FA4890-14-R-0024_CN GT_Training_Qs As_30_Mar_15.pdf

SOLICITATION No. FA4890-14-R-0024

CN & GT Training Support Services

30 March 2015

No REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 RFP Section L, Attachment 3

"Provide current information on Government Program Manager, Contracting Officer, Contract

Manager (if applicable) and Contracting Officer Representative."

If the past performance reference being cited is a subcontract, are we allowed to cite the Prime

Contractor's own POCs (relative to the applicable subcontract) or must we cite the Prime

Contractor's government POCs (if known)?

If the PPI is cited as a subcontract, Offerors shall include the Prime Contractor's own POCs for that subcontract. If known, list the Government POCs as well.

2 RFP paragraph

H-2

Section H, page 7 of 35 of Amendment 0003, states regarding OCI: “Restrictions are needed to ensure that there is no conflict of interest due to awardees under Army PPS ID/IQ having an

OCI by providing the support identified in FAR 9.505-1 through FAR 9.505-4.”

Will the Government please clarify what the Army PPS ID/IQ contract is?

Army’s Program & Programmatic Support (PPS) ID/IQ contract. The solicitation number is W9113M-12-R-0006.

See Background slide (slide 3) in posted Pre-Proposal

Conference slides. See also RFP Section H, paragraph H-2.

3 Additionally, as offerors may submit questions until March 15, 2015, and as we plan to be in print production by March 15, are you able to provide any information regarding a potential extension of the March 19 submittal date?

The proposal due date has been extended until 27 April

2015. The cut-off date for questions is 6 April 2015. See

RFP Amendment 0005.

4 RFP paragraph

L-9.3.3; Section

K

The instruction states to “… provide a copy of information completed in the System for Award

Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov <http://www.sam.gov> .”

Does the government want a copy of the Entity Record from SAM, which will include not only the Representations and Certifications but also details about the offeror?

Or, does the government want only the FAR & DFARs Report from the SAM system?

Section L-9.3.3 has been updated to state the following:

“State in your proposal whether your representations and certifications are accurate and correct in the System for

Award Management (SAM) at https://www.sam.gov.

Otherwise, complete in its entirety, Section K of the RFP.”

See RFP Amendment 0005

5 PWS paragraph

6.5.3.6.2

Can contractors ODC the cost of medical evacuation insurance as it appears to be contract specific/ embassy specific/ Task Order specific?

Yes, this may be possible. Specifics will be provided at the

T/O level.

6 PWS paragraphs

2.3.5.1- 2.3.5.4

Does the government want contractor-identified Key Personnel resumes as part of the proposal? Resumes are not required. Offerors shall provide the qualifications for the designated key personnel.

7 RFP paragraph

L-9.2

Section L-9.2 of the solicitation states: “However, Offerors shall provide support for all indirect rates proposed based on the offeror’s accounting system and any applicable Forward Pricing

Rate Agreements. Offerors shall also provide their profit rate for each labor rate.”

Do all the team members have to provide this information or just the Prime?

The indirect rates provided in Table B-1, shall be the

Primes (or Joint Venture’s). The supporting data shall only be on the Primes indirect rates proposed. If applicable at the T/O level and depending on the contract type the

Government may request supporting data from the necessary team members.

8 PWS paragraph

3.5.4.2

In the PWS, under Management Plan, Para 3.5.4.2, second sub-bullet under Integration of

Quality, Property Management, Security and functions key to ID/IQ oversight of T/O

Performance, SOPs for each function are requested. Since there is a page limitation on the

Management Plan would the Government agree to make the SOPs a deliverable to be added after contract award as a contract modification? To be able to address the Management Plan in the most complete way, SOPs would have to be either provided as addenda and not counted against the page count or submitted after contract award.

There are 45 pages to address the first 3 subfactors. The

USG believes this is sufficient.

9 A Prime must disclose if they are on another team and if their subcontractor is on multiple teams. However, in the case of the subcontractor, the Prime is not required to disclose the company name of the subcontractor’s other Primes. Correct?

Team composition is often considered competition sensitive and companies are not normally willing to share that information with potential competitors. We have had several calls and written requests for clarification by our subcontractors - all citing the provisions of H-2. We have been notified that failure to provide this competition sensitive detail will result in our removal from other proposal teams.

See RFP Amendment 0005 for update to paragraph L-7.3.2.

