FA4890-14-R-0024_CN GT_Training_RFP_Qs As_5_March_2015.pdf

SOLICITATION No. FA4890-14-R-0024

CN & GT Training Support Services 5 March 2015

# REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

1 RFP paragraph

H-5

“In support of those reporting requirements, the Contractor must maintain and utilize an accounting system capable of tracking workload as indicated in Sections B and G.”

Question: Is the USG’s definition of workload the equivalent of time logged against a contract task order?

Yes. Workload is all incurred cost associated with T/O performance.

2 RFP 52.219-1 Small Business Program Representations, (a)(1) states NAICS 541330 and (2) states small business sized standard is $38.5M.

Comment: The 541330 NAICS is for engineering services with a size standard of $15M.

If the USG includes the Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons

Exceptions, the size increases to $38.5M. The name of this IDIQ is CN&GT Training

Services. The tasks outlined in the PWS and the sample task orders are predominantly training oriented. The majority of tasks under the predecessor CNTPO contract were also training oriented. Request the USG provide rationale for selecting 541330.

The Government determined that the services being acquired best aligns with NAICS code 541330 – Engineering Services with the MAE&MW exception based on the principal purpose of the requirement, previous acquisitions, and the classification which would best serve the purpose of the Small Business Act.

3 RFP 52.245-2 Government Property Installation Operation Services subparagraph (b), second sentence states: “If any or all of the Government property is lost or becomes no longer usable, the

Contractor shall be responsible for replacement of the property at Contractor expense.”

Question: Are contractors responsible for replacing property at their expense when property is no longer usable due to normal wear and tear, exceeding normal useful life or events out of contractor’s control such as a natural disaster?

Third sentence states: “The Contractor shall have title to all replacement property and shall continue to be responsible for contract performance.”

Question: Please explain what having title to replacement property means in this context.

Does it mean Contractors must replace unserviceable Government property with serviceable Contractor property?

Under a Firm Fixed Price Contract, Contractors are required to repair and/or replace property as needed, even due to normal wear and tear, at the Contractor’s expense. See FAR 52.245-2 as referenced in FAR 45.107(b). Under a cost reimbursable contract, the Government will reimburse the Contractor for required repair and/or replacement, except that resulting from gross negligence on the part of the Contractor (which will be defined / determined in a Relief of Stewardship Investigation, as required).

4 RFP 5352.204-

Notification of Government Security Activity and Visitor Group Security Agreements, subparagraph (a)(3) states: “At least thirty days prior to beginning operations, notify the

Information Protection Office shown in the distribution block of the DD Form 254 as to:” (c)“The highest classification category of defense information to which contractor employees will have access.” Question: Isn’t this determination an inherently USG responsibility?

Determination of the security requirements for a particular T/O, and the accuracy thereof that will be captured on the DD Form

254 is the Government’s responsibility. The Contractor shall, IAW the information specified on the T/O DD Form 254, notify the Information Protection Office in accordance with, and as specified in the applicable DD Form 254 (see also PWS paragraphs 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.7, 4.2.8, and 6.1.2.4 (and all applicable subparagraphs)).

5 RFP 52.230-1 Disclosure Statement—Cost Accounting Practices and Certification, subparagraph (c)(1)

Certificate of Concurrent Submission of Disclosure Statement. Question: Does this

Certificate apply to small businesses?

No. Clause removed. See RFP Amendment 0003

(forthcoming).

6 RFP 52.234-2 Notice of Earned Value Management System—Pre-Award IBR, subparagraph (a).

Question: Does the EVMS requirement apply to small businesses?

Yes, the EVMS requirement, when applicable, would apply to both large and small businesses.

An EVMS Plan is not required at the ID/IQ. However, it may be required at the Task Order Level, if necessary.

In order for a clause to be included in a T/O it must be incorporated in the ID/IQ, therefore there are various clauses that appear that they do not apply. However, they may be applicable at the T/O level. If a clause is applicable at the T/O level then it will be specified in the T/O.

5 March 2015

# REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

7 RFP paragraph

L-2.1

Administrative comment. Solicitation number should be FA4890-14-R-0024 Updated. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

8 RFP paragraph

L-7.3.3

Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) Process. Third bullet. Question:

What does acronym UMMC stand for?

Unspecified Minor Military Construction. However, UMMC does not apply to the training requirement. Therefore, “UMMC” has been removed from paragraph L-7.3.3. See RFP

Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

9 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 1.1.4.

