Questions and Answers eMentor.docx

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS EMENTOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND INSTRUCTION SERVICES

Q1. The PPQ includes many ratings that refer to "the contractor's software platform." Given the removal of the "virtual school" that was included in previous solicitations, many of these PPQ entries are no longer relevant. For example, items 7&8 refer to a "helpdesk" that is no longer required. Items 11, 18, and 19 refer to classroom management functions that now significantly involve use of the Government LEaDeR tool. Moreover, PWS 1.3.4 states, "this contract does not require the Contractor to develop, acquire, or provide any form of LMS, including proprietary or third-party integrated platforms." The choice of platform for this contract described in the technical approach is very relevant to performance on this contract. The features of platforms used on other contracts is not. We request the Government modify the PPQ to focus on the services required in this PWS.

A1. Corrections have been made to Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire. See completely revised document in Amendment 0001. The offerors are required to send out the new PPQ to all Points of Contacts (POC)s.

Q2. Attachment 1 52.212-1 Addenda: (a) The offeror shall provide a concise summary and master table of contents of the entire proposal. May offerors include a master Table of Contents in Volume I as instructed AND ALSO a table of contents at the beginning of each volume/separate document for ease of reference, excluded from any page counts?

A2. Yes, offerors may include a Table of Contents at the beginning of each volume, as they are already required for Volumes I, II, and III per Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda. However, they are not excluded from page counts. Any Table of Contents included in Volume II will count toward its 25-page limit, as that limit applies to “(All documents)”.

Q3. Attachment 1 52.212-1 Addenda: Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in four (4) separate volumes as set forth below. May offerors include a cover page per Volume excluded from page counts?

A3. Offerors may include a cover page for each volume; however, they are not excluded from page counts. Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.2, the 25-page limit for Volume II applies to "(All documents)," and the solicitation provides no page count exclusions for cover pages.

Q4. Attachment 1 52.212-1 Addenda: Volume II shall be organized according to the following general outline:

(1) Table of Contents

(2) Glossary

(3) Summary Page

(4) Subfactor 1 – Day One Readiness

(5) Subfactor 2 – Management Plan

(6) Subfactor 3 – Instructional Delivery

The summary page(s) shall not exceed two (2) pages.

Volume II shall not exceed 25 pages (All documents).

Please confirm that the Table of Contents and Glossary, Summary Page (max 2 pages, inclusive of the sample lesson video hyperlink), eMentor Roster (.csv), Program Lead Resume, and UCC Platform Checklist are excluded from the 25-page limit?

A4. No. Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.2, the 25-page limit for Volume II applies to "(All documents)." The solicitation does not provide any page count exclusions for the Table of Contents, Glossary, Summary Page, eMentor Roster (.csv), Program Lead Resume, or UCC Platform Checklist. Therefore, all submitted items must fall within the 25-page limit.

Q5. Attachment 1 52.212-1 Addenda: Volume III: (c) Quality and Satisfaction Rating of Contracts Completed in the Past Three (3) Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) that demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and/or quality of completed and/or ongoing contracts. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems, such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc. There is no required format for submission of this information. Section L paragraph 3(a) lists six required Volume III components: Table of Contents, Glossary, Summary Page, Past Performance Information, Past Performance Questionnaire, and Subcontractor Letters of Consent. The paragraph 3(c) "Quality and Satisfaction Rating" materials — letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, and corrective-action narratives — are not mapped to any of those six components. The offeror proposes to file these materials as an Appendix to Volume III, separate from the PPI Sheets and PPQs, and reads them as exempt from any per-component page limit because paragraph 3(c) itself states "There is no required format for submission of this information." Please confirm (1) that filing the paragraph 3(c) materials as an Appendix to Volume III is acceptable, and (2) that the Appendix is not subject to a page limit?

A5. Yes. Filing the Quality and Satisfaction Rating materials as an Appendix to Volume III is acceptable, and this Appendix is not subject to a page limit. Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.1(h), Volume III does not have an overall page limit. Furthermore, Section B.3(c) explicitly states there is no required format for the submission of the Quality and Satisfaction Rating information.

Q6. Attachment 1 52.212-1 Addenda: Subfactor 3: (2) Sample Lesson Demonstration: Demonstrate the ability to deliver instruction IAW government-provided curriculum via the offeror’s proposed UCC by submitting a recorded video of an eMentor presenting content live and synchronously to one or more students. The lesson must be (1) taught in Russian IAW PWS paragraph 5.2(a), (2) endure for a minimum of 45 and a maximum of 50 minutes, (3) cover content from Section IV “Instructional Sequence” of the “Military Policy in Strategic Contexts” lesson plan IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.1.1 and Appendix 6, (4) show the eMentor facilitating a section that is student-centered and includes a student discussion, mission-oriented reflection questions, and structured output tasks IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.1.1 and Appendix 6, and (5) utilize key UCC platform functions, including initiating live sessions, configuring and managing audio and video settings, sharing screens and documents, exchanging messages via live text chat, uploading class materials, and explaining how to configure their keyboard for international fonts (e.g. Chinese characters) IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.2. The offeror will make the sample lesson video available for viewing via a link provided in their Summary Pages document. For a 50-minute video covering content from a two-hour class, may the offeror edit the recording to condense into 50 minutes while showing full scope of the lesson as well as key UCC platform functions? (i.e. the sample lesson demonstration need NOT be all “one take” from the start of class and cut off at the 50 minute mark)?