Amendment 0005 requires Offeror’s to provide:

Primes/Joint Venture Partner’s cross-teaming arrangements, as well as any exclusive teaming arrangements and provide

Subcontractor List per PWS paragraph 3.5, Table 2 and paragraph 3.5.4.5.

The prime is no longer required to disclose its

Can the Government confirm that our understanding of what needs to be disclosed in our proposal is accurate?

subcontractors’ teaming arrangements

10 Q&A - 5 March

2015- Q#19;

RFP paragraph

L-7.3.2

It is reasonable to require the prime contractor to disclose what Teams they are participating on, what subcontractors are on their team and identify whether they are exclusive or not. However, it is unreasonable to expect subcontractors to break their nondisclosure agreements and disclose competitive sensitive information during the RFP stage.

Is this the government’s intention? Would the Government consider allowing the Prime

Contract to update their OCI plan and address cross talk in more detail 10 days after the award in conjunction with providing the Subcontractor List?

See RFP Amendment 0005 for update to paragraph L-7.3.2.

Amendment 0005 requires Offeror’s to provide:

Primes/Joint Venture Partner’s cross-teaming arrangements, as well as any exclusive teaming arrangements and provide subcontractors’ teaming arrangements

11 PWS paragraphs

1.1.1 and 2.3.5

While we recognize the need to identify and sustain key personnel at the IDIQ and TO levels, these paragraphs imply that all personnel assisting with management of the IDIQ contract are designated Key and therefore subject to the Key Personnel restrictions. This would include all personnel in the PMO who will likely be matrixed between several tasks, especially in a small business. Also, identification and hiring of Key Personnel, prior to any TO being awarded is burdensome on a Small Business and will increase costs. We understand that:

1. At IDIQ award, we will designate key members of our management team for USG approval, and be subject to the Key personnel restrictions in the PWS.

2. At IDIQ award, we will present a dedicated (full time) Quality Management Representative, IAW PWS 1.1.1 and he/ she will be subject to the key personnel restrictions of the PWS.

3. At each TO proposal, we will designate key personnel. At TO submission and throughout execution, they are subject to the Key Personnel restrictions.

4. No Key Person resumes are required with this IDIQ level submission.

Is our understanding correct?

1) Offerors will designate Key Personnel as part of their approach for the Government to evaluate IAW M-

3.2.1.1.

2) Offerors shall provide a full time Quality Management

Representative and that position is considered key personnel.

3) At the T/O Level Offerors will designate Key

Personnel, who are subject to the PWS restrictions at submission and throughout execution.

4) At the ID/IQ level, resumes for key personnel are not required. However, Offerors shall provide the qualifications for the designated key personnel.

12 Due Date The last day the Government will accept questions from Offerors is 15 March 2015 and currently the proposal is due March 19, 2015. Three (3) working days is not enough time for the

Government to answer the questions and the offeror to evaluate the answers in time for a March

19th, 2:30 submittal.

Will the Government consider extending the proposal by one (1) week from receipt of answers to allow for evaluation of the Government answers and incorporation of the necessary changes to our proposal?

The proposal due date has been extended until 27 April

2015. The cut-off date for questions is 6 April 2015. See

RFP Amendment 0005.

13 Q&A - 5 March

2015: Q#149;

PWS paragraph

6.2.8.1.5

It is our understanding, based on the Government’s response to Q.149, that if an Offeror states in their proposal that they are not providing Indirect Rates as Ceiling Rates then the Offeror will be allowed at the T/O level to propose new Indirect Rates if the Offeror has a change to its Cost

Pools.

Please confirm.

The rate proposed at the ID/IQ level will be the rate used at the T/O level. If ceiling rates are not proposed and the rates require an update, i.e. there is a change in the Contractor’s

Forward Price Rate Agreement or Cost Pools, then sufficient data shall be provided at the T/O level to support the rates used.

14 Table B-1, Pricing Table

It is our understanding that the fee/profit contained in the Offeror’s Price Volume in Column K of Table B-1 for the proposed labor categories will not be included in the IDIQ Contract as a

Ceiling Rate and that fee/profit for any additional labor categories proposed will be negotiated at the T/O level. Please confirm.

The rates proposed at the ID/IQ (including the profit) are the ceiling rates for the T/Os. If there is a need for a new labor category, it will be specified at the T/O Level if necessary.