“All students will possess the required clothing and equipment required to successfully complete the specified training.” Question: Is this requirement a Host Nation or

Contractor responsibility?

Now paragraph S-1.5.

Paragraph 1.1.4 removed. Paragraph S-1.5 and subparagraphs specify sources for property / equipment.

Please note that the information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified.

Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that these are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

10 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 1.2.2.

“All students shall receive comprehensive ground and flight evaluation prior to course graduation from a US Army authorized Flight Examiner.” Please clarify Contractor responsibility to fulfill this requirement. Is Contractor required to obtain/schedule a US

Army Flight Examiner to provide evaluations or is Contractor required to have US Army authorized Flight Examiners on staff? If the latter, please identify the program by which the US Army authorizes Contractor Flight Examiners.

Now paragraph S-1.2.2.

Language has been updated.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the

T/O level.

11 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 1.5.2.

Please confirm Contractor is not responsible for providing instrument training to assigned students.

Now paragraph S-1.5.2. See first bullet at paragraph S-1.5.2 in

RFP Amendment 0003.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the

T/O level.

12 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 1.5.3.

Question: Does technical data include the US Army syllabus of instruction for the OH-

58?

Now paragraph S-1.5.3.

DoD/US Army Helicopter training standards are readily available on-line.

Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that: these are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

5 March 2015

# REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

13 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 3.4.1

Please clarify the requirement. Question: Is the Integrated Master Schedule for each sample task, both of them together or all the above?

Now paragraph S-3.4.1.

See updates to S-3.4.1 and L-7.3.4.

Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that these are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

14 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 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.

15 RFP paragraph

M-3.4.1

Third sentence states: “The total price for labor and indirect rates will be determined by applying the Offeror’s proposed rates to multipliers provided the Government in Section

B, Exhibit1, Table B-1. Reference Table B-1 contains a column for a multiplier but the cells are all blank. Question: Will the USG provide multipliers in the final solicitation?

The multiplier cells/columns are populated. See RFP

Amendment 0003 (forthcoming) Table B-1.

16 PWS paragraph

1.3

“The objective of this Performance Work Statement (PWS) is to provide training support services, equipment, material, instruction, products and minor construction services to improve the capability of US and partner nation agencies’ capability and expertise to detect, deter/disrupt, and defeat the threat to United States national security posed by:

illicit trafficking; terrorism; global threats such as natural disasters; and globally impacting activities such as threat finance, counter-terrorism, piracy, security assistance

(e.g., FMS and pseudo-FMS case execution), humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief.

Question: The term “minor construction” normally relates to a dollar value threshold, in the military construction program. Are their specific examples of scope of “minor construction” requirements (i.e. airfield enhancements, expeditionary “temp” structures, constructing fire-arms training ranges, etc.)

The reference to minor construction services was removed from the PWS included in the FINAL RFP posted to FBO on 2 Feb

17 PWS paragraph

4.3.3.1

“The Contractor must possess or obtain a facility security clearance at the highest classification level required on a T/O prior to performing contract work. For example, if a T/O effort requires Contractor employees to have TOP SECRET clearances, then the company facility clearance shall be TOP SECRET and shall be upgraded prior to performance on the T/O, unless otherwise directed by the CO. The DoD Defense

Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO) assumes costs and conducts security investigations for TOP SECRET, SECRET, and CONFIDENTIAL facility security clearances.”

We understand that facility security clearances may necessitate varying physical requirements depending both on the classification level of the relevant information

(Secret, Top Secret, etc.) and the method by which it is being handled (Spoken, Stored, Produced).

Questions:

a. Does the Government intend for any T/O level solicitation documents themselves to

Paragraph 4.2.3.1 (vice 4.3.3.1) in the FINAL RFP posted to

FBO on 2 Feb 15.

a. The Government does not anticipate that the solicitation documents themselves will be classified. However, any classified requirements will be addressed at the T/O level.

b. Yes. See PWS paragraph 4.2.3.1.

c. Yes. Per PWS paragraph 4.2.3.1.

d. A DD 254 will be accomplished at the T/O level, if necessary.

In order for a clause to be included in a T/O it must be incorporated in the ID/IQ, therefore there are various clauses that appear that they do not apply. However, they may be applicable at the T/O level. If a clause is applicable at the T/O

See PWS paragraph 4.2.3.1.