A6. No. Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Subfactor 3: (2) has been amended to clarify that the sample lesson demonstration video must not be edited. Offerors must submit a single, continuous, unedited recording of a live session spanning a minimum of 45 and a maximum of 50 minutes. Furthermore, offerors are not required to condense a full two-hour class into this timeframe; the instructions specifically require the video to cover content from Section IV of the provided lesson plan, rather than the entire 120-minute instructional sequence. See updated Addenda in Amendment 0001.

Q7. Attachment 3 eMentor PWS: Figure 10.3. eMentor Personnel Qualifications - Experience in foreign language instruction is highly desired. Does the Government consider experience teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) the equivalent of experience in foreign language instruction?

A7. Yes.

Q8. Attachment 4 Past Performance Information: Past Performance write-ups. Attachment 4 is 2.5 pages without any modification to the text. This allows 2.5 pages of narrative to follow for a max of 5 pages per contract. May offerors submit the narrative aligning with format of Attachment 4, i.e. single space with one space between paragraphs, 12 pt font, etc.?

A8. Yes, as long as the content remains the same and the font size stays at 12 pt Times New Roman.

Q9. Attachment 4 Past Performance Information: Past Performance write-ups. Attachment 4 is 2.5 pages without any modification to the text. This allows 2.5 pages of narrative to follow for a max of 5 pages per contract. Are vendors allowed to create space for more than 2.5 pages for the narrative by reformatting the first 2.5 pages of Attachment 4?

A9. Yes, as long as the content remains the same and the font size stays at 12 pt Times New Roman.

Q10. Attachment 5 Past Performance Questionnaire: Past Performance Questionnaires. The offeror should send out the PPQ to the three POCs we list on the PPI for each of the three PP contracts we submit (max of 3 contracts). Should we ask the POCs to complete the PPQ, or only to be aware they may receive a phone call from the 42d Contracting Squadron regarding it?

A10. Yes, please ask the POCs to complete the PPQ and return directly to the 42d Contracting Squadron to kimberly.knott.1@us.af.mil, mark.restad.1@us.af.mil and brian.thornton.15@us.af.mil. See Attachment 1 RFO 52.212-1 Addendum, Part III, paragraph 3 (d). They must complete and return to either you or the 42 CONS POCs. Corrections have been made to Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire. See completely revised document in Amendment 0001.

Q11. Attachment 5 Past Performance Questionnaire: Past Performance Questionnaires. Shall the offeror submit a copy of each of the PPQs sent out in their proposal, with just Section A filled out?

A11. No. The POCs must complete the PPQ and return directly to the 42d Contracting Squadron to kimberly.knott.1@us.af.mil, mark.restad.1@us.af.mil and brian.thornton.15@us.af.mil. Corrections have been made to Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire. See completely revised document in Amendment 0001.

Q12. Attachment 5 Past Performance Questionnaire: Question 24. Question 24 asks whether the contractor provided instruction for at least 50 different languages. The PWS does not require 50 languages on Day One; it requires the Priority One subset (26 languages/dialects) on Day One, with Priority Two (57 languages/dialects) within 60 days. Please confirm that a "No" response to Question 24 will not adversely affect the relevancy or confidence rating of a reference whose contract delivered fewer than 50 languages but otherwise meets the relevancy thresholds in Attachment 2, Table 5.

A12. Corrections have been made to Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire. See completely revised document in Amendment 0001. In this instance, Question 24 has been removed and replaced with Question 9. Per Attachment 2, 52.212-2 Addenda, Table 5, achieving a "Very Relevant" rating requires language instruction in all Priority One languages (26) and at least 50% of Priority Two languages (24), totaling 50 languages. Therefore, a "No" response to Question 9 on the PPQ indicates the reference does not meet the criteria for a "Very Relevant" rating. However, it will not prevent a reference from receiving a "Relevant" or "Somewhat Relevant" rating, provided the contract meets the respective lesser language thresholds explicitly defined in Table 5.

Q13. Attachment 5 Past Performance Questionnaire: General. Attachment 5 includes "RFO" and "FAR" references in adjacent paragraphs (for example, "RFO 2.101 and 3.104" in one footer and "FAR 2.101 and 3.104" in another). Please confirm that Deviation 2026-O0038 applies uniformly and that all references to "FAR" in attachment 5 should be read as "RFO."

A13. Yes, it should read RFO. Corrections made to Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire. See completely revised document in Amendment 0001.

Q14. Pricing and Billing Structure. Please clarify whether CLIN labor-hour billing is limited strictly to live instructional/session delivery hours, or whether the Government considers teacher preparation and instructor development activities to be allowable direct labor supporting the fully burdened hourly rate structure.

A14. Teacher preparation and instructor development activities are not billable as separate direct labor hours CLIN labor-hour billing is not limited strictly to instructional "course hour" units (live delivery hours). CLINS X001 must include all costs associated with performance requirements outlined in the PWS; except transition cost associated with CLIN 2002. See Amendment 0001 for updates to Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 11.2, CLINS X001.