15 Q&A - 5 March Revised L-9.3.3 Section K states: Complete all required Representations, Certifications and Section L-9.3.3 has been updated to state the following:

2015: Q#18;

RFP paragraph

L-9.3.3; Section

K

Other Statements of Offerors, and provide a copy of information completed in the System for

Award Management (SAM) at www.sam.gov. However, in accordance with the answer provided to Question 18 “a copy of the online reps and certs from www.sam.gov will suffice to meet this requirement.”

Please confirm that a copy of online reps and certs from www.sam.gov can be provided instead of providing a completed copy of Section K.

“State in your proposal whether your representations and certifications are accurate and correct in the System for

Award Management (SAM) at https://www.sam.gov.

Otherwise, complete in its entirety, Section K of the RFP.”

See RFP Amendment 0005

16 RFP paragraph

H-6

Associate Contractor Agreements – according to Section H-6, we will need to submit ACA with any task order. Technically, we would need to comply with the clause to demonstrate a fully responsive sample task order response. Are we required to submit ACA for the sample task orders since our team collaborated on the development of the task order solution

1) The Contractor shall enter into Associate Contractor

Agreements (ACA) for any portion of the contract requiring joint participation in accomplishment of a

Government requirement as specified in individual

T/Os or between a T/O and another contract / contract vehicle.

2) An ACA is not required for the sample task orders.

17 Attachment 1 and Attachment

Will contingent offers and/or letters of commitment be required for key personnel at the task order level? If so, should this be demonstrated on the sample task orders?

“Contingent offers and/or letters of commitment” for key personnel are not requirements in the RFP or PWS. Any such requirements will be specified at the T/O level. There are also no requirements for sample task orders.

18 RFP Section I, 52.219-14

We understand that the rules within FAR 52.219-14 are about to change. Currently the prime contractor must provide 51% of the cost of services. Our understanding is that a pending modification will allow an aggregate of small business (including small business subcontractors) to perform 51% of the work to meet the FAR. When this change occurs will the new version of the FAR apply to this contract, or does the old version stay grandfathered in?

Currently, there are no updates from the FAR Council concerning FAR 52.219-14. For evaluation purposes, the agency will abide by the current version. At this time the

Government does not know if we will be required to conform to the new version or be grandfathered in.

19 Various The RFP requires the submittal of a Quality Management System to include a Quality Control plan. Our Quality manager has informed the proposal team that this level of detail cannot be provided without a Government QASP. There was no QASP provided with the RFP. Can the

Government provide its QASP for this program?

The RFP has been amended to include the QASP. See RFP

Amendment 0005.

For clarification purposes, please note that the offerors must submit a Quality Manual outline in accordance with the solicitation. See RFP paragraph L.7.3.1.3, PWS paragraph

3.5, Table 2, and PWS paragraph 3.5.4.7. There is no requirement for submission of a Quality Control Plan, and it is not an actual deliverable requirement (see RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4). Although Section L, Attachment 1, scenario paragraph S-3.4.4, mentions the Quality Control Plan as a deliverable for both scenarios, the scenarios represent work that may occur under this ID/IQ contract and will be used by the Government to assess the Contractor’s approach to performing representative work.

20 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph

S-1.7.2

Is the Safety Officer called out for the scenarios a Government defined key personnel position? Yes. As will be the case for actual T/Os issued post ID/IQ award, any key positions identified in the T/O RFP (which includes the T/O requirement document) are Government-identified. See PWS paragraphs 2.3.5.1 and 6.2.6.3, Table

3 – Services Summary, as well as RFP paragraph L-7.3.4.

21 RFP Section L, Government Furnished Items. • Transportation and security will be provided by NDLEA Lodging is provided by the NDLEA personnel.

https://www.sam.gov/

Attachment 1, paragraph S-2.8 personnel. The Contractor shall remain on the academy grounds throughout the deployment period. The Contractor shall coordinate transportation and security requirements with the

Government in-country representative for approval as required. Please clarify who is responsible for lodging and/or cost? This was previously answered by the Government “This is specified in the ID/IQ contract.”. Since the contract will not be issued until award of the IDIQ, how are we to address it in the proposal; especially with regards to anticipating costs.

Please note that the scenarios will not result in a task order.

The scenarios are for informational purposes and are not to be priced.

