Questions and Answers AR Support Final.docx

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

FA330024R0006

Q1. Section L indicates the offeror needs to provide Adjunct Faculty candidates who could credibly be expected to participate under this contract; one each in the following areas: Cross-Cultural Competence and Nuclear Deterrence. The PWS para 10.3 says "Adjunct Instructors who could credibly be expected to participate under this contract; one each in the following areas: Cross-Cultural Competence, Cross-Cultural Negotiations, and Nuclear Deterrence." Should Section L include Adjunct Faculty candidates for Cross-Cultural Negotiations?

A1. Section L and M have been updated and changed from three to two resumes. See Amendment 001.

Q2. Do all Adjunct Instructors require a Secret Clearance or is the clearance only required as needed for certain subject areas?

A2. No. Secret security clearance required as needed for certain subject area.

Q3. Do Adjunct Instructors require a Secret Clearance if they are providing remote delivery?

A3. See A2.

Q4. Can the government clarify if Offerors can roll-up multiple Task Orders under a single IDIQ for past performance?

A4. Yes.

Q5. Can the government consider aligning performance as a Joint Venture with the requirements of the SBA; Protégés in a Mentor Protégé JV are only required to perform 40% of the workshare, can the government shift the requirement to at least 40% of the effort rather than 50%?

A5. Yes

Q6. Assessments functions seemed to be pulled from PWS paragraph 6 yet the solicitation lists CLINs for Assessments in each contract year. Are we expected to include Assessments in our proposals?

A6. Assessments were removed in the final solicitation.

Q7. Are the contract value requirements in Table 2 for Past Performance Relevancy Ratings accurate to meet the current contract magnitude? Will the Government consider increasing the dollar value for the life of the contract to meet the similar magnitude requirement?

A7. Yes, see Amendment 001.

Q8. According to the past performance relevancy criteria, to be rated at any level of relevancy, an offeror's reference must provide support for "Client research, program development, instruction, program event support, acquisition management, and management consulting activities." These activities are drawn from PWS paragraph 1.4 Scope. However, the criteria do not align well with the requirements listed in PWS 6.0. Academic Centers Functions/Requirements. The evaluation approach in Section M makes past performance a very important aspect of the award criteria. Therefore, the evaluation of the past performance should be very closely aligned to the actual requirements. Will the Government reconsider the elements used in the evaluation of past performance? For example, an alternative list of elements for evaluation could include LREC program support, curriculum/media technology development, student management and oversight, language program support, system and database management, etc.

A8. Removed Client research and acquisition management from Section M Table 2. PWS 1.4 is the broad scope which covers the requirements listed in PWS 6.0. See Amendment 001.

Q9. According to the past performance relevancy criteria, to be rated at any level of relevancy, an offeror's reference must provide support for "Client research, program development, instruction, program event support, acquisition management, and management consulting activities." The requirement to provide support for all six distinct criteria with each and every reference is very exclusive and limits competition severely. An Offeror is permitted to submit up to five references. If all six criteria are relevant, an Offeror can more feasibly show relevant performance covering multiple criteria using two or more contracts. Will the Government change the past performance evaluation to allow for meeting all criteria by considering all references?

A9. See A8 above. See Amendment 001.

Q10. According to the past performance relevancy criteria, to be rated at any level of relevancy, an offeror's reference must provide support for "Client research, program development, instruction, program event support, acquisition management, and management consulting activities." In the previous solicitation from 2020, the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table was updated to state that a “relevant” contract “may fail to meet all of the requirements for ‘Very Relevant’ but meets most” of them. In addition, the table stated that a “somewhat relevant” contract “fails to meet all of the requirements for ‘Very Relevant’ or ‘Relevant’ performance but meets some” of the requirements. Will the Government update the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table for the 2024 solicitation so that it reflects the language from the 2020 solicitation?

A10. See A8 and A9 above. See Amendment 001.

Q11. According to the past performance relevancy criteria, an offeror’s reference must provide support for acquisition management. We are unable to identify any tasks related to acquisition management within the draft PWS. As acquisition management does not seem to be relevant to this solicitation, will the Government consider updating the past performance relevancy criteria by removing this criterion?

A11. See A8 above. See Amendment 001.

Q12. According to the past performance relevancy criteria, to be rated at a level of "Very Relevant" the contractor must provide contract references that have a value of at least $5 million annually. The criteria from the 2020 solicitation stated that references must have a value of at least $10 million over the life of the contract. Will the Government update the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings table for the 2024 solicitation so that it reflects the language from the 2020 solicitation?

A12. See Amendment 001.

