the Volume indicator in the filename include a "1" in this example. E.g. "ABC.VOL1.SF1499.pdf" | Answer: Yes: Section Offeror's responses shall be submitted in accordance with the following instructions Paragraph 4 Updated to "1". | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions Evaluation | page 4, table | b. Pre-Recorded Presentation/Demo…Video: .mp4 | If the demo is being delivered as a raw .mp4 file, captioning cannot be bundled into the submission. Must the demo submission itself be Section 508 compliant? | Answer: No. This requirement is not intended for public or government distribution and will not be required to be 508 compliant. It is important that the video/demo discusses how your organization addresses 508, SCORM and other items identified in this solicitation. No changes. | |
| Attachment_2_Instructions-Evaluation | Page 21, Certifications and Clearances, Paragraph a. | ISO 9001:2008 Certification | The three-year transition period to move from ISO 9001:2008 to ISO 9001: 2015 ended on September 13, 2018. All ISO 9001:2008 certifications are now invalid. We recommend updating the requirement for points to be awarded only to offerors that hold ISO 9001:2015 certification. | Answer: Updated Volume 5 - Certifications and Clearances a. from ISO 9001:2008 to ISO 9001: 2015. | |
| Attachment_2_Instructions-Evaluation | Page 24, Volume 7 Price, 2nd paragraph | Any pricing narrative submitted in addition the pricing spreadsheet shall not exceed five (5) pages. | The Pricing Narrative mentioned is not listed as a checklist item on solicitation attachment 8, Proposal Checklist Template. Please add the Pricing narrative as a checklist item | Answer: Attachment 8 added Pricing Narrative number 2. under Volume 7 and added Attachment 2 Section Offeror's responses shall be submitted in accordance with the following instructions Pricing Narrative, If applicable to the Proposal Format Table. | |
| Attach 2 Instructions-Evaluation.pdf | Page 4, Paragraph 1 | The example for filename is: ABC Incorporated filename for Volume 1, SF-1499 is ABC.VOL.SF1499.pdf | Should the Volume indicator in the filename include a "1" in this example. E.g. "ABC.VOL1.SF1499.pdf" | Answer: Yes: Section Offeror's responses shall be submitted in accordance with the following instructions Paragraph 4 Updated to "1". | |
| Proposal Instructions: Attachment 2, Volume 2, Pre-Recorded Presentation/Demo, Requirement for 7 volumes | p. 4 of 25 | Requirement for 7 volumes and a 1 hour video with only 4 weeks notification. | Neither the Government's industry day in Oct 2020 nor the draft RFI in March 2021 provided any advance warning of the requirement for 7 volumes and a video. This is an extensive lift for small businesses. Can the Government extend the due date to Monday, June 20, 2022? | Answer: Yes. Amendment 1 is extended the proposal due date to June 20, 2022. Also, Amendment 2 will be extend the due date to June 21, 2022 due to the Juneteenth Holiday. | |
| Proposal Instructions: Attachment 2, Volume 2, Pre-Recorded Presentation/Demo | p. 4 of 25 | For the project demo video, recommend the Government require the video to be from a qualifying past performance the Offeror is submitting for work done as a Prime. This will enable the competition to be among small business and avoid undue advantage to large partners. | Answer: No. No changes. | ||
| Attachment 2, Instructions and Evaluation | General Proposal Instructions, Page 5 | Basis for Awards, 3rd Paragraph | With some seven (or more) possible Small Business primes, and a possible ceiling of $1.76B, the Government can expect that many of these companies will grow out of their small business size in time. Would the Government consider increasing that number of prime contractors to allow more price competition while also providing more time before a Small Business may have to be subjected to a Ramp Off? | Answer: No. The Government has determined that seven is a reasonable number of contractors to support this requirement. Having a manageable number of awardees is critical. Please reference Attachment 2 Section Basis of Award. No changes. | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions Evaluation | General Solicitation / Acceptability / Evaluation / Basis of Award/ Instructions / and Offeror Requirements, pages 7 | Throughout Attachment 2 Instructions, OPM appears to be applying and intending to use many offeror clauses that favor existing Joint Venture Mentor/Protégé teams. |
For instance, Joint Venture Mentor/Protege teams include large business partners and under the current solicitation language even allows inclusion of their Relevant Experience Projects. That is contrasted by small business led teams not being allowed to include large business partners, which is further exacerbated by the very low applicable size standard chosen for this solicitation, which results in otherwise small businesses being considered large given the $12m threshhold. This language appears to limit the ability of small business teams (i.e. prime/sub teaming agreements) to respond to this solicitation on a level competitive playing field, and gives preference to existing Joint Ventures, Mentor/Protégé, or bidders submitting as a CTA. This is especially concerning given the long lead time on the part of the government for this multiple-award small business IDIQ, with no sharing of this intent in either the initial Industry day or the preliminary details for the Multiple Award IDIQ (Suite 1&2) released nearly a year ago.