22 PWS paragraph

3.4

Comment: The Government COR will utilize the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) to evaluate Contractor performance and ensure PWS compliance.

Question: Will the Government please provide a copy of the current and/or proposed QASP with solicitation documents. The Government previously answered that “The QASP will be provided with the final RFP.” To date we have not seen a QASP, only a performance objective summary table. Is the Government going to provide a QASP as stated in the prior answer?

The QASP is posted with RFP Amendment 0005.

23 Q&A #12 The Government previously states that DoD/US Army Helicopter training standards are readily available on-line. In performing Google searches, there are a number of standards that have been found which could be relevant. Can the Government be more specific, or provide a link to the required information?

http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/95_Series_Collection_1.ht ml

The scenarios are for informational purposes only.

24 Various What is the government established pass/fail criteria for both aviation and CN training? What is the mechanism for the contractor to verify pre-enrollment/pre-screen qualifications and education level of students?

The evaluation criteria for the Subfactor 4: Scenarios is provided in M-3.2.4.

The qualifications and education level of the students are provided in S-1.1.3.

25 RFP paragraph

M-3.3

Past Performance, last sentence under Note in the Rating/Definition Table states: “In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable”.

Question: Given the USG has made the past performance evaluation either acceptable or unacceptable, what is the incentive for any offeror to provide past performance citations since providing no past performance will still result in an acceptable rating? The Government previously answered: The Note in M-3.3 states, “Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse.” This does not mean an Offeror can elect to not submit past performance and therefore would be considered acceptable. If an Offeror has relevant past performance, but does not submit it as part of their Past Performance Proposal then that Offeror would not be considered for award because a complete proposal was not submitted IAW RFP L-3.2. What is the specific threshold that the Government will use to determine if the past performance is relevant for this purpose, and will that same threshold be used to determine if past performance is not relevant in this context for both past performance that was omitted as well as that which is submitted. In other words if past performance is submitted that does not meet the Government threshold for relevance, then does the past performance automatically become acceptable as a result of the

LPTA FAR?

1) Relevancy is defined in RFP paragraph L-8.1.2.2. Past performance will be evaluated IAW RFP paragraph M-

3.3.

2) No, the past performance does not automatically become acceptable. If an Offeror has a record of relevant past performance and does not submit it, that

Offeror would be considered nonresponsive as that

Offeror would be non-compliant with the terms of the solicitation. See RFP paragraph L-3.2 and the last sentence at RFP paragraph L-9.3.4.

26 Previously the Government stated: Yes, a copy of the online representations and certifications from www.sam.gov will suffice to meet this requirement. The RFP has been updated accordingly. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming). Will the Government accept a link to the companies certs and reps on SAM, or does the document need to be printed and included in the binder?

Section L-9.3.3 has been updated to state the following:

“State in your proposal whether your representations and certifications are accurate and correct in the System for

Award Management (SAM) at https://www.sam.gov.

Otherwise, complete in its entirety, Section K of the RFP.”

http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/95_Series_Collection_1.html http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/95_Series_Collection_1.html

See RFP Amendment 0005

31 RFP paragraph

L-7.3.2

The RFP requests full disclosure of “any known cross-teaming arrangements.” Our subcontractors are prohibited by Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and Teaming

Arrangements (TAs) with their other prime contractors from divulging this information. Several subcontractors have stated that other primes they are supporting are not willing to amend their

NDAs and TAs to allow them to release this information.

Question: Will the Government please clarify the optimal means to meet this requirement if subcontractors are prohibited by other primes they are supporting to divulge their teaming arrangements?

See RFP Amendment 0005 for update to paragraph L-7.3.2.

Amendment 0005 requires Offeror’s to provide:

Primes/Joint Venture Partner’s cross-teaming arrangements, as well as any exclusive teaming arrangements and provide

32 Update to response to

Question #22 posted 5 Mar 15

This section states, “The Contractor shall enter into a long term VGSA through the host base

Information Security Program Manager if contract performance is on an AF base or installation for 90 days or more.” Q: How is the ’90 days’ measured for non-continuous deployments that individually do not equal 90 days, would it be cumulative, or does this section only refer to individual deployments that meet or exceed 90 days?

Each base and threat condition determines the need to

VGSA. The key is to coordinate with the host base IPO.

See RFP Amendment 0005 for updates to PWS paragraph

4.2.2.2.