Q15. Attendance and Cancellation Assumptions. Is there a cancellation window after which scheduled sessions become billable?

A15. Yes. The cancellation window depends on the course format. Per Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 7.5(g), OnDemand courses have a 24-hour cancellation window; sessions canceled with less than 24 hours' notice are assigned a "Dropped" status. For Standard (Fixed/Flex) courses, paragraph 7.5(f) requires cancellation prior to the first session. Furthermore, per paragraph 11.3, for Standard courses, the Contractor may invoice for the course once it has begun, which is defined as "at least one session held and associated with at least one Scholar with a signed SOU on file.

Q16. Startup and Transition Activities. Please clarify whether startup and transition activities required prior to commencement of instruction are expected to be included within the fixed hourly rates for CLINS X001.

A16. CLINS X001 must include all costs associated with performance requirements outlined in the PWS; except transition cost associated with CLIN 2002. See Amendment 0001 for updates to Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 11.2, CLINS X001. Additionally, per Attachment 3, PWS para 1.4, Contract Start Expectations, the contractor must be ready to begin work on Day One of the contract. There are no Phase-In requirements in the PWS.

Q17. Historical Usage and Utilization Data. Can the Government provide historical utilization metrics for eMentors by language?

A17. No, the Government will not be providing historical utilization metrics for eMentors by language. IAW Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraphs 11.1. “The Client forecasts a minimum annual Scholar throughput of 1,164 Scholars, supported by 18,812 course hours. In addition, the Client has identified a potential requirement for 5,320 optional surge hours to support either Standard or OnDemand courses based on emerging Air Force mission requirements.” Also, reference Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 1.3.8.

Q18. Historical Usage and Utilization Data. Can the Government provide historical percentages of Fixed, Flex, and OnDemand scheduling?

A18. No, the Government will not be providing historical scheduling percentages. IAW Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraphs 11.1. “The Client forecasts a minimum annual Scholar throughput of 1,164 Scholars, supported by 18,812 course hours. In addition, the Client has identified a potential requirement for 5,320 optional surge hours to support either Standard or OnDemand courses based on emerging Air Force mission requirements.” Also, reference Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 1.3.8.

Q19. Optional Surge Support. Will surge requirements generally maintain the same distribution by language and among Standard vs OnDemand as baseline requirements?

A19. Surge requirements will be driven by emerging Air Force mission needs, so the distribution by language may not exactly mirror the baseline. However, regarding the distribution between course types, Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 1.3.8 states the optional surge hours "shall support a mix of Standard Courses and OnDemand sessions, based on Client requirements." Furthermore, PWS paragraph 11.1 states that the utilization of surge hours is "expected to follow the notional grouping model when applied to Standard Course Types.

Q20. UCC Platform and Licensing. Can the Government provide estimated peak concurrent user counts?

A20. The Government requires the platform to support a specific number of concurrent cohorts (class sessions) rather than a single peak concurrent user count. Per Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 2.2(o), the UCC platform must be "Scalable to accommodate at least 200 concurrent UCC platform cohorts at the start of the contract, with the ability to expand as needed." Furthermore, PWS paragraph 2.2(d) requires the platform to support a minimum of six concurrent participants per class session. Offerors should base their UCC platform sizing and licensing models on these requirements.

Q21. Solicitation FA330026R0022 contains an internal date discrepancy. SF 1449, Block 8, states the offer due date as 15 Jun 2026, 12:00 PM. Attachment 1 (52.212-1 Addenda), Section L paragraph (f)A, states 18 June 2026, 12:00 PM CDT. Please confirm the controlling deadline for proposal receipt.

A21. The correct date is 15 Jun 2026, 12:00 PM CDT. Corrected on Amendment 0001

Q22. Could you please confirm where the Priority One language list is located in the solicitation attachments, or provide the list if available?

A22. See Attachment 3 Performance Work Statement, Para 5.2. Figure 5.2

Q23. Attachment 3 eMentor PWS, pg 6, para 3.2. eMentors may be dual nationals who are native to regions where the language is commonly spoken and/or professional language instructors with demonstrated expertise in the relevant cultures and customs. 1. Will the Government allow foreign nationals to be eMentors? 2. If U.S. citizenship is required, must eMentors reside in the U.S.?

A23. Regarding the first question (foreign nationals): Yes, they may be eMentors. The PWS specifically identifies "dual nationals" as meeting the baseline instructional profile (PWS 3.2). The Government may allow foreign nationals (non-U.S. citizens) via the exception process outlined in PWS 3.2.2 if the Contractor provides a detailed justification (including the Contractor’s due diligence and vetting of the individual) and obtains prior Client approval before the eMentor instructs. Regarding the second question (where eMentors reside): No, eMentors are not required to reside in the U.S.

Q24. Solicitation - CLIN Structure, Sol. pg 3-5, PWS Figure 10.3, PWS pg. 18, Table Figure defines Positions in Column 1 as Program Lead, Instructor Development, and Scheduling. The CLIN structure doesn't account for Key Personnel or other positions referenced in the PWS. Furthermore, the positions of Instructor Development and Scheduling are tasks, not positions. Would the Government please consider adding a separate CLIN for the Program Lead, Instructor Development, and Scheduling?