Q13. Section L, Past Performance Information (PPI) allows only one reference to come from a subcontractor, teaming partner and/or joint venture partner (hereafter, subcontractor) “that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work).” A successful strategy might include using two major subcontractors. Will the Government permit one PPI reference per major subcontractor?

A13. No

Q14. Can the Government confirm whether initial proposal submissions are requested via email or through DoD SAFE?

A14. Amendment 001.

Q15. The instructions give a general outline for Volume I, however this section also requests a concise summary, SF 30, and SF 33, which are not listed in the general outline. Can the Government please clarify where in the outline they would like these items placed.

A15. Volume I consists of sections (a) through (g).

Q16. Can the Government confirm if the Summary Pages are included in the 80 page limit of the technical volume?

A16. The 2-page summary is not part of the 80 page limit.

Q17. The instructions state that offerors must provide at least three resumes for viable Adjunct Instructor candidates, "one each in the following areas: Cross-Cultural Competence and Nuclear Deterrence." Does the Government mean that there is one resume each for these two disciplines? Does the Government have further guidance for the third resume?

A17. Section L and M have been updated and changed from three to two resumes. See Amendment 001.

Q18. The instructions listed for the Summary Page of this volume appear to ask for information regarding the Organization Structure Change History. Can the Government clarify how this information is different from the information requested for #5 in the list of the Volume Organization General Outline (5. Organization Structure Change History)?

A18. Removed (5) Organization Structure Change History. See Amendment 001.

Q19. Can the Government please clarify the information they would like included in the Volume III Summary Page and if it is different from the information requested in part 5, Organization Struture Change History?

A19. See A18.

Q20. Part C of the form asks the following: “Brief Description of Effort as Prime or Subcontractor (Please indicate whether it was development and/or production, or other acquisition phase and highlight portions considered most relevant to current acquisition).” Would the Government please clarify what acquisition phases they are referring to?

A20. Attachment 2 has been updated. See Amendment 001.

Q21. Are Volumes I, III, and IV allowed to be single spaced?

A21. Yes

Q22. Section L states that in the Past Performance volume, information on Teaming Arrangements must be shared. Specifically, it states "If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past contracts of relevance." If an offeror has multiple teaming partners/subcontractors, is this information only requested from the teaming partner(s)/subcontractor(s) who is submitting a past performance reference?

A22. Yes.

Q23. The Client Authorization Letter Sample (Attachment 5) does not include an area for the commercial customer to provide acknowledgement of receipt of this letter. Is it acceptable for the offeror to include just the copy of the sent authorization letter in the past performance volume, without an acknowledgement from the commercial customer of receipt?

A23. Client Authorization Letter is removed, use Attachment 4 Subcontractor Consent instead.

Q24. For the lesson required in Subfactor 1, can the Government elaborate on the level of involvement that is expected from the instructor? For example, does the Government expect this lesson to be entirely self-paced or is there an expectation for an instructor actively lead the lesson and to give continuous feedback throughout the lesson?

A24. The lesson should be structured to support the requirement for a “self-contained, stand-alone HTML based course package” which could be delivered to a student without the benefit of active, continuous feedback.

Q25. Based on the requirement written in Subfactor 1, as worded, the Government is requesting the development and delivery of the lesson plan developed by the Contractor for a distance learning audience in a self-contained, stand-alone HTML based course package contained in a standard zip format compatible for deployment/delivery on industry standard learning management systems (LMS) as part of the Contractor's response to this RFP. Is that correct? Typically, an RFP response would include narrative descriptions of how this work would be performed, past performance examples cited, and possibly examples of previously completed work. The requirement below appears to be an actual deliverable that would typically be completed upon awarding of the contract and in accordance with appropriate compensation. Is it's the Government's intent to receive a fully developed course prior to contract award?

A25. No, the Government does not require a fully developed course. This requirement is a practical demonstration of the offeror’s capability to deliver one lesson on a narrow but relevant topic. The lesson will NOT be utilized by the government beyond the contract evaluation.

Q26. Within the language programs, which specific languages are part of the programming?

A26. PWS 6.6. and sub-paragraphs clearly outlines the requirements for language program and participant support.

Q27. Was there a previous provider of these services? If so, what are the total amount? What’s the average hourly rate charged?

A27. Yes. the total contract price for the IDIQ was $16,262,831.90 we cannot give the average hourly rate charge.

Q28. With the Workload projections in 12.0, would it be safe to say that the contract would require 37 full-time people to effectively perform the tasks assuming a 2,000-hour/year workload?