| Question 1 - To avoid likely protests, will OPM consider making changes to allow small business led teams, to include large business partners, as is allowed to existing Joint Venture Mentor/Proteges? | Answer: To be eligible for award offerors must provide representations IAW FAR 19.301-1. Large business partners may only provide experience as part of an approved Mentor/Protégé as required by the Small Business Administration and 13 CFR 121.103 and 13 CFR 125.9. No changes. | ||||
| Attachment_2_Instructions-Evaluation | Page 7, Paragraph a. | Reference to DUNS number | DUNS numbers are now obsolete. Recommend the Government remove all references to DUNS numbers and replace them with Unique Entity IDs. | Answer: Volume 1 - a. and e. 1 i. Changed all references of "DUNS Number" to "Unique Entity ID". | |
| Attachment 2 / c. self scoring worksheet | Page 7/ c. self scoring worksheet; sub number 6 on the list | six identified relevant projects | Is the total relevant experience examples exaclty six? Can there be less that is acceptable. | Answer: No. Per instructions "Offeror will provide two (2) projects for FA1; three (3) projects for FA2; and one (1) project for FA3" Added language Volume 1- Section c. 6. "The Offeror may provide no more than one (1) additional project experience in supporting OCONUS Location Training. The project listed may be the same as one of the six (6) required projects listed above." | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions - Evaluation | Page 7;Volume 1 - Acceptability/Instructions to Offerors; a: Solicitation Section A |
| Page 10; e.1.i | a. All the evaluation elements an Offeror is submitting a proposal for and taking credit for in accordance with Volumes 1 through 7, shall be in the Offeror’s name as submitted in 17a (Identifies the Prime Contractor) and Signature of Offeror/Contractor Block 30A (Contractor on the Standard Form (SF) 1449, Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial Items, with a corresponding CAGE Code and DUNS Number in SAM.GOV that matches the Offeror name on the SF 1449, Block 30b (Name and Title of Signer). | ||||
| i. The Offeror (e.g., Joint Venture or Prime Small Business contractor) and each Contractor identified in an existing Partnership or Joint Venture CTA must be registered in SAM at https://www.sam.gov with a corresponding DUNS Number... | SAM now uses a Unique Entity ID rather than the DUNS as their authoritative identifier. Will the Government be updating the instructions with a requirement for the UEI rather than (or inclusive of) a DUNS Number? | Answer: Volume 1 - a. and e. 1 i. Changed all references of "DUNS Number" to "Unique Entity ID". | |||
| Attachment 2 / c. self scoring worksheet | Page 7/ c. self scoring worksheet; sub number 6 on the list | six identified relevant projects | Can we use two or more different projects from the same customer? | Answer: Yes. No changes. | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions-Evaluation | Pgs. 7-8 | N/A | Attachment 2 states: "For credit of work performed by a first tier teaming small business subcontractor, include the name of the company and subcontracting plan that performed the work." What is meant by "…subcontracting plan that performed the work"? Did the Government intend to only say "company that performed the work"? Please clarify. | Answer: Updated Language for clarification. "For credit of work performed as a first tier teaming small business subcontractor, include the name of the Prime company and subcontracting plan that covered the performance of the work. Respond “YES” for the question “was your company the Prime for this contract”, if performed work as a small business first tier subcontractor. Respond “NO” for the question “was your company the Prime for this contract”, if work performed as other than small business first tier teaming subcontractor or any other tier." | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions Evaluation | Page 7-8, Section C | For credit of work performed by a first tier teaming small business subcontractor… | Will the Government consider allowing the 100 points to be scored for work performed by a first tier teaming large business in a prime role, if the contractor was a small business when awarded the contract, but has since graduated to a large business? | Answer: No. No changes. | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions-Evaluation | Pgs. 7-8, c. Self-Scoring Worksheet; Pg. 11, e. Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) | For any approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures in accordance with 13 CFR 125.9 where the Mentor is not a Small Business under the applicable size standard, that Mentor may submit a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience Projects. The remaining Relevant | |||