A24. No, the Government will not add a separate CLIN for the Program Lead, Instructor Development, or Scheduling roles. CLINS X001 must include all costs associated with performance requirements outlined in the PWS, except transition costs associated with CLIN 2002. To clarify the Government’s intent, PWS paragraph 1.3.1 has been updated to explicitly state that the Program Lead, Instructor Development, and Scheduling functions fall under the Instructional Support and Scheduling (ISS) requirements. PWS paragraph 10.3 and Figure 10.3 have been updated to delete “Instructor Development” and “Scheduling” as standalone positions and consolidate these responsibilities accordingly. Finally, references to the Government's program lead in Section 15 have been clarified to prevent confusion with the Contractor's Program Lead position.

Q25. Solicitation - CLIN Structure, Sol. pg 3-5, PWS Figure 10.3, PWS pg. 18, Table Figure defines Positions in Column 1 as Program Lead, Instructor Development, and Scheduling. The CLIN structure doesn't account for Key Personnel or other positions referenced in the PWS. Furthermore, the positions of Instructor Development and Scheduling are tasks, not positions. Will the Government provide the historical hours for each of these positions?

A25. PWS Figure 10.3 has been updated to consolidate “Instructor Development” and “Scheduling” into an “Instructional Support and Scheduling (ISS) Personnel” category. See Amendment 0001 for updates to PWS Figure 10.3. Offerors are responsible for developing their own staffing methodology and estimating the administrative and management hours required to successfully execute the projected instructional workload (18,812 course hours) detailed in the PWS paragraph 11.1.

Q26. Solicitation - CLIN Structure, Sol. pg 3-5, PWS Figure 10.3, PWS pg. 18, Table Figure defines Positions in Column 1 as Program Lead, Instructor Development, and Scheduling. The CLIN structure doesn't account for Key Personnel or other positions referenced in the PWS. Furthermore, the positions of Instructor Development and Scheduling are tasks, not positions. Will the Government provide the amount of hours for each of these positions on this new RFP?

A26. PWS Figure 10.3 has been updated to consolidate “Instructor Development” and “Scheduling” into an “Instructional Support and Scheduling (ISS) Personnel” category. See Amendment 0001 for updates to PWS Figure 10.3. CLINS X001 must include all costs associated with performance requirements outlined in the PWS; except transition cost associated with CLIN 2002. See Amendment 0001 for updates to Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 11.2, CLINS X001. Offerors are responsible for developing their own staffing methodology and estimating the administrative and management hours required to successfully execute the projected instructional workload (18,812 course hours) detailed in the PWS paragraph 11.1.

Q27. Solicitation - CLIN Structure, Sol. pg 3-5, PWS Figure 10.3, PWS pg. 19, Table Figure defines Positions in Column 1 as Program Lead, Instructor Development, and Scheduling. The CLIN structure doesn't account for Key Personnel or other positions referenced in the PWS. Furthermore, the positions of Instructor Development and Scheduling are tasks, not positions. Will the Government clarify whether the Instructor Development and Scheduling as listed are full time positions or just tasks to complete?

A27. PWS Figure 10.3 has been updated to consolidate “Instructor Development” and “Scheduling” into an “Instructional Support and Scheduling (ISS) Personnel” category.

See Amendment 0001 for updates to PWS Figure 10.3. CLINS X001 must include all costs associated with performance requirements outlined in the PWS; except transition cost associated with CLIN 2002. See Amendment 0001 for updates to Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 11.2, CLINS X001.

Q28. Cover Page, pg 1, 3. VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION, pg 7, A member of the Past Performance team may be contacting you to telephonically complete the attached questionnaire. (d) Performance Surveys/Questionnaires: 1. Would the Government please clarify whether the PPQ forms need to be completed and submitted by each of the no-more-than three (3) PPI reference POCs? 2. Would the Government please clarify whether the POC's should hold on to the PPQ forms waiting for a possible call from the Past Performance Team?

A28. Past performance forms should be completed and submitted. POCs should not hold on to the forms in anticipation of a possible call. Corrections have been made to Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire. See completely revised document in Amendment 0001.

Q29. 3. VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION, pg 7, (c) Quality and Satisfaction Rating of Contracts Completed in the Past Three (3) Years: Provide any information currently available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) that demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and/or quality of completed and/or ongoing contracts. Would the Government please confirm whether this applies specifically to the no-more-than three (3) PPI references that offerors submit in the PP Volume or to any relevant projects (completed in the past three (3) years) in general?

A29. The Government confirms that the Quality and Satisfaction Rating information requested under Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.3(c) is not strictly limited to the three (3) PPI references submitted. Offerors may provide available information demonstrating customer satisfaction with the overall job performance and quality of any relevant completed and/or ongoing contracts from the past three (3) years.

Q30. Figure 6.4.4 Tiered Grouping Model, pg 14, Would the Government confirm if courses start concurrently in cycles or windows for the 40-hour and 12-hour courses?