33 Update to response to

Question #56 posted 5 Mar 15

The last sentence of this paragraph encourages offerors to protect their interests with regard to proprietary information by signing NDAs with Millennium Engineering and Integration

Company and Deloitte Consulting LLP. This action seems unnecessary considering that

Millennium and Deloitte are contractually bound by OCI and NDA clauses with respect to protect proprietary information. Question: will the lack of a NDA between an offeror and

Millennium and/or Deloitte affect the Government’s ability to evaluate that offerors proposal in any way?

As stated in L-1.2, the lack of an NDA between an offeror and Millennium Engineering and Integration Company

(MEI) will not affect the evaluation of the offeror’s proposal. However, in order for the government to comply with the Trade Secrets Act, 18 USC 1905, offerors are placed on notice that they too have this option for added protection. The Government has the necessary NDAs in place with MEI.

34 Regarding

Section L-7.3.2, bullets 2 and 3

Can the Government please clarify the information that is required to meet this requirement?

For those team members without an exclusive teaming agreement with the Prime, what information (beyond identification of non-exclusivity) is required? Is a non-exclusive subcontractor required to disclose other teams they may be on? Wouldn’t this information be proprietary based on potential NDAs and TAs that may be in place?

Is this information required just from the Prime or for every single team member, regardless of exclusivity?

See RFP Amendment 0005 for update to paragraph L-7.3.2.

Amendment 0005 requires Offeror’s to provide:

Primes/Joint Venture Partner’s cross-teaming arrangements, as well as any exclusive teaming arrangements and provide

35 Regarding

Section L-8.1.4

Is the requirement of a detailed ‘roadmap” describing all organizational changes required of every teaming partner, or just the prime? If it is the former, would the Government consider revising the 2 page limit for this requirement?

Organizational structure change history is required for the

Prime and any subcontractor that has its own PPI.

36 Regarding

Section M-3.2.2

Is the Government looking for information on our corporate OCI policies, or those dealing with individuals?

Both.

37 Regarding

Pricing Table B-

1; Cells B67 through B-71

Are the Indirect Rates Multiplier numbers in Pricing Table B-1; Cells B67 through B-71, plug numbers?

Yes

38 Regarding

SF30’s

The way the amendments came out there are SF30’s for Amendment 0002 and Amendment

0003. Will the Government be issuing a SF30 for Amendment 0001?

There is no Amendment 0001. Due to an unexpected error in the contracting writing system, the first amendment issued was numbered as A0002. Since Amendment 0001 was not used, there is no SF30 for that Amendment. See the

CO Letter posted on 13 February 2015.

39 Q.147

(03/05/2015)

Reference: in response to Q.147 (03/05/2015) that requested additional details on pricing

OCONUS labor, Government response states as “See PWS paragraph 6.1.2.17. See RFP

Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).”

Discussion: The referenced PWS does not seem to provide the necessary guidance for pricing

OCONUS labor. There appears to be too many variables in pricing OCONUS labor such as substantial difference in pay for a US person versus a Local National combined with difference in workweek (240 days vs. 312 days) and host nation laws (leave, statutory pay, severance or gratuity payment etc.).

Q.1.1. Does the Government anticipate OCONUS rates strictly for the Local Nationals or US personnel to work on the OCONUS locations?

Q.1.2. If OCONUS rates are required for the Local Nationals, will the Government allow invoicing additional pay (severance pay, gratuity payment etc. that may be required in accordance with the Host nation law) through the CLINs other than the Labor CLINs?

1) Offerors shall propose US citizens for ID/IQ OCONUS labor rates.

2) This will be specified at the T/O Level.

40 RFP Section L-

9.1.2 Indirect

Rates

This table requires indirect rates for the items that include DSSR Differential. This is a payroll taxable income for the employee and requires employer statutory payroll tax contribution.

However there is no column provided to include this additional tax. Also Section M-3.4.1 does not allow bidders to change the pre-established formulas in the template.

Q.2.1. Will the Government accept this cost added into the Overhead column for the DSSR

Differential?

Q.2.2. Most accounting systems are disclosed to apply G&A on Total Cost Input basis, which requires all direct cost, overhead and material handling be included in calculating the G&A cost. However, formulas in the template are calculating G&A only on the direct cost. Will the

Government allow bidders modifying formulas in this table in accordance with their disclosed practice?