| Experience Projects submitted must be submitted by the Protégé. | Attachment 2 states: "For credit of work performed by a first tier teaming small business subcontractor, include the name of the company and subcontracting plan that performed the work." Can the government please confirm whether credit of work is allowable for all team members of the Prime/Subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2)? Separately, it is required that, "For any approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures in accordance with 13 CFR 125.9 where the Mentor is not a Small Business under the applicable size standard, that Mentor may submit a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience Projects. The remaining Relevant Experience Projects submitted must be submitted by the Protégé." 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? | Answer: Updated language for clarification Volume 1- Section c. "For credit of work performed as a first tier teaming small business subcontractor, include the name of the Prime company and subcontracting plan that covered the performance of the work. Respond “YES” for the question “was your company the Prime for this contract”, if performed work as a small business first tier subcontractor. Respond “NO” for the question “was your company the Prime for this contract”, if work performed as other than small business first tier teaming subcontractor or any other tier." Please refer to updated Language Volume 1- Section c. Also, please refer to e. 1. ii. All minimum requirements and scored evaluation criteria must have been performed by the Offeror or existing Partnership or Joint Venture CTA. If the experience submitted is outside the Partnership or Joint Venture CTA, then all Contractor’s identified in the Partnership or Joint Venture shall submit at least one Relevant Experience Project. For example, if Company A submits a relevant experience project outside the Joint Venture, then Company B must also submit a relevant experience project outside the Joint Venture and so forth." | |||
| Attachment 2 Instructions Evaluation | page 7-8, paragraph c.6 | For credit of work performed by a first tier teaming small business… |
| ... if first tier teaming subcontractor was a large business… | Please clarify the definition of a first tier subcontractor in this context. | Answer: To be eligible for award offerors must provide representations IAW FAR 19.301-1. Please also, refer to Volume I e. 2 definitions. No changes. | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions Evaluation | page 7-8, paragraph c.6 | For credit of work performed by a first tier teaming small business… |
| ... if first tier teaming subcontractor was a large business… | Can the offeror include relevant experience projects of subcontractors in our bid? | Answer: Yes. No changes. | |||
| Attachment 2 Instructions-Evaluation | Pg. 8 | Volume 1 - Incorrect Attachment Reference | Attachment 2 states: "A past performance questionnaire form has been provided to assist with submission of this information (Attachment 11)." The Past Performance Questionnaire is Attachment 12. Please update the reference. | Answer: Changed Attachment 11 to Attachment 12. | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions Evaluation | Page 9, Section D, Item #6 | Outside a corporate structure, such as a “Subcontractor” performance under a “Prime” Contractor or two separate companies that may share some resources and be considered “affiliates” but are not within the same corporate structure will not be considered for establishing Meaningful Relationship Commitments, OPM will not allow an Offeror to take credit for any evaluation element, including relevant experience project(s), system(s), or certification(s) as a “Subcontractor” | This appears to limit the ability of small business teams (i.e. prime/sub teaming agreements) to respond to this solicitation on a level competitive playing field, and gives preference to existing Joint Ventures, Mentor/Protégé, or bidders submitting as a CTA. This is especially concerning given the long lead time on the part of the government for this multiple-award small business IDIQ, with no sharing of this intent in either the initial Industry day or the preliminary details for the Multiple Award IDIQ (Suite 1&2) released nearly a year ago. |
Question 1 - Please clarify/verify that unless an offeror establishes a team under a CTA, OPM will not allow the prime to include and be scored based upon the relevant experience, past performance, certifications and clearances of its contributing subcontractor teaming partners.