A30. As outlined in Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 6.3 (Figure 6.3) and paragraph 6.4.1, courses are scheduled in cycles based on registration windows. The Government will establish and open a registration window in LEaDeR and approve a batch of Scholars. Per paragraph 6.4.2, the contractor will then finalize scheduling and group those Scholars into courses within 45 days of that approval.

Q31. Figure 6.4.4 Tiered Grouping Model, pg 14, Will the Government provide an estimate of 40-hour and 12-hour courses typically running concurrently at any give time?

A31. No, the Government will not provide an estimate of the average number of courses running concurrently. Offerors should base their proposals and platform sizing on the requirements detailed in Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 2.2(o), which states the UCC platform must be scalable to accommodate at least 200 concurrent cohorts at the start of the contract, and the total annual course projections provided in Figure 6.4.4.

Q32. 3. VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION, pg 7, (e) Past Performance Information (PPI): ...One (1) of the past performance references may be for a subcontractor or teaming partner that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work). Would the Government confirm offerors submitting a single reference must be from the Prime contractor, if submitting two references at least one must be from the Prime, and if submitting three, two must be from the prime?

A32. Yes. Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.3(e), the offeror is limited to a maximum of one (1) past performance reference for a subcontractor or teaming partner, regardless of how many total references are submitted. Therefore, if an offeror submits one reference, it must be for the Prime. If submitting two references, at least one must be for the Prime. If submitting the maximum of three references, at least two must be for the Prime.

Q33. 3. VOLUME III - PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION, pg 8-9, Price Performance Trade-off. After the initial evaluation of each offeror’s price proposal, the Government will rank all offerors by price from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP and conduct the Technical Evaluation solely on the offer with the lowest TEP. If the lowest-priced offer is determined to be Technically Unacceptable, that offer will be eliminated from consideration and the next lowest-priced offer will be evaluated for Technically Acceptability. Once the lowest-priced, Technically Acceptable offer is determined, the Government will then proceed to conduct the Past Performance Evaluation for that offeror. If the offeror is assessed a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence rating, its offer will be determined to represent the best value to the Government, and no other offers will be evaluated or considered. Considering the Government's process for evaluating substantial confidence ratings for Past Performance, will the Government evaluate confidence ratings higher for prime contractor past performance references?

A33. No. The Government will evaluate all submitted past performance references in accordance with the criteria set forth in Attachment 2, 52.212-2 Addenda, Section D. Volume III, Past Performance Information.

Q34. D. Volume III, Past Performance Information, pg 5, Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see RFO 15.202(c)(1)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. The Government states for award determination that "The process will continue (in ascending TEP) until the Government finds an offeror with a Technically Acceptable offer and a Substantial Confidence performance rating or until all Technically Acceptable offers are considered." Should no offeror demonstrate Substantial Confidence in initial Technical Acceptability evaluation, will the Government then evaluate offers (in ascending TEP) for Satisfactory Confidence before considering any offers with no recent or relevant past performance or "Neutral" ratings?

A34. No. As stated in Attachment 2, 52.212-2 Addenda, Section E, Price Performance Tradeoff, ”The process will continue (in ascending TEP) until the Government finds an offeror with a Technically Acceptable offer and a Substantial Confidence performance rating or until all Technically Acceptable offers are considered.”

Q35. Can the Government provide a historical or projected breakdown of the 18,812 annual base hours by language, or indicate the top five languages by volume?

A35. No, the Government will not provide a historical or projected breakdown of the 18,812 annual base hours by specific language or designate a top five list by volume.

Q36. Attachment 1 - Addendum 52.212-1, 3. Volume III - Past Performance Information. Volume II, Section 3(c) instructs Offers to provide quality and satisfaction ratings of contracts completed in the past three years, and states, "There is no required format for submission of this information." Sections 3(h) and 3(i) permit Offerors to provide additional performance information that goes beyond what is requested in the PPI. The guidance appears to permit information beyond what is included in the PPI/PPQ forms. We request the Government provide guidance about where in Volume III this information should appear.

A36. Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.3(a) provides the required general outline for Volume III. Because Sections 3(c), 3(h), and 3(i) explicitly state that there is "no required format for submission of this information," offerors may include these additional narratives and metrics in a clearly labeled Appendix to Volume III, placed immediately following the six required outline components. An Appendix to Volume III is not subject to a page limit.

Q37. Attachment 1 - Addendum 52.212-1, 3. Volume III - Past Performance Information. Under 3(a), Past Performance Information has a 5-page limit. Please confirm this is 5-pages per PPI form.

A37. Yes. Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.3(a)(4) has been amended to clarify that the 5-page limit applies per reference submitted. See Amendment 0001.

Q38. Attachment 1 - Addendum 52.212-1, 3. Volume III - Past Performance Information. Per the instructions, PPI references are limited to 5 pages each. Attachment 4 is 3.5 pages without the requested information, leaving only 1.5 pages for a response. To ensure each offeror has the ability to demonstrate their full capabilities and relevancy, will the Government accept Contractor format of the PPI sheet (single-space, no less than 11-point font), as long as all requested information in the PPI sheet is provided?