5 March 2015

# REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

be classified, such that the contractor would need applicable facility/personnel clearances to read them?

b. We note that the majority of work performed under this ID/IQ will be OCONUS. If a

T/O performed OCONUS required TOP SECRET personnel clearance, would T/O management functions performed at a CONUS contractor facility require TOP SECRET facility clearance?

c. In the event facility clearances are required, will AMIC serve as the sponsoring agency?

d. There appears to be ambiguity/contradiction between PWS 4.3.3.1 and RFP clause

“5352.215-9000 FACILITY SECURITY CLEARANCE.” Could the Government please explain which of these clauses is controlling, and, if appropriate, provide the appropriate DD Form 254?

18 RFP paragraph

L-9.3.3

This section states that offerors shall, “Complete all required Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors, and provide a copy of information completed in Online Representations and Certifications (ORCA) located at https://orca.bpn.gov.”

Q: We currently maintain our Online Representations and Certifications at www.sam.gov , will a copy of the Representations and Certifications from www.sam.gov suffice to meet this requirement?

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).

19 RFP paragraph

L-7.3.2

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?

This applies to Prime Contractors participating as a subcontractor/team member with another prime or team member/subcontractor. This also applies to subcontractors/teams with more than one Prime Contractor.

20 RFP paragraph

L-7.3.2

Q: Is cross-teaming, in and of itself, an OCI? If cross-teaming is used and there is a potential OCI, Offerors shall address a plan to mitigate the potential OCI.

21 PWS Table 3;

RFP paragraph

L-5.3.5

One of the Performance Standards listed in Table 3 of the PWS is, “Develop, document, maintain and continuously improve a comprehensive higher-level QMS that compiles with the most current version of the ISO 9001 QMS standard.” Further, in section L-

5.3.5, ISO registration verification is listed as one of the Pages Not Included in Page

Count.

Q: Is ISO Registration required, or will compliance with the standards suffice?

Offerors are required to be compliant with ISO 9001. RFP paragraph L-5.3.5 was updated to remove ISO registration from list of items that doesn’t count in the page count in Section L.

See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

22 PWS paragraph

4.3.2.2

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?

’90 days’ is measured as continuous 90 days (or if life support remains in place due to short-term travel elsewhere (e.g., base is duty location for more than 90 days and travel is required elsewhere)).

23 RFP paragraph

M-3.4.1

It is stated “The total price for labor and indirect rates will be determined by applying the

Offeror’s proposed rates to multipliers provided by the Government in Section B, Exhibit

1, Table B-1.”

Q: The currently supplied Exhibit 1 does not contain any multipliers or pre-established formulas. Is this something the Government will be providing in an updated Pricing

Table release? The last version posted to FBO.gov is from 10/10/2014.

The multiplier cells/columns are populated. See RFP

Amendment 0003 (forthcoming) Table B-1.

24 General Q: Can the Government please verify how many days each submission is valid? 300 calendar days. See RFP SF 30 Block 12 and paragraph L-

3.3.

https://orca.bpn.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/ http://www.sam.gov/

5 March 2015

# REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

25 Table B-1

Pricing Table

Q: For each tab in this workbook, will the Government be providing “Multiplier” and

“Percent” for both Labor and Indirect Rate Tables?

The multiplier cells/columns are populated. See RFP

Amendment 0003 (forthcoming) Table B-1.

26 Table B-1

Pricing Table

Q: Can the Government please provide further clarification or provide reference on the

Indirect Rate Line Item “DSSR Differential”?

Department of State Standardized Regulation (for application of

Department of State (DoS) Differentials based on location of performance). See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

27 RFP paragraph

H-5

This section states, “Failure to maintain an adequate accounting system or approved purchasing system may negatively impact Contractor’s ability to propose on T/O requirements and Contractor performance ratings, and may serve as justification for removal from the CN&GT Training Support Services ID/IQ contract.

Q: What purchasing system certification is necessary to meet this requirement

This is applicable for Cost type T/Os. See DFARS 252.244-

7001.

28 Table B-1

Pricing Table

Exhibit 1, Table B-1 Pricing Table, Tab Year 1 cells B67 thru B71 indicates a pre-loaded multiplier amount, please clarify what those amounts mean? Is this intentional and how does the contractor propose the amounts per each item if already included?

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). See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming) Table B-1.

29 Table B-1

Pricing Table

Exhibit 1, Table B-1 Pricing Table Tab Year 1 cells B67 thru B71 indicates overlapping items – i.e DSSR differential is only applicable OCONUS as is DBA how does one exclude it from CONUS rates?