1) Yes, as long as it is explained in the supporting pricing backup data.

2) Formulas shall not be modified.

41 RFP Section L-

9.2. Supporting

Price Backup

Data

Discussion: This section states in part “…Offerors shall also provide their profit rate for each labor rate.”. This statement appears as to allowing bidders to propose a varying fee by labor category. This would potentially result into an appearance of unbalanced pricing but does not pose an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Q.3.1. Will the Government accept a price with a varying fee by labor category as a justification for the unbalanced price?

In accordance with FAR.15.404-(1)(g) and the solicitation, RFP paragraph M-3.4.2, price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. FAR 15.404-1(g)(1).

Until proposal evaluation is conducted, hypotheticals cannot be provided an answer. It is the offeror’s decision on how to bid its fees related to the labor category.

42 L-5.3.6 Pages Not Included in Page Count. The organizational chart, acronym list, ISO registration verification, and overview section (for exceptions) will not be included in the page count.

Covers for volumes, tables of contents, indices, title pages, and section dividers/tables will not be included in the page count if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal. They will be counted if they contain any other information, e.g., diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Pages marked “This page intentionally left blank” will not be counted. We assume that the overview section that is excepted from the page count is our

No.

executive summary. This has been provided so that the evaluators will have a brief full context of the proposal to show that our solution is compelling and describe how we have laid out the reset of the response. We do understand that the section is not scored. We do want to clarify that the section does NOT count against page count regardless of whether it contains any exceptions. In fact the section states that there are no exceptions to the Government requirements. Question: will the overview section count against page count if it does not include exceptions, but rather introduces the volume and states that there are no exceptions?

43 PWS

6.5.2.16

The T/O requirement document may require a transition or mobilization period to initiate in-country support at specified locations. When applicable, the T/O requirement document would provide details of a transition or mobilization period. Such a period would likely include:

staffing, country clearance process, VISAs, completion of any required TAA or licensing requirements, training, Individual

Replacement Deployment Operations (IRDO), etc. Question: what does the Government anticipate the min and max allowed times for transition will be?

The transition time depends on the requirement and will be provided, if necessary, at the T/O Level.

44 Table B-1

Pricing Table

The multiplier cells/columns have been populated with 1,920 for CONUS (hourly) Rates (based on 4 weeks off (2 weeks of federal holidays and 2 weeks of vacation time)) and 240 for

OCONUS (daily) Rates (also based on 4 weeks off per previous). Question: is the offeror allowed to change those productive work hours to align the number of hours for vacation, sick leave, and other nonproductive time to conform to its company policies or do the offerors need to change their company policies to conform to the program?

No, Offerors shall not change the multiplier cells/columns.

45 Section I FARS Section 52.237-10: Identification of Uncompensated Overtime does not appear to be included with this contract. Please verify that FAR 52.237-10 does not apply to the IDIQ or subsequent task orders.

FAR 52.237-10 has been added in Amendment 0005 and applies to the ID/IQ contract and any subsequent task orders.

46 RFP

Section L, Attachment

1, paragraph

1.4.2

The solicitation states “1.4.2 Safety Officer. The Contractor shall provide a qualified DoD trained Aviation Safety Officer to supervise and ensure that all flight training adheres to established OH-58A/TH-67 (B206) flight and maintenance safety standards. The Aviation

Safety Officer shall be proficient, both oral and written, in the English language, DoD trained and experienced as a US Military Squadron Aviation Safety Officer.”

Question #1: do resumes need to be submitted for staffing for the scenarios?

Question #2: will letters of intent or contingent offers be required to effectively respond to the scenarios? Will these be required for actual task order responses?

1) Resumes are not required, however offerors shall submit qualifications per proposed position.

2) The scenarios are for informational purposes and will not result in an issued T/O, therefore letters of intent or contingent offers are not required. The T/O will specify what is required.

47 Notice to

Offerors of

Pending Appeal of the NAICS

Question: has the US SBA Appeal been fully resolved? Will the issue be resolved prior to the due date for proposals? Is it the Government’s intent to collect and evaluate proposals if the issue remains unresolved when proposals are due?

The NAICS code appeals filed with the Small Business

Administration’s Office of Hearing and Appeals have been resolved and was decided on March 16, 2015. The correct

NAICS code for this procurement is 611430, Professional and Management Development Training, with a corresponding $11 million annual receipts size standard.

Because the SBA’s decision was issued before the close of the original solicitation date, Amendment 0005 reflects the new NAICS code designation of 611430 in compliance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 19.303(c)(8). As a result, the proposal due date has been extended until

(include date here). See Amendment 0005.

48 PWS

paragraph

2.3.2.1

Previously the following was asked: Providing and maintaining a workforce for the ID/IQ level for this work is a very onerous requirement for a small business with no guarantee of task order award. Will the Government consider only requiring PMO support personnel for the IDIQ level? And the Government answered: Contractors may propose what they believe is necessary to meet the requirements specified in the ID/IQ PWS whether or not a contractor wins task orders. The Government understands the potential burden and has committed to a $50,000 minimum guarantee to help with this effort. 1) the previous questions failed to include the cost of installation and configuration of a MIS. Does the Government believe that the cost of MIS implementation and the placement of a full time dedicated Quality Management Representative will only cost ~$10,000 per year? It will be difficult if not impossible for small businesses to maintain those requirements if they do not win task orders very early in the process. Without winning a task order on the contract, there will not be any work for a full time dedicated staff to

do. Will the Government consider removing the requirement for any workforce to be dedicated to the CN&GT program unless task orders are won which require the dedicated support?

The requirement remains the same.

49 PWS Table

Table 2 states “The Contractor shall provide a Subcontractor List to the Government PM and

COR NLT 10 calendar days after ID/IQ contract award. The Contractor shall disclose new teaming partners/ subcontractors prior to that entity’s performance on a T/O requirement.”: We can easily envision needing to make changes to the team in order to address niche requirements on a task order to include in-county contracting. Question: Does this mean that the prime contractor can on-ramp and/or off-ramp subcontractors at any time during performance of the

IDIQ and task orders, or is only allowed during Task Order responses?

Contracting Officer acceptance is required for new additions. The Contractor shall disclose new teaming partners/ subcontractors prior to that entity’s performance on the ID/IQ contract or a T/O requirement.

50 PWS Table

Table 2 states “The Contractor shall provide a Subcontractor List to the Government PM and

COR NLT 10 calendar days after ID/IQ contract award. The Contractor shall disclose new teaming partners/ subcontractors prior to that entity’s performance on a T/O requirement.”: We can easily envision needing to make changes to the team in order to address niche requirements on a task order to include in-county contracting. Question: How is the Government defining subcontractors? Will all vendors used including in-county service providers be considered subcontractors even if the work ancillary in nature and incidental to the mission?

The Contractor shall disclose any new teaming partners/ subcontractors prior to that entity’s performance on the

ID/IQ contract or a T/O requirement.

51 RFP

paragraph

L-1.2

Previously the Government provided the POC for executing the Non- Disclosure Agreements with Millennium and Deloitte as Duane Beatty, Program Director, CN&GT, We only became aware of this in answers to questions provided on March 6th. Can the Government provide an email address for Mr. Beatty?

dbeatty@meicompany.com

52 Information regarding EEO clearance review can be found on the Department of Labor’s website (http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/). Clearance review is required for award IAW FAR

22.805(a)(1). The site is behind a firewall and requires credential to log in. This clarification was made in the Q&A released on March 6th. Will the Government provide credentials or provide additional time for the Offerors to acquire credentials from Liedos?

With the proposal extension, offerors should have ample time to resolve any issues with the website.

53 Section L;

Attachment #1

The scenarios require the submission of scenario quality control plan to address key performance indicators. The scenarios did not include a QASP or even a table of performance objectives such as the PWS table 3 that was provided for the IDIQ. Is this an oversight, or does the Government intend for the offerors to design the minimum performance requirements for

See Question/Response to #19.

mailto:dbeatty@meicompany.com http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/ task orders that the Government will use to measure performance on their contract?