A28. The Government cannot assist you or help you in determining the amount of employees. That is the offeror’s business decision.

Q29. If we need to subcontract any portion, would we need to flowing the small business participant plan as part of the proposal or could we determine this later after the start of the contract and needs are more concrete?

A29. If you are a large business, you must follow the small business participation plan stated in Section L Subfactor 3 of the Technical Volume II and Section M Subfactor 3.

Q30. Does the past performance assessment need to be government contracts or can private contracts serve the purposes as well?

A30. You can use private contracts.

Q31. According to Section L, it is stipulated that offerors are required to submit a single proposal for Academic Centers Educational and Research Support Services. The Government will evaluate and consider only one proposal per offeror. Proposals must be submitted by 4:00 PM C.S.T. on 21 March 2024 to 42CONS/PKB, 50 LeMay Plaza South, Bldg. 804, Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-5948, Attention: Kimberly Knott and TSgt Jeremy Clark, in accordance with the specified date and time indicated in Block 9 on the face page of the RFP.

Could the Government please confirm whether the submission of this proposal is restricted to hand delivery only, or if there is an option for vendors who are not local to Maxwell AFB, AL, to electronically submit their proposals?

A31. Section L has been updated. See Amendment 001.

Q32. The Government specifies an 80-page limit specified in G. Specific Instructions does not include the title page, table of contents, acronyms or definitions list, submitted resumes, lesson in the form of a written lesson plan, or the HTML course package submitted under sub-factor 1. Could the Government confirm whether a technical approach narrative is required for Subfactor 1 Course Curriculum Development and Support in the Volume II Written Technical Proposal?

A32. The government does not require a technical approach narrative.

Q33. RFP Section M Subfactor 1 states "This subfactor is met when the offeror successfully demonstrates its capabilities to design Language, Region, Expertise Culture, and Negotiation (LRECN) curriculum and supporting products as described in PWS paragraphs 6.2. Curriculum Development and 6.3 Curriculum Media/Technology Development/Support." In addition to providing a curriculum product, would the government confirm whether they would also like the offeror to write a technical narrative describing our Capabilities to meet these PWS requirements, outside of the sample deliverable (written lesson plan/media submission) being submitted.

A33. See A32.

Q34. Section B "Estimated quantity" of hours uses 1,992 hours to represent a man-year. This is not a realistic number of hours for a labor hour billing type for an employer to require an employee to work. This estimate only includes 11 Federal holidays (2080-88 hours = 1992 hours) and does NOT include federally mandated 7 days of Sick Leave OR Vacation time. If the offeror proposed 1992 hours, we would never be able to bill these total hours, especially if contractors are not allowed to bill more than 8 hour days. Recommend the government reduces billable labor hours to 1880 as is industry standard for a workable man-year that complies with federal labor regulations.

A34. No, the estimated quantity is based upon historical data. The hours do not necessarily equate to full or part time equivalent personnel.

Q35. To ensure that proposals meet the criteria for technical acceptability, both Section L and M employ the phrase, 'The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum…'. Given the goal of meeting technical acceptability, we recommend eliminating the phrase 'at a minimum' from both Section L and Section M.

A35. No.

Q36. In Section L, Subsection A General, Paragraph 5 the instructions state: “Proposals must be received by 4:00 PM C.S.T., 21 March 2024 at 42CONS/PKB, 50 LeMay Plaza South, Bldg. 804, Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-5948, Attention: Kimberly Knott and TSgt Jeremy Clark, no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 on the face page of the RFP.” However, this is inconsistent with Subsection G which lists each volume as 1 Electronic Copy. Subsection C indicates that source selection information AFTER initial proposal submission may be submitted via encrypted email or DROP SAFE. Will the government please update Subsection A for submission of initial proposals to be consistent with the instructions in Subsections C and G for proposal electronic files to be submitted via encrypted email or DROP SAFE?

A36. See A31.

Q37. In Section L, Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation Plan it states: "The offeror shall include names of firms, realistic commitment documents with such firms and a description of the requirement to be performed by the firms to include an estimated value of each subcontract" In Section L, Subsection (2) Volume II – Factor 1 – Technical Proposal, Paragraph (d), the instructions state: “The technical volume shall not exceed 80 pages. The page limit does not include the title page, table of contents, any list of acronyms or definitions, submitted resumes, nor the lesson in the form of a written lesson plan, (or the html course package.) submitted under sub-factor 1."Will the government please update subsection (2)(d) to add that the commitment documents required in Subfactor 3 are also not included in the 80-page limit for Volume II? Will the Government please also update Section M, Technical Capability Factor, Paragraph 2 to match the information that is updated in Section L?