A38. See Question and Answer 9.

Q39. Attachment 1 - Addendum 52.212-1, 2. Volume II - Technical Proposal. The page limit for this section is 25 pages. Can the Government confirm that this page limit does not apply to the roster being submitted as a separate attachment for Subfactor 1?

A39. No. Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.2, the 25-page limit for Volume II explicitly applies to "(All documents)." The solicitation does not provide any page count exclusions for the eMentor Roster (.csv) submitted for Subfactor 1. Therefore, it must be accounted for within the overall 25-page limit.

Q40. Attachment 1 - Addendum 52.212-1, 2. Volume II - Technical Proposal. The page limit for this section is 25 pages. Can the Government confirm that this page limit does not apply to the UCC Platform Checklist?

A40. No. Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.2, the 25-page limit for Volume II explicitly applies to "(All documents)." The solicitation does not provide any page count exclusions for the eMentor Roster (.csv) submitted for Subfactor 1. Therefore, it must be accounted for within the overall 25-page limit.

Q41. Attachment 1 - Addendum 52.212-1, 2. Volume II - Technical Proposal. The page limit for this section is 25 pages. Does this include the cover page, glossary, and table of contents?

A41. Yes. Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.2, the 25-page limit for Volume II explicitly applies to "(All documents)." The solicitation does not provide any page count exclusions for cover pages, glossaries, or tables of contents. Therefore, they must be included within the overall 25-page limit.

Q42. Attachment 1 - Addendum 52.212-1, 3. Volume III - Past Performance Information. In the guidance for the past performance volume organization, the outline lists the Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 5). Can the Government clarify what is being requested? For example, is the Government requesting that offerors submit the blank forms that were sent to their PPQ POCs as part of the proposal volume? Or is this part of Volume III a placeholder for completed forms sent directly to the Government from previous clients.

A42. The POCs must complete the PPQ and return directly to the 42d Contracting Squadron to kimberly.knott.1@us.af.mil, mark.restad.1@us.af.mil and brian.thornton.15@us.af.mil. Corrections have been made to Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire. See completely revised document in Amendment 0001.

Q43. Attachment 5, PPQ. The PPQ includes many ratings that refer to "the contractor's software platform." Given the removal of the "virtual school" that was included in previous solicitations, many of these PPQ entries are no longer relevant. For example, items 7&8 refer to a "helpdesk" that is no longer required. Items 11, 18, and 19 refer to classroom management functions that significantly involves use of the Government LEaDeR tool. Moreover, PWS 1.3.4 states, "this contract does not require the Contractor to develop, acquire, or provide any form of LMS, including proprietary or third-party integrated platforms." The choice of platform for this contract described in the technical approach is very relevant to performance on this contract. The features of platforms used on other contracts is not. We request the Government modify the PPQ to focus on the services required in this PWS.

A43. Corrections have been made to Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire. See Amendment 0001.

Q44. PWS 3.4.3, Instructor Preparation Time. The PWS identifies instructor preparation activities across multiple sections, including lesson preparation, development and vetting of open-source and mission-relevant materials, homework review and feedback, assessment support, and administrative coordination. However, PWS 3.4.3 references these preparation activities as being included within the contractor’s fully burdened hourly rate while citing PWS 3.4.2, which is focused primarily on UCC platform operation. To ensure consistent interpretation of the requirement and equitable proposal pricing, can the Government clarify whether a minimum or recommended instructor preparation factor (e.g., percentage of instructional hours) should be assumed for pricing purposes?

A44. No. The Government will not establish a minimum or recommended instructor preparation factor. Offerors are responsible for developing their own staffing and compensation methodology to determine the amount of preparation time required for their instructors to successfully deliver the curriculum and meet all performance standards. CLINS X001 must include all costs associated with performance requirements outlined in the PWS; except transition cost associated with CLIN 2002. See Amendment 0001 for updates to Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 11.2, CLINS X001. In reference to typo, PWS will be amended to reflect correct section of 3.4.1.

Q45. PWS 3.4.3, Instructor Preparation Time. Instructor preparation time is fundamental to instruction quality. Many of the legitimate demands for eMentor time are described in PWS 3.4. To mitigate performance risk, the Government should provide prescriptive guidance on how much instructor preparation time is required. Further, the Government should require Offerors to specify the amount of preparation time, as a percentage of instruction hours, included in the fully burdened labor hourly rate.

A45. The Government will not provide prescriptive guidance regarding a minimum required amount of instructor preparation time, nor will it require offerors to specify their preparation time as a percentage of instruction hours. Offerors are responsible for developing their own staffing methodology to determine the amount of preparation time necessary to successfully meet all performance standards. CLINS X001 must include all costs associated with performance requirements outlined in the PWS; except transition cost associated with CLIN 2002. See Amendment 0001 for updates to Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 11.2, CLINS X001.

Q46. PWS 3.4.4. Can the Government clarify whether homework review and feedback time is expected to occur synchronously during instruction hours or asynchronously outside scheduled instructional periods?

A46. Homework review and feedback should occur synchronously during scheduled instructional periods. See updated PWS in Amendment 0001.