The Indirect Rates captured in rows 67-71 have no relation to the labor rates. They are the indirect rates Offerors will propose when utilizing the applicable items (DSSR, DBA Insurance, Travel, Material or Subcontractors) on a T/O requirement.

30 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, Scenarios; and

RFP paragraph

L-1.3

Attachment 1 (PWS) in Section L states in 1.3 Program of Instruction (POI): “The

Contractor shall develop a POI based on DoD/US Army Helicopter training standards and obtain Contracting Officer Representative (COR) review and approval before proceeding with any student instruction.“ The Attachment then states in 1.3.1 “The POI shall include a syllabus of instruction that addresses the following:…” after which the requirement lists what is expected in the POI. Further, Section 2.2 POIs and Course

Material states “The Contractor shall develop the POIs and related course material necessary to provide training for the courses identified in Attachment 1, Course Details.”

Question: In many of the sections describing requirements for this RFP, we are asked to describe our approach. For example, L-7.3.2 Subfactor 2: Organizational Conflict of

Interest (OCI) Plan asks for our “Approach for detecting, disclosing, avoiding, mitigating, and neutralizing OCI issues/risks at the ID/IQ and T/O levels;…” There are several similar requirements seeking our approach to accomplishing the described task.

The requirement to include completed POIs in our proposal appears inconsistent with requirements elsewhere in the RFP asking us to describe our approach to delivering a service or product.

Now paragraphs S-1.3 and 1.3.1.

See also RFP paragraph M-3.2.4.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the

T/O level.

31 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 2.2.8

Attachment 1 (PWS) Section 2.2.1 states “The Contractor shall develop the POIs and related course material necessary to provide training for the courses identified in

Attachment 1, Course Details.” While developing four POIs would respond to this requirement, one well developed and presented POI should give the government sufficient assurance of our capability to design and develop POIs in the intense law enforcement training environment. Four such POIs, which giving more material, will increase the workload to respond to the RFP and may only repeat the level of assurance rather than demonstrating it.

Rather than four POI’s in Scenario 2, may we submit one POI?

Now paragraphs S-2.2.1 and S-2.2.8.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the

5 March 2015

# REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

In our experience, a POI that is produced in a standard, government-approved or industry-standard format is typically between 12 to 16 pages in length. Scenario 1 asks for one such POI, and Scenario 2 for four such POIs. Since Section L-5.3.3 sets a page limit of 15 pages for each scenario, it will be impossible to include a compliant response to the POI requirement given the many other requirements that must also be addressed in each scenario.

Sufficient information to demonstrate our understanding and capability for providing appropriate flight or law enforcement training can be presented in our proposal if 1) we submit our approach to developing the necessary POIs, or 2) we submit the required

POIs as an attachment to each scenario. These POIs can contain the required information, and if excluded from the 15 page limit in each scenario will allow more space to address other scenario requirements.

If POIs are required, may we respond to these requirements by showing the POIs as attachments excluded from the 15 page limit for each scenario?

Unless modified by answers to our questions 1, 2 or 3, would a detailed outline of the required POIs satisfy the requirement for submitting POIs?

T/O level.

32 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraphs 1.4 and 2.7

Under Scenario 1, para. 1.4 Personnel Requirements, and Scenario 2, para. 2.7, Key

Personnel, are resumes of identified personnel required to provided at this time to the

Government in the FA4890-14-R-0024 RFP response?

Now paragraphs S-1.4 and S-2.7.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the

T/O level.

See also RFP paragraph M-3.2.4.

33 RFP Price

Proposal

Based on our company's review of the RFP documents, there appears to be no requirement in the RFP response to fill in the CLIN Items identified in Section B-

Supplies or Services and Prices - is this correct?

Table B-1 is where offerors’ shall provide their proposed pricing. Offerors are not required to complete the CLIN Items identified in Section B- Supplies or Services and Prices.

34 RFP paragraph

L-9.2

Is there a requirement for Subcontractors on a Prime RFP responder's Team to submit

Sealed Pricing Packages to the Prime for inclusion in the RFP response?

The Government has no such requirement.

35 RFP paragraph

H-5

As stated in H-5 as relates to an approved purchasing system, please consider the clarification concerning the EVMS such as “Note: an EVMS may be required for task orders based on the task order contract type, complexity, and dollar value in accordance with FAR Part 34”.

An EVMS Plan is not required at the ID/IQ. However, it may be required at the Task Order Level, if necessary.

In order for a clause to be included in a T/O it must be incorporated in the ID/IQ, therefore there are various clauses that appear that they do not apply. However, they may be applicable at the T/O level. If a clause is applicable at the T/O level then it will be specified in the T/O.

36 RFP paragraphs

H-5 and H-7

The procurement states that an approved purchasing system and EVMS system may be required at the task order level. This procurement is a total small business set-aside under

NAICS 541330, Engineering Services, under the Military and Aerospace Equipment and

Military Weapons exception, with a size standard to $38.5M. Approved purchasing systems and EVMS systems, per FAR 34 and 44, are very rare among contractors

The requirements for an approved purchasing system and

EVMS system may be required at the T/O level, if necessary and will be specified at the T/O level.

5 March 2015

# REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

meeting the NAICS threshold. An Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) will not review the possibility of a purchasing system review until a contractor has $25M of cost type work (excludes all fixed price type work) and an EVMS is required only for major development contracts. Please review the applicability for this set-aside procurement.

37 RFP paragraph

M-1

The solicitation states the following:

M-1.2 Multiple awards will be awarded starting with the lowest priced Offeror, and then the next lowest priced Offeror, in sequence, which is technically acceptable, receives an

“Acceptable” Past Performance rating, and is fair and reasonably priced.

M-1.3 The Government may make a final determination as to whether an Offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal(s) submitted.

M-1.5 The competitive range may include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government.

Please clarify how an “unacceptable” proposal based solely on the basis of the initial proposals may be included in a competitive range in accordance with the other statements made in M-1.2 and M-1.3.

M-1.2 addresses the ratings required for award.

M-1.3 states that the Government’s final rating may only include an assessment of an Offeror’s initial proposal (in other words, the Government may not hold Discussions), so (as it states further in that same paragraph), Offerors should submit initial proposals “that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.”

M-1.5 starts with stating that the Government reserves the right to award without Discussions and may make award based solely on initial proposals (supporting the verbiage in M-1.3). It then goes on to state that if the Government holds discussions, the

Competitive Range may include proposals rated

“Unacceptable”.

The full text must be considered for each of these paragraphs to see that there isn’t a conflict.

38 RFP paragraph

M-3.4.1

Please clarify it is the Government’s intent to determine price reasonableness as follows:

Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison among all technically acceptable Offeror’s Total Overall Evaluated Prices (TOEP)

RFP paragraph M-3.4 contains the Government’s Price evaluation process.

39 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraphs 1.3.1,

2.2.3 and 3.4.5.1

Instructions within each of the two scenarios provide guidance on what information should be contained within their respective POIs. Then, instructions in Section 3.0 provide general guidance on POIs for both scenarios that conflict with the individual guidance.

Regarding POIs, we have three questions:

1. Are Draft POIs still required to be submitted with the proposal (per para. 3.4.5.2)?

2. Must each POI still be included within the 15 page limit for each scenario?

3. Which set of guidance should we follow – that individual to the Scenario, or the general guidance given in Section 3.0?

Now paragraphs S-1.3.1, S-2.2.3 and S-3.4.5.1.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the

T/O level.

See also RFP paragraph M-3.2.4.

40 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraphs

3.4.1.3 and

3.4.1.1

Para 3.4.1.3 states “The Integrated Master Schedule is due with the proposal”. Para

3.4.1.1 states “The Master Schedule must clearly show, but is not [to] be limited to, the following information: Courses, Student scheduled classes, Milestones for Training, Deliverables.

For each scenario, is the IMS included in the 15-page limit?

Now paragraphs S-3.4.1.3 and S-3.4.1.1.

Yes, the Integrated Master Schedule is included in the 15 page limit per scenario per the table at RFP paragraphs L-5.3.3 and L-

7.3. See also RFP paragraph L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment

0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that these are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

41 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 3.4.4.1

Para 3.4.4.1 states that the Government wants a T/O-level outline of the QCP for both scenarios. The same paragraph also provides a detailed list of information to be covered in the T/O-level QCP.

Now paragraph S-3.4.4.1.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are

5 March 2015

# REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

Does the Government merely want a QCP outline to be applicable to both scenarios, or a detailed scenario-specific discussion of QC?

only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that these are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

42 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 3.4.4.1

Para 3.4.4.1 states “The Contractor shall provide a draft scenario QCP outline covering the proposed process for both scenarios (paragraphs 1.0 and 2.0) and demonstrating compliance with the proposed ID/IQ Quality Management System / Quality Manual.”

With this QCP covering both scenarios, in which proposal section (i.e., under which page limit) should this plan be submitted?

Now paragraph S-3.4.4.1.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that these are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

43 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 1.5.2

Section 1.5.2 says the COLMIL will provide “night vision goggle training”. Is the contractor responsible for providing night training prior to the COLMIL training on night vision goggles? Or is all night training to be provided by the COLMIL?

Now paragraph S-1.5.2.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that these are the types of questions that are very helpful at the T/O level.

44 RFP 5352.215-

9000 – Facility

Clearance

This Clause states that there is a DD254 attached with the Solicitation. We could not find the DD254. Was one issued with the RFP package?

A DD 254 will be accomplished at the T/O, if necessary. In order for a clause to be included in a T/O it must be incorporated in the ID/IQ, therefore there are various clauses that appear that they do not apply. However, they may be applicable at the T/O level. If a clause is applicable at the T/O level then it will be specified in the T/O.

See PWS paragraph 4.2.3.1.

45 RFP Section K, 52.234-2

Section K, FAR clause 52.234-2 Notice of Earned Value Management System-Pre-

Award IBR, requires the offeror to either (a) provide documentation showing it has an approved EVMS that a Cognizant Federal Agency has determined to be in compliance with the EVMS guidelines in ANSI/EIA Standard-748 or (b) submit a comprehensive plan for compliance with the EVMS guidelines which the government will assess at IBR.

If the offeror does not have an approved EVMS, should a comprehensive plan for compliance be submitted a) prior to IBR or b) with the offeror’s proposal? If the plan is required with the proposal, is it permissible to include it as an attachment to Volume III-

Price?

An EVMS Plan is not required at the ID/IQ. However, it may be required at the Task Order Level, if necessary.

In order for a clause to be included in a T/O it must be incorporated in the ID/IQ, therefore there are various clauses that appear that they do not apply. However, they may be applicable at the T/O level. If a clause is applicable at the T/O level then it will be specified in the T/O.

46 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 1.4.1

CN&GT Training Support Services, RFP FA4890-14-R-0024, includes several requirements that address the Program of Instruction (POI). We request clarification on these requirements and would like to ask the following additional question:

Attachment 1 (PWS) in Section L states in 1.4.1 Flight Training Personnel: “The

Contractor shall provide instructors that are Certified Flight Instructors with Instrument

(CFII) ratings qualified under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 14.” Do the

Instructor Pilots need to be CFII rated on the OH-58A/TH-67 (B206) platform? Since the

Columbian Government will teach instruments and night vision, and CFII rating will require IP’s that can teach instruments, the rating may not be required.

Now paragraph S-1.4.1.

Such requirements would be specified at the T/O level.

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the

5 March 2015

# REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

T/O level.

47 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.”

a. Must the Safety Officer be experienced as a “Squadron” Aviation Safety Officer?

b. Are there other experiences that qualify such as Company/Troop, Battalion, Brigade, or as a Safety Officer for an Aviation Contractor Work force?

c. May an Instructor Pilot who meets the requirements of a Safety Officer as described in the RFP perform in both capacities as Safety Officer and Instructor Pilot?

Now paragraph S-1.4.2.

a/b - Added “(or equivalent)” after “squadron” in referenced paragraph. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

c – Offerors may propose a variety of solutions to meet requirements. The Government will assess these against the requirement.

48 RFP paragraph

L-5.3.3

The solicitation states offeror’s are limited to 15 pages per scenario. The solicitation also states in paragraph 3.4.5.2 that “Draft POIs shall be submitted as part of the Subfactor 4 proposal. The final POI shall be delivered to the USG 30 calendar days prior to start of instruction.”

a. Are the draft POIs part of the 15 page limit?

b. May the offeror submit the POIs in an appendix that is not included in the page count?

The information provided in the actual scenarios is for informational purposes only and has been clarified. Offerors are only required to provide the items specified in RFP paragraph

L-7.3.4. See RFP Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

Also, keep in mind that:

1) This is a scenario and the actions in the question are at a level of detail not required for consideration.

2) These are the types of questions that are very helpful at the

T/O level.

49 PWS paragraph

2.3.5

There are several references to contractor key personnel in the PWS to include this one:

“2.3.5 Key Personnel. The Contractor shall identify and maintain any key personnel deemed critical to managing the overall performance of the ID/IQ and T/O contracts. All positions identified to perform at the ID/IQ level shall be considered binding key positions for the life of the contract.”

a. Must or may the offeror designate key personnel for the ID/IQ proposal?

b. Must or may the offeror provide resumes for those key contractor personnel for the

ID/IQ proposal?

See PWS paragraphs 2.3.5 and 3.5.4.2. See RFP Amendment

0003 (forthcoming).

50 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.”

There is not a Safety Officer designated in the pricing tables or in the Labor Category definitions. Will the government designate a Labor category for a Safety Officer?

Now paragraph S-1.4.2.

There will not be a labor category with a title that specifically reflects the job titles of all labor expected to perform under this

ID/IQ contract. The Government has provided 20 broad labor categories with 3 performance levels for each labor category

(except SME and Construction Superintendent). See PWS paragraph 7.1.3.

51 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 1.2

The Contractor shall provide training to a maximum of 60 COLAF and foreign students designated to receive such training to achieve initial qualification to fly the OH-58A.

Class size shall be 10-12 students per class. The student to instructor ratio shall not exceed 2:1 during IQT.

a. Can the government define the time period that the contractor shall provide a maximum of 60 students training? The class size is identified as 10-12 students per class.

Now paragraph S-1.2 a – one year – see RFP scenario paragraph S-1.0 and third major bullet under RFP paragraphs L-7.3.4 and M-3.2.4. See RFP

Amendment 0003 (forthcoming).

b – It is up to offerors to propose an approach that demonstrates an understanding of and meets the requirement.

5 March 2015

# REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

b. Realizing that this is just a scenario, but for planning and sequencing, can the government identify how many classes of 10-12 students would the contractor be conducting at one time and if concurrent, how would they overlap in time? For example, would classes begin every month, two months or any other normally scheduled time period?

52 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 2.0.

a. What is the expected and maximum class size?

b. How many students would be trained in a given time period per year.

c. Realizing that this is just a scenario, but for planning and sequencing, how many classes would the contractor be conducting at one time and if concurrent, how would they overlap in time?

d. For example, would classes begin every month, two months or any other normally scheduled time period?

Now paragraph S-2.0.

The Tables at the end of Attachment 1 specify the class sizes, duration and number of courses. It is up to offerors to propose an approach that demonstrates an understanding of and meets the requirement.

53 PWS paragraph

3.1.1

The PWS states “The QMS shall include a Quality Management Representative that shall be an ISO 9001:2008 Lead Auditor or ASQ Certified Quality Auditor (CQA), with that Quality Management Representative dedicated to the CN&GT Training Support

Services ID/IQ contract and all underlying T/Os.”

a. Is the dedicated Quality Management Representative (QMR) direct billable to the government or is the offeror expected to compute the representative’s compensation in overhead?

b. May the dedicated Quality Management Representative work on other projects within the offeror’s company? Or does dedicated mean that the QMR is dedicated ONLY to the CN&GT IDIQ?

a – The Government expects that ID/IQ management will be incorporated into the cost elements that contribute to the fully burdened labor rates. However, the Government also believes it appropriate for Contractors to propose labor for any direct

ID/IQ-level management involvement in T/O performance at the

T/O level. This should be justified and reflective of actual management work that will be performed on a T/O (see PWS paragraph 7.1.3).

b – The PWS specifies that the Quality Management

Representative is dedicated to the CN&GT Training Support

Services ID/IQ contract

54 RFP paragraph

H-7(d)

RFP paragraph H-7(d) states that, “For efficiency purposes at the T/O level, the

Government may reduce the pool of offerors eligible for evaluation.” Question: will the

Government please confirm that such a reduction will only occur after all IDIQ awardees have had the opportunity to submit a T/O proposal?

See PWS paragraph 6.3.2.

55 RFP 52.219-1

(a)(1), (a)(2) and

(a)(3)

The referenced clause establishes the NAICS code for this solicitation as 541330, and defines the SB size standard of $38,500,000. This clause also states, “The small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own names, other than on a construction or service contract, but which proposes to furnish a product which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees.” We believe that neither this NAICS code nor the stated SB size standards ($38.5M or 500 employees) are appropriate NAICS and size standard for this solicitation. Rationale: The very title of this solicitation, Training

Support Services, and the Description of Services PWS paragraph 2.1, clearly define the scope of this ID/IQ as “any contracted activity aimed at transferring knowledge, skills, abilities (KSA) with the objective of improving individual or organizational performance or creating a required level of competency.” However, the official US Government definition of NAICS Code 541330 Engineering Services is as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in applying physical laws and principles of engineering in the design, development, and utilization of machines, materials, instruments, structures, processes, and systems. The assignments undertaken by these establishments may involve any of the following activities: provision of advice, preparation of feasibility studies, preparation of preliminary and final plans and designs, The Government determined that the services being acquired best aligns with NAICS code 541330 – Engineering Services with the MAE&MW exception based on the principal purpose of the requirement, previous acquisitions, and the classification which would best serve the purpose of the Small Business Act.

5 March 2015

# REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

provision of technical services during the construction or installation phase, inspection and evaluation of engineering projects, and related services.” Nothing in the official definition of NAICS Code 541330 relates to the transfer of KSA to an individual or organization for the improvement of their performance or increasing their level of professional competency. Further, we contend that the application of the SB size standard exception in paragraphs (a)(2) is not appropriate for this solicitation, as that

$38.5M size standard exception is intended for the provision of military and aerospace equipment and military weapons, which do not fall within the description of training support services in PWS paragraph 2.1. Finally, the latest SB Size Standards table for

NAICS, dated 14 July 2014, does not list a 500-employee size standard exception in conjunction with NAICS code 541330. Question: will the Government consider revising the NAICS code for this solicitation to either 611430, Professional and

Management Development Training, or 541990, All Other Professional, Scientific and

Technical Services, and using the SB size standard associated with either of those

NAICS codes?

56 RFP paragraph

L-1.2

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?

The Government highly encourages Offerors to complete an

NDA with companies identified in L-1.2. The Government has

NDAs in place, which is an agreement between the companies listed and the Government. However, a NDA between the

Offeror and the companies listed in L-1.2 would provide more protection. The ultimate decision is up to each offeror.

57 RFP paragraph

L-5.3.2

Will the Government please clarify whether offerors should submit all electronic proposal volumes on one CR-ROM/CD-R disk, or should offerors submit separate disks for each proposal volume?

A single CD-ROM/CD-R from each offeror – see table at RFP paragraph L-5.3.3.

58 RFP paragraph

L-9.3.3

Since the Online Representations and Certifications (ORCA) system has been replaced by the System for Award Management (SAM), is it the Government’s intent that offerors include in their proposals a downloaded copy of the entire FAR and DFARS report located at www.sam.gov?

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).

59 RFP paragraph

L-9.3.6

This paragraph states, “Offerors shall provide evidence of an adequate accounting system

(certified or compliant) to adequately track, segregate, accumulate and report incurred costs for each CLIN as applicable.” Question: for offerors that use a commercially-procured compliant cost accounting system, but who have never been audited by DCAA, will the Government please clarify what type of evidence will suffice to prove that system is compliant?

Offerors shall provide the necessary evidence to show that the commercially-procured cost accounting system is a compliant system.

60 RFP paragraph

L-9.3.8

Can the Government please specify what type of documentation suffices to prove adequate access to credit markets?

A statement or letter from a bank that shows an Offeror’s credit line is an example.

61 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 3.2.3

This paragraphs place the burden on the Contractor to obtain the appropriate Technical

Assistance Agreements (TAAs) and/or applicable export licenses before conducting any activity under a T/O that requires such approval and documentation. Question:

inasmuch as this contract for services will be between the US Government and the ID/IQ award winners, and not a contract with a foreign government, why are TAAs and export licenses required? Should not the approval to provide defense services to foreign persons be accomplished under government-to-government foreign disclosure rules, with

Now paragraph S-3.2.3.

See PWS paragraphs 2.1.7, 4.2.3.6, 6.5.3.6.2, 6.5.3.10 and other areas of the PWS that direct various compliance requirements for contractors performing work under this contract.

5 March 2015

# REFERENCE COMMENT/QUESTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

responsibility for approval of the provision of such services delegated to the Government program manager and/or COR under a delegation of disclosure letter?

62 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 3.4.1.3

This paragraph states, “The Integrated Master Schedule is due with the proposal and the th calendar day of each month after award.” Can the Government provide notional start dates for the two sample scenarios, or should offerors construct these schedules be reference to a number of days from an unspecified start date (e.g., “D+1)?

Now paragraph S-3.4.1.3.

A specified performance start date is not necessary. Offerors may utilize any approach that they believe will clearly demonstrate the intended message.

63 RFP Section L, Attachment 1, paragraph 3.4.4.1

The first sentence of this paragraph states, “The Contractor shall provide a draft scenario

QCP outline… .” This statement appears to conflict with the bulleted list following, which describes a fully-developed QCP tailored to each of the two sample scenarios, and specifically states that the plan shall not be cursory.