A37. Section L and M will be amended to remove subfactor 3 from the 80 page limit. See Amendment 001.

Q38. In Section L, Subsection (2) Volume II – Factor 1 – Technical Proposal, Paragraphs (c) and (d), the instructions state: "(c) Summary Page(s). To aid the Government’s understanding, provide a summary of the offeror’s proposed technical approach and how the approach will efficiently and effectively meet the requirement. The summary page(s) shall not exceed two (2) pages. (d) The technical volume shall not exceed 80 pages. The page limit does not include the title page, table of contents, any list of acronyms or definitions, submitted resumes, nor the lesson in the form of a written lesson plan, (or the html course package.) submitted under sub-factor 1.” Will the Government please confirm the Summary pages are excluded from the 80-page volume limitations for Volume II? Will the Government please also update Section M, Technical Capability Factor, Paragraph 2 to match the information that is updated in Section L?

A38. See A16.

Q39. To clarify formatting requirements, will the Government please confirm that Volume II - Factor 1 - Technical Proposal shall be formatted to the following parameters?

• Page size: 8 1/2" x 11", except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11" x 17"

• Margins - 1" on top, bottom, and both sides

• Typing shall be double spaced in Times New Roman font, and not be less than 12 pitch, except for charts, tables, graphics, and diagrams, which shall be no smaller than 10 pitch.

A39. See Section L, (d), (e) and (f). There is no margin requirements listed.

Q40. Section L does not include any guidance for formatting for Volumes I, III, and IV. Will the Government please provide formatting instructions?

We recommend the following standard proposal guidelines:

• Page size: 8 1/2" x 11", except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, or diagrams, which may not exceed 11" x 17"

• Margins - 1" on top, bottom, and both sides

• Typing shall be single spaced in Times New Roman font, and not be less than 12 pitch, except for charts, tables, graphics, and diagrams, which shall be no smaller than 10 pitch.

A40. No.

Q41. In Section L, Subsection (3) Volume III – Factor 2 – Past Performance Proposal, the instructions state: “Summary Page. Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past contracts. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the organization of the offering company…”. Will the Government please clarify that the information being requested in this Summary is in fact a summary of the past performance volume and not a summary of Organizational Structure Change History?

Q41. See A18.

Q42. In Section M – Evaluation Criteria, will the Government please provide the matrix for the evaluation criteria that will be used to evaluate the lesson plan and html portion of the lesson plan?

A42. No matrix is required. You should address each requirement in Section M.

Q43. In Section L, Subsection (3) Volume III – Factor 2 – Past Performance Proposal, the instructions for the Past Performance Questionnaires states: "For each of the five (5) submitted contracts found to have some relevance to the instant acquisition, the Past Performance Team will contact the points of contact identified in the PPQs." In the next paragraph (e) Past Performance Information (PPI), the instructions state: "Utilizing the PPI Sheet (Attachment 2), submit information on no more than five (5) recent contracts the offeror considers most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed effort.” Will the Government please confirm there is NOT a requirement for five (5) references, but that the requirement is to provide no more than 5 references?

A43. The government confirms that this is not a requirement for 5 but there is a limit of 5 references. See Amendment 001.

Q44. In the PWS, Section 12.0 Workload Projections, the Government provides notional maximum workload projections based on the requirements in the PWS. We understand that the work is remote in nature. Will the Government please provide a projection for the percentage of work to be performed on-site at Maxwell AFB, AL?

A44. Work is not considered remote. The majority of work will be accomplished on-site with approximately 10% conducted off-site at any one time on an ad hoc basis.

Q45. Will the Government please allow the Offeror to provide a Transition Plan, as an annex to Volume II that is outside the 80-page limit for Volume II?

A45. There is no Transition Plan requirement.

Q46. Will the Government please indicate the duration of the transition period, to include incumbent cross-over training of the incoming team/shadowing of the incumbent team?

A46. See A45.

Q47. Will the Government please confirm the transition period will be the first 30-days of contract performance?

A47. See A45.

Q48. The workload data identified by labor category provided in PWS Paragraph 12.0 is valuable in that it allows a gross projection of manpower costs; however, without additional information such as the activities supported and their timelines, offerors are not able to perform the fine tuning necessary to truly offer the Government a best value, low-risk solution. Could the Government please provide historic data showing the types of activities supported (course titles/locations) as well as a rough timeline showing the historic frequencies and durations of these supported activities?

A48. No, this is a labor-hour contract and the PWS outlines the duties and tasks to be performed by labor categories in PWS para. 12.0.