54 RFP 52.291-

1(a)(1) and RFP

L-5.3.3

As the Government is fully aware, more than one appeal of the NAICS code for this solicitation has been filed with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) of the Small Business

Administration. If an appeal is upheld, and the Government is directed to use a different

NAICS code, the nature of the competition for this SB set-aside could change significantly, as many potential offerors who are eligible under the $38.5M size standard would no longer be eligible to bid as a prime. To date, we have not seen any notice of a decision by the OHA on those appeals. Given these circumstances, will the Government consider extending the proposal due date for at least two weeks? An extension would allow additional time for OHA to decide these appeals, and if such decision results in disqualifying some companies eligible under the larger size standard, an extension would allow those companies time to seek a position as a subcontractor on a team led by a qualifying small business. Granting an extension would benefit the Government, as the capabilities of those newly-disqualified companies would still be available to the Government as subcontractors, plus the composition of the remaining teams would be strengthened, thus giving the Government greater confidence in the ability of those teams to perform well if awarded a prime contract.

The NAICS code appeals filed with the Small Business

Administration’s Office of Hearing and Appeals have been resolved and was decided on March 16, 2015. The correct

NAICS code for this procurement is 611430, Professional and Management Development Training, with a Small

Business Size Standard of $11M. The SBA’s decision was issued before the close of the original solicitation date, therefore Amendment 0005 reflects the new NAICS code designation of 611430 in compliance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation 19.303(c)(8). As a result, the proposal due date has been extended until 27 April 2015.

The cut-off date for questions is 6 April 2015. See RFP

Amendment 0005.

55 PWS Rev 1, Table 4 – Labor

Category

Descriptions

Can the Government provide a better description of the “Specialist” labor category? The current description does not provide sufficient specificity to allow accurate pricing. Given that this is an ID/IQ focused on training, is there an implied hierarchy within these labor category descriptions, i.e., is a Specialist defined as someone who provides support to an Instructor who actually conducting training, and therefore likely to be priced lower than an Instructor?

There is no implied hierarchy within these labor categories.

56 L-5.3.6 Pages

Not Included in

Page Count.

Can the Government please clarify and define what should be included in the overview section.

Would this include the kind of information that is often referred to as an executive summary?

See Question/Response to #42.

57 L-Attachment 3 Is the Past Performance separate list of task orders requested to be provided separately outside of the PPI, to be provided on a separate sheet following each PPI?

Yes.

58 Shall the listing of task orders be submitted with the separate CD files for each PPI? Only one (1) CD shall be submitted. Within that one (1) CD there should be separate folders for each volume. The listing of task orders shall be included in that CD.

59 Update to response to

Question #19 posted 5 Mar 15

This sections states that Offerors must provide OCI plan that explains, “Any known cross-teaming arrangements, as well as any exclusive teaming arrangements;”

Q: Is this section referring to cross-teaming of the Primes for this effort or does the Government want Offerors to identify teammates that are on multiple teams as well?

See RFP Amendment 0005 for update to paragraph L-7.3.2.

Amendment 0005 requires Offeror’s to provide:

Primes/Joint Venture Partner’s cross-teaming arrangements, as well as any exclusive teaming arrangements and provide

Subcontractor List per PWS paragraph 3.5, Table 2 and paragraph 3.5.4.5.

The prime is no longer required to disclose its subcontractors’ teaming arrangements

60 Update to response to

Question #131 posted 5 Mar 15

H-1 requires Contractors to disclose cross-teaming arrangements. We interpret this clause to mean that a Prime Offeror must identify as a Prime, and also identify any teams that they are on as a subcontractor. Please confirm.

See RFP Amendment 0005 for update to paragraph L-7.3.2.

Amendment 0005 requires Offeror’s to provide:

Primes/Joint Venture Partner’s cross-teaming arrangements, as well as any exclusive teaming arrangements and provide

61 Update to response to

Question #104 posted 5 Mar 15

C: The Government states that it “will use the standards established in FAR Subpart 9.104 to determine each Offeror’s responsibility.”

Q: Must the offeror provide written text to satisfy this requirement (i.e., those items outlined in

9.104:

(a) Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them (see

9.104-3(a));

(b) Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments;

(c) Have a satisfactory performance record (see 9.104-3(b) and Subpart 42.15). A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or nonresponsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in 9.104-2;

(d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics (for example, see Subpart 42.15).

(e) Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors). (See 9.104-3(a).)

(f) Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them (see 9.104-3(a)); and

(g) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations (see also inverted domestic corporation prohibition at 9.108).

The Offeror is not required to provide written text to satisfy this requirement, but may do so if they wish. The

Government will assess contractor responsibility utilizing the standards established in FAR Subpart 9.104. Due to this being a Total Small Business Set-Aside the Government will also request a Certificate of Competency (COC) from the SBA.