| Question 2 - Please clarify/verify that vendors submitting as an existing Joint Venture or Mentor/Protege will receive credit for contributing relevant experience, past performance, certification and clearances, to include those of large business mentors, is being allowed. | Answer: 1. and 2. You cannot use a MRCL or a subcontractor. No changes. | ||||
| Attachment 2 Instructions-Evaluation | Pg. 10 | Volume 1 - Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) Representations and Certifications | One of the CTA requirements states: "The Offeror (e.g., Joint Venture or Prime Small Business contractor) and each Contractor identified in an existing Partnership or Joint Venture CTA must be registered in SAM at https://www.sam.gov with a corresponding DUNS Number and CAGE Code and submit complete representations and certifications in accordance with FAR Provision 52.212-3 at the time of proposal submission." Is this statement requiring the JV entity AND each member of the JV entity to submit completed representations and certifications? | Answer: No. To be eligible for award offerors must provide representations IAW FAR 19.301-1. Please also, refer to Volume I e. 1 i. definitions. No changes. | |
| Attachment 2 Proposal Instruction and Evaluation for Award | Page 10; Section e. 2. | "Any Prime/Subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2) Solicitation is limited to only First |
Tier Small Business Subcontractors as defined in 15 USC 632 (dd)(2) as a subcontractor who has a subcontract directly with the prime contractor. All Prime/Subcontractor CTA members must be small businesses under the applicable size standard, as reflected in their representations and
| certifications." | Would the Government consider revising the Solicitation requirement to allow for First Tier Large Business Subcontractors in order to offer the Government the best combination of performance, cost, and delivery as encouraged in FAR 9.602(a)(2)? | Answer: No changes. | |
| Attachment 2 Proposal Instruction and Evaluation for Award | Page 10; Section e. 2. | "Any Prime/Subcontractor CTA as defined in FAR 9.601(2) Solicitation is limited to only First |
Tier Small Business Subcontractors as defined in 15 USC 632 (dd)(2) as a subcontractor who has a subcontract directly with the prime contractor. All Prime/Subcontractor CTA members must be small businesses under the applicable size standard, as reflected in their representations and
| certifications." | With the inclusion of FAR 52.219-14 Limitations on Subcontracting in the Contract, would the Government consider allowing for First Tier Large Business Subcontractors to be added to a team after award for the purposes of performing on the Contract? | ||||
| Answer: Yes. The Government will not restrict the use of large business subcontractors during the performance of the task orders. The Prime must comply with FAR 52.219-14 unless they are restricted at the task order level. No changes. | |||||
| Attachment 2 Instructions-Evaluation | Pg. 11 | Volume 1 - Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) Scored Evaluation Criteria | Attachment 2 states: "All minimum requirements and scored evaluation criteria must have been performed by the Offeror or existing Partnership or Joint Venture CTA." Please confirm that minimum requirements and scored evaluation criteria could have been performed by any member of an existing Partnership or Joint Venture CTA. | Answer: Please refer to Volume 1 e. Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) which includes the all minimum requirements and scored criteria needed. No changes. | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions Evaluation | Page 11, Section E (CTA), Item 1-ii paragraph 2 | For any approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures in accordance with 13 CFR 125.9 where the Mentor is not a Small Business under the applicable size standard, that Mentor may submit a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience Projects. The remaining Relevant Experience Projects submitted must be submitted by the Protégé. | This appears to limit the ability of small business teams (i.e. prime/sub teaming agreements or even CTAs) to respond to this solicitation on a level competitive playing field, and gives preference to existing Joint Venture Mentor/Protégé teams, where they are allowed to use up to two Relevant Experience Projects of a large business mentor. This is especially concerning given the low dollar threshold ($12M) for the singular NAICS associated with determining size standards for this solicitation, eliminating firms that would have other wise be considered small. |
Question 1 - Request that OPM provide a more level playing field and allow small business led prime/sub teams or CTAs to include large business partners and allow the same maximum of up to two (2) Relevant Experience Projects provided to existing Mentor/Protege offerors. Yes/No?