Q47. Attachment 1 - Addendum 52.212-1, 2. Volume II - Technical Proposal. The instructions for this volume state that text must be double-spaced. Will the Government confirm that this only applies to the technical volume, and that other volumes can be single spaced?

A47. Yes. The double-spacing requirement outlined in Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.2 applies specifically to Volume II. Because the solicitation does not specify double-spacing restrictions for Volumes I, III, or IV, offerors may submit those volumes using single spacing.

Q48. Attachment 1 - Addendum 52.212-1, 2. Volume II - Technical Proposal. The instructions for this volume state that text must be double-spaced. Does this apply to the resume that this required for submission in this volume?

A48. Yes. The Program Lead Resume is a required component of Volume II. Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.2, the formatting instructions, including the requirement that typing be double spaced, apply to the entire volume. The only exception to the double-spacing requirement listed in Section B.2 is for text contained within tables.

Q49. Attachment 4, PPI. Item D includes a requirement to "indicate whether it was development and/or production, or other acquisition phase and highlight portions considered most relevant to current acquisition." Since this is a services contract, the "acquisition phase" does not seem to apply. Is it sufficient to simply "highlight portions considered most relevant to the current acquisition?"

A49. Yes. Because Attachment 4, Item D allows offerors to indicate an "other acquisition phase," it is sufficient to identify the effort as a services contract and highlight the portions considered most relevant to the current acquisition.

Q50. Attachment 1 - Addendum 52.212-1, 3. Volume III - Past Performance Information. Can the government confirm if the information for Quality and Satisfaction Ratings (identified in part c) and Specific Content (identified in part i) do not count towards the 5 page limit for each PPI form?

A50. Yes. The 5-page limit specified in Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.3(a)(4) applies exclusively to the Past Performance Information (PPI) form for each submitted contract. Materials submitted to address Quality and Satisfaction Ratings (Section 3(c)) and Specific Content (Section 3(i)) do not count toward the 5-page PPI limit.

Q51. Attachment 1 - Addendum 52.212-1, 2. Volume II - Technical Proposal. PWS 3.2 states that "The eMentor should hold at least a bachelor’s level degree in language instruction or a related social science field, such as History, Political Science, International Relations, Anthropology, Archeology, and Cultural Geography…" If the instructor does not have a Bachelor's Degree that falls into one of those fields, but does have a Master's Degree that falls into one of those fields, can this qualify and can the Offeror enter this information into the "bachelors_degree" column of the .csv file?

A51. Yes. PWS paragraph 3.2 and Appendix 9 have been updated. See updated PWS in Amendment 0001.

Q52. PWS, Figure 2.2, o. In this table, the PWS states that the platform must be "scalable to accommodate at least 200 concurrent UCC platform cohorts at the start of the contract, with the ability to expand as needed." Can the Government provide their definition of "cohort"?

A52. For the purposes of this requirement, the Government defines a "cohort" as a single, concurrent class session. As outlined in Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 2.2(d) and Appendix 8, Item 13, a single class session must support multi-point video and audio for a minimum of six concurrent participants. Therefore, the requirement to accommodate 200 concurrent cohorts means the platform must support 200 distinct, simultaneous class sessions.

Q53. PWS 12.5. The PWS states: "12.5. Security. The information and records provided on the UCC platform shall remain secure at all times consistent with the latest industry information technology security standards." Does this mean that the platform must be FedRamp compliant or certified?

A53. No. The Government does not require the UCC platform to be FedRAMP certified. As outlined in Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 2.3, the platform is intended for use on commercial, non-DoD networks, and the Contractor is not required to deliver the platform on NIPR connections. Offerors must ensure their proposed platform complies with the specific security standards, CUI/PII safeguarding requirements, and data protection protocols outlined in PWS Sections 9.2, 12.5, and 15, which rely on the latest industry information technology security standards rather than a formal FedRAMP authorization.

Q54. Attachment 1 52.212-1 Addenda, The offeror must provide complete financial statements for one (1) fiscal year and year-to-date financial information through the last quarter available. Should offerors provide financials for the one-year period immediately preceding the proposal submission date, calendar year 2025 (January 1–December 31, 2025), or the Government fiscal year 2025 (October 1, 2024–September 30, 2025)?

A54. The requirement refers to the Government’s fiscal year. The Government fiscal year 2025 (October 1, 2024–September 30, 2025).

Q55. Attachment 3 eMentor PWS. (2) Sample Lesson Demonstration. May offerors submit the materials used in the sample video demonstration as an appendix (outside of page count) for evaluators to reference when/after viewing the video demonstration?

A55. No. Offerors may not submit an appendix of lesson materials outside of the page count. The sample lesson demonstration is evaluated via the submitted video recording hyperlink. Per Attachment 1, 52.212-1 Addenda, Section B.2, Volume II has a strict limit of 25 pages that applies to "(All documents)." Any supplementary documents or materials included in Volume II will be counted against that 25-page limit.

Q56. Attachment 3 eMentor PWS. Appendix 9. If instructors listed in our .csv file hold a degree higher than a bachelors (masters), may we write the highest degree obtained and where obtained in the bachelors columns? Additionally, if the masters is not in a social sciences field (such as an MBA), would the Government prefer only to see the bachelors degree listed? Is it possible to list all degrees, separated by a semicolon, and still meet the formatting requirements for the .csv file?

A56. Offerors should use the .csv file exclusively to demonstrate that the instructor meets the minimum educational qualification required by PWS paragraph 3.2. If an instructor holds an advanced degree (e.g., a Master's) in a qualifying field, that degree may be entered into the bachelors_degree and bachelors_awarding_university columns because it exceeds the minimum requirement. However, if the advanced degree is not in a qualifying field (e.g., an MBA), the offeror must list the qualifying Bachelor's degree to demonstrate compliance. Do not list multiple degrees. To ensure data integrity, offerors must not use semicolons to list multiple degrees or universities in Columns D or E.

Q57. Attachment 3 eMentor PWS. Appendix 9 and Section 3.2: eMentors may be dual nationals who are native to regions where the language is commonly spoken and/or professional language instructors with demonstrated expertise in the relevant cultures and customs. Appendix 9 regarding the eMentors Roster File has a column for citizenship, but there is no U.S. citizenship requirement in the PWS. Can the Government please confirm that eMentors need NOT be U.S. Citizens? What is the purpose of the citizenship column in the .csv file?

A57. In regards to the first question: Yes, the Government confirms that eMentors are not required to be U.S. citizens. In regards to the second question: The citizenship column serves as an administrative tool to verify compliance with PWS 3.2.2 regarding the initial Day One eMentor Roster (CDRL A001). Because Day One readiness (PWS 1.4) does not allow time for the exception/approval process (PWS 3.2.2.), all instructors on the initial roster must fully meet the baseline qualifications of PWS 3.2. The citizenship data allows the Government to quickly confirm that initial compliance.

Q58. Attachment 3 eMentor PWS. Appendix 9 and Section 3.2: eMentors may be dual nationals who are native to regions where the language is commonly spoken and/or professional language instructors with demonstrated expertise in the relevant cultures and customs. When the PWS states that “eMentors may be dual nationals,” is the Government requiring dual nationals to also hold U.S. citizenship, or may eMentors be non-U.S. citizens?

A58. No, the PWS does not require dual nationals to also hold U.S. citizenship. Yes, eMentors may be non-U.S. citizens.

Q59. Attachment 5 (PPQ). Question 25. Question 25 asks: Did the contractor provide instruction for at least 1,000 students per year___Yes No? If yes, how well did the contractor instruction for the students? Can the Government confirm that a “No” response to Question 25 will not disqualify or otherwise adversely affect the relevancy or confidence rating of a past performance reference if the referenced contract served fewer than 1,000 students per year but otherwise meets the relevancy thresholds in Attachment 2, Table 5?

A59. Corrections have been made to Attachment 5, Past Performance Questionnaire. See revised document. In this instance, Question 25 has been removed and replaced with Question 8. Per Attachment 2, 52.212-2 Addenda, Table 5, achieving a "Very Relevant" rating requires a throughput of 1,000 or more students per year. Therefore, a "No" response to Question 8 on the PPQ indicates the reference does not meet the criteria for a "Very Relevant" rating. However, it will not prevent a reference from receiving a "Relevant" or "Somewhat Relevant" rating, provided the contract meets the respective lesser throughput thresholds explicitly defined in Table 5.

Q60. RFP SF1449. Supplies or Services @ Prices or Costs. Optional Surge Support CLINs are identified as ‘Not to Exceed’ labor-hour line items for up to 5,320 hours. Please confirm whether offerors should apply the same fully burdened hourly rates proposed for the baseline instructional CLINs, or whether separate surge rates may be proposed.

A60. The Government cannot confirm whether offerors should apply the same fully burdened hourly rates proposed for the baseline instructional CLINs. However, the optional surge hours represent an extension of the same instructional services (Standard and OnDemand courses) defined in the baseline requirement.

Q61. Attachment 3 eMentor PWS. Figure 2.2. Technical Specifications 2.2(n.) Includes a file exchange capability for uploading and downloading 10MB file size or greater within the UCC platform. PWS Figure 2.2(n) requires the UCC platform to support uploading and downloading files of 10MB or greater. Please clarify whether the Government expects instructional materials to be persistently stored within the UCC platform environment or only temporarily exchanged during instructional sessions.

A61. The Government expects files to be temporarily exchanged during live instructional sessions. The UCC platform is not required to provide persistent file storage or library hosting. As explicitly stated in Attachment 3, eMentor PWS, paragraph 1.3.4, the Government utilizes the LEaDeR tool for program management, and the Contractor is not required to provide any form of Learning Management System (LMS). The file exchange capability outlined in Figure 2.2(n) is intended to support real-time document sharing between eMentors and Scholars during live instruction.

Q62. Attachment 2 52.212-2 Addenda. Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Present/past performance effort involves or involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, the past/present effort must reflect:

· Foreign Language Instruction Services > $2 million per year.

· Delivery via an online platform that is Operating System (OS) and hardware agnostic.

· Scheduling of instructors and students across Interagency Language Roundtable Levels 0 thru 4, hours of availability, and time zones, while meeting student…