| Question 2 - If the answer to Question 1 above is NO, We request that OPM provide a more level playing field and remove the provision allowing existing Mentor/Protege offerors to use and receive credit for Relevant Experience Projects of a large business mentor. | Answer: To be eligible for award offerors must provide representations IAW FAR 19.301-1. Large business partners may only provide experience as part of an approved Mentor/Protégé as required by the Small Business Administration and 13 CFR 121.103 and 13 CFR 125.9. No changes. | ||||
| Attach 2 Instructions-Evaluation.pdf | Page 11, paragraph ii. | If the experience submitted is outside the Partnership or Joint Venture CTA, then all Contractor’s identified in the Partnership or Joint Venture shall submit at least one Relevant Experience Project | Can the Prime of a CTA (Prime and Subcontractors per FAR 9.601(2)) include experience on a project worked with the team where they were not the prime? In other words, can experience be included if one of the Subcontractor was previously the prime of the team. | Answer: Please refer to Volume 1 e. Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) which includes the all minimum requirements and scored criteria needed. 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). No changes. | |
| Attach 2 Instructions-Evaluation.pdf | Page 11, paragraph ii. | If the experience submitted is outside the Partnership or Joint Venture CTA, then all Contractor’s identified in the Partnership or Joint Venture shall submit at least one Relevant Experience Project. | In the event a Prime of a CTA (Prime and Subcontractors per FAR 9.601(2)) includes relevent experience of a contract for a requirement in one of the functional areas, does the Prime and all other Subcontracts need to have similar experience? Is this considered "outside the Partnership or Joint Venture CTA"? As a small business, we typically build teams to fill in gaps in our experience and services. The team we developed for this soliciation has experience working together on similar projects but we do not overlap on all of our skills and experience. | Answer: Please refer to Volume 1 e. Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) which includes the all minimum requirements and scored criteria needed. 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). No changes. | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions-Evaluation | p. 11, item ii, second paragraph | For any approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures in accordance with 13 CFR 125.9 where the Mentor is not a Small Business under the applicable size standard, that Mentor may submit a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience Projects. The remaining Relevant Experience Projects submitted must be submitted by the Protégé. | Will the Government eliminate the limitation of two Relevant Experience projects that can be provided by a Mentor in an SBA approved Mentor-Protege JV? | Answer: No. No changes. | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions-Evaluation | p. 11, item ii, second paragraph | For any approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures in accordance with 13 CFR 125.9 where the Mentor is not a Small Business under the applicable size standard, that Mentor may submit a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience Projects. The remaining Relevant Experience Projects submitted must be submitted by the Protégé. | We request the government remove the $12M size standard and consider increasing the size standard to allow for more competitive teams to bid on this effort. | Answer: No. No changes. | |
| Attachment 2 Instructions-Evaluation | p. 11, item ii, second paragraph | For any approved Mentor-Protégé Joint Ventures in accordance with 13 CFR 125.9 where the Mentor is not a Small Business under the applicable size standard, that Mentor may submit a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience Projects. The remaining Relevant Experience Projects submitted must be submitted by the Protégé. | Given the recent GAO rulings and SBA guidance around JVs and MP past performances allowable, we request the government remove the restrictions for the Mentor to submit only a maximum of two (2) Relevant Experience Projects. | Answer: No changes. | |
| Attach 2 Instructions-Evaluation.pdf | Page 11, paragraph ii. | If the experience submitted is outside the Partnership or Joint Venture CTA, then all Contractor’s identified in the Partnership or Joint Venture shall submit at least one Relevant Experience Project | Can the Prime of a CTA (Prime and Subcontractors per FAR 9.601(2)) include experience on a project worked with the team where they were not the prime? In other words, can experience be included if one of the Subcontractor was previously the prime of the team. | Answer: Please refer to the Volume 1 e 1. ii. Contractor Team Arrangement (CTA) which includes the all minimum requirements and scored criteria needed. No changes. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .