GA_RITS_RFP_Questions_8_Nov_18.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Rescue Instructional and Training Services (RITS) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA4890-18-R-5022
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a federal contract opportunity for Rescue Instructional and Training Services (RITS). The opportunity involves providing personnel, aircraft, equipment, and facilities to conduct Pararescueman 5-level and 7-level upgrade training. Key details include that the contractor must provide classroom support, field training environments, and parachute equipment. The performance work statement outlines requirements for phases including emergency medical operations, fixed wing insertion, parachute operations, and technical rescue instruction. Questions seek clarification on topics such as the number of parachute systems issued per student, dive training locations, and medical instructor qualifications. Responses provide additional requirements for areas like cadaver use, role players, and jumpmaster duties.
Responses to questions submitted by the deadline of November 2, 2018.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 33
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Questions
| Solicitation # FA4890-18-R-5022 | ||||||
| Ask | ||||||
| # | Subject | Document Title | Section | Page | Question | Don't Ask |
| 1 | Student Bracketing | RFP | Section B | 3-Feb | CLIN 1001, last sentence states, “The basic 5-level course will consist of twelve students.” CLIN 1003, first sentence states, “5-Lvl Course (13-24) Students) and last sentence states, “Contractor shall be able to accommodate up to twenty-four (24) students per 5-level class.”. Will the Government consider dividing CLIN 1003 into two separate CLINs to enable us to provide more accurate pricing with respect to student throughput? e.g., CLIN 1003a 13-18 Students and CLIN 1003b 19-24 students or in increments of three students, between 13 and 24. | |
| RESPONSE: No. CLIN 1003 is to be a "per student" price to be applied to classes with over 12 students, up to a max of 24. | ||||||
| 2 | Treatment of Phase-in costs | RFP | Section B, CLIN Item # 0001 and Section L. 8.1 & 8.2 | 2 and 45 | Section L, 8.1, last sentence, states the offeror shall submit pricing for the phase-in Period. And Section L, 8.2 states, “Applicable Cost reimbursable CLINs, will be included in the Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP).” We feel making Phase in costs part of the TOEP gives an incumbent (s) an unfair advantage. Further that this is part of the price of competition and that competition reduces overall costs to the Government. We ask the Government to consider making Phase-in costs not part of the TOEP and putting an NTE on CLIN 0001 costs to ensure costs are appropriate and reasonable. | |
| RESPONSE: No. Per RFP Section M, Evaluation Factors and Methodology, para 1 and 2, Price is only one factor in the evaluation. | ||||||
| 3 | Contract Clause | RFP | Section 1 Contract Clauses | 25 | In Section 1 – Contract Clauses, “CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE”, of the RFP (page 25 of 69) includes reference to FAR 52.234-3 “Notice of Earned Value Management System – Post award Integrated Baseline Review” and FAR 52.234-4 “Earned Value Management System”. Under 34.201 Policy, an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) is required for major acquisitions for development, in accordance with OMB Circular A-11. Can the Government exclude reference to these two clauses in consideration of the work contemplated in the RFP not being major development work is referenced above? | |
| RESPONSE: Clause removed. | ||||||
| 4 | Past Performance Recency | RFP | Section L, Para 7.3 | 42 | States that “for contracts with less than 6 months of performance will not be considered.” Can a current contract, that we’ve had for over three years as the prime, with an annual throughput of up to a hundred students a year, be used as Past Performance if there are only two (2) courses annually? | |
| RESPONSE: Yes, if the contract period of performance is greater than six months. | ||||||
| 5 | CR CLINs | RFP | Section L, 8.2 | 45 | Section L, 8.2 states, “The Government will specify Not To Exceed (NTE) amount on applicable CR CLINs (Travel, Lodging, and Equipment Transfer). We are not clear if the Government wants offerors to put the NTE amount specified by the Government or an amount we propose, but less than or equal to the specified NTE. We assume we put the total NTE amount specified in the CLINs, as a plug number? Is that correct? | |
| RESPONSE: Yes, use the Government-provided amounts for these CLINs in your pricing | ||||||
| 6 | Past Performance Relevancy | RFP | Section M, Factor 2, Table 4 | 65 | The RFP description for Very Relevant, first bullet states “Effectively managed a U.S Air Force Pararescue or DoD Special Operations training program as a prime contractor”. Additionally, the description for Relevant states “Effectively managed DoD Special Operations Forces, Fire Rescue or similar training program as prime contractor”. We believe this to be overly restrictive, gives the current incumbent an undue advantage and undervalues relevant experience gained from other agencies and contracts that may bring new and valuable ideas for innovation and efficiencies, particularly given that the Government has stressed their desire for offerors to be innovative and efficient. Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Procedures, Guidance and Information, Subpart 215.3 –Source Selection, dated March 31, 2016, Section 3.1.3.1.2, Page 27, Table 4 “Past Performance Relevance Rating Method” shows Very Relevant Past Performance as, “Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.”, and Relevant Past Performance as, “Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.” Further, the Guardian Angel, Rescue Training RFP, dated February 3, 2017 (“last RITS”) Section L&M, 4.2.2 Relevancy table reflects the guidance from the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures. Would the Government consider replacing Table 4 – Past Performance Relevancy on page 64 and use Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, Procedures, Guidance and Information, Subpart 215.3 –Source Selection, dated March 31, 2016, Section 3.1.3.1.2, Page 27, Table 4 “Past Performance Relevance Rating Method”? This change would be consistent with DoD guidance, enhances competition allowing offerors a level playing field and could result in new and fresh ideas promoting innovation and efficiencies. | |
| RESPONSE: No. | ||||||
| 7 | Estimated Workload | PWS | Section 1.15.1.3. Table 1a. | 7 | Is the sequencing of the schedule phases set or is the government open to changing the sequence to promote both time and cost efficiencies? | |
| RESPONSE: Per PWS 1.15.1.3. "The Government reserves the right to adjust the phase timing and sequence within the established training schedule to meet prioritized training objectives." and PWS para 1.5.1.2. "The Government will also provide specific phase schedules for each individual 5- and 7-level class during the Pre-Phase Planning meeting." The contractor may suggest changes to the course flow which the Government may adopt if they are advantageous to the Government. | ||||||
| 8 | Cadavers | PWS | 1.18.2.2.1. | 9 | Does the government request cadavers in addition to mannequins for field training? Perfused cadavers? | |
| RESPONSE: Per PWS para 1.18.2.2.2. Cadavers may be used to support LTT scenarios if approved by the local COR. Contractors should thoroughly explain their plan for use of cadavers in their proposal. Perfused cadavers are not a Government requirement. | ||||||
| 9 | Schedule/Models | PWS | 1.18.2.2.1. | 9 | Will the government consider building block approach using integration of mannequin, role players, cadavers, perfused cadavers and live patient models instead of keeping separate blocks? | |
| RESPONSE: The Emergency Medical Operations Phase in PWS par 1.18.2 is a continuous phase that begins with classroom instruction (PWS para 1.18.2.2.) and progresses through table-top, field training and culminates with LTT and mass casualty exercises (PWS para 1.18.2.2.2.). The contractor will perform instruction throughout the phase, and therefore is responsible for the lesson plans in this phase (PWS para 1.15.1.4.). | ||||||
| 10 | Role Players | PWS | 1.18.2.2.1. | 9 | Does the government request role players for the field portion? If so, how many? | |
| RESPONSE: No. According to the referenced paragraph, the Government will furnish the patients. | ||||||
| 11 | Emergency Medical Operations | PWS | 1.18.2.2.2. | 9 | Does the government request National Continuing Education Hours be provided for each student during the Emergency Medical Operations (LTT) phase for their National Registry EMT/Paramedic certification? | |
| RESPONSE: Will update PWS section 1.18.2.1 to reflect students will receive 24 hours of continuing medical education training. | ||||||
| 12 | Number of Parachute Systems per Student | PWS | 1.18.3 | 10 | If the students are conducting (for example) 4 – 6 jumps in one day, how many parachute systems will each student be issued? | |
| RESPONSE: Students are issued one parachute system per jump. Parachutes should not require immediate repack prior to next jump (IE the government, in conjunction with contract packers, will plan to have enough parachutes packed/waiting for students to not wait for repack prior to next jump). Contractor parachute riggers (PWS para 1.18.3.4) will re-pack parachutes during the jump operations in the contractor-provided packing facility (PWS para 3.8.5.3). | ||||||
| 13 | Fixed Wing Insertion and Parachute Operations | PWS | 1.18.3.2. | 10 | First sentence states, “The Contractor shall facilitate….” The word facilitate leads us to believe we will just provide personnel and logistics, and not actually manage/lead this phase of training. Who is leading this phase of training, the Contractor or Government? | |
| RESPONSE: The Government will direct this phase of training. The contractor-provided lead parachute instructor will take direction from the Government phase lead to conduct oversight and additional instruction. The contractor's lead instructor will also manage the additional contractor-provided instructors. Per PWS para 1.18.3.2.1. The contractor will provide a lead instructor who shall provide oversight and subject matter expertise during training. Upon Government request, the Contractor shall perform lead and high jumper duties for the students during canopy flight. The contractor will perform instruction throughout the phase, and therefore is responsible for the lesson plans in this phase (PWS para 1.15.1.4.). | ||||||
| 14 | Parachute Training “upgrades” | PWS | 1.18.3.3. | 10 | States the Government will provide the SOI for NVG parachute upgrade, Double-Bag Static Line transition, BOC transition and RA-1 parachute transition. | |
| Will the entire class require the above-mentioned upgrades? Or just a select number of students? | ||||||
| RESPONSE: If the upgrade is required by any student in the class, all students will undergo the upgrade. If the entire class has already completed the transitions/upgrades, than no upgrade-specific training is required. | ||||||
| 15 | Jumpmaster Duties | PWS | 1.18.3.3. | 11 | Second to last sentence states, “Prior to jump operations the Government shall execute all jump insertion briefs, JMPIs, and verify/confirm all JM calculations.” | |
| Question: If government personnel are conducting JM duties, what (if any) JM duties is the contractor responsible for? | ||||||
| RESPONSE: If the contractor is a current and qualified jumpmaster, they will aid in executing normal jumpmaster duties throughout the course, with the exception of the jump insertion brief. The Government will always verify and confirm qualifications and currencies. | ||||||
| 16 | General Instruction (Technical Rescue) | PWS | 1.18.7.1. | 13 | Is the Government or the contractor responsible for acquiring and maintaining current permits with the National Forrest for use of the Mount Lemmon Training area? | |
| RESPONSE: The contractor. PWS para 1.18.7.1 updated to clarify this requirement. | ||||||
| 17 | Dive Training Location | PWS | 3.8.5.5 | 26 | States that the “government can make recommendations to the Contractor with regards to facilities with which we have existing use agreements”. Can the government identify those facilities? | |
| RESPONSE: As described in the Industry Day briefings and the Pre-proposal Conference briefings, the current dive locations are the University of Arizona pool in Tucson, Lake Pleasant and Lake Roosevelt. | ||||||
| 18 | Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) | PWS | Appendix B, Plans & Reports | 38-39 | The revised Performance Work Statement (PWS) was posted as a .pdf file; we were unable to access the CDRLs and DIDs provided on pages 38-39; can we assume the CDRL/DIDs from the previous Appendix B, which was a Word.doc version posted to FBO.gov on September 13, 2018, are the most up to date and valid for use in this effort? | |
| RESPONSE: PWS will be posted as a Word doc. | ||||||
| 19 | Logistics Manager | PWS | Appendix C | 40 | Work Experience Column states, “Experience with DoD transportation systems, cargo shipping and receiving, and aircraft cargo loading/unloading and tie-down restraint procedures. Experience Planning and scheduling ground and sea transportation requirements. Then in the Certifications Column it states, “Certification in Surface, Air and Sea Freight Movement; Certificate of Training in Traffic Management; HAZMAT and 1387-2 Certification.” These requirements and certs don’t seem to be relevant to the actual position duties and responsibilities. Can the Govt remove these requirements/certifications? | |
| RESPONSE: PWS revised to delete Certifications and revised required Work Experience. | ||||||
| 20 | Medical Director | PWS | Appendix C | 40 | The cost of having a PA is substantially cheaper than a D.O or M.D. Does the government have a preference? Essential to pricing. | |
| RESPONSE: The PWS states the Government's minimum requirements, and an M.D., D.O., or P.A. certification is acceptable for this position. Per RFP Section L, para 6.1, "The offeror shall provide a clear and concise description of how the offeror plans to meet or exceed the requirements of the RFP, specifically identifying any innovations or efficiencies that would result in cost reductions, cost avoidance, or qualitative improvements resulting in a benefit to the Government in relation to the PWS and the technical evaluation subfactors." | ||||||
| 21 | Parachute Rigger Certification | PWS | Appendix C | 41 | In the Parachute Rigger row, in the Certifications column, it refers to FM 53-3. What is FM 53-3? |
| RESPONSE: PWS Appendix C revised to remove reference to FM 53-3 | |||||
| 22 | Medical Instructors | PWS | Appendix C and 1.18.3.2.1.1.4. | 41 and 11 | Appendix C lists Work Experience and Certifications for the Medical Instructors. PWS section 1.18.3.2.1.1.4 states the Medical Instructor’s duties/responsibilities in supporting the phase medical training requirements for situational medical exercises. Additionally, there is a requirement for Medical Instructors (for situational medical exercises) for FW Insertion/Para Ops, SMUT, and Technical Rescue. |
| Do these Medical Instructors who are supporting situational medical exercises, require the same Work Experience and Certifications as the Medical Instructors definition in Appendix C? | |||||
| RESPONSE: Yes. | |||||
| 23 | GFE and supplies for Student use | PWS | Appendix E2.0 | 49 | The final RFP does not allow for access to the embedded files. In the Draft PWS issued on 13 September, the Excel file (on row 75) lists a “Rope Kit”. Can the Government identify the components of the “Rope Kit”? |
| RESPONSE: 1x 9-11mm rope (200 ft), 3x locking carabiners, 3x non-locking carabiners, 3x pulleys, anchoring device (bear paw), 4x prusiks (rope/progress capture), 30ft webbing, 1x brake device (ATC, Gri-Gri, etc.) | |||||
| 24 | PCL Requirements | Conference | Discussion | NA | We had discussion during the Pre-Proposal Conference about having the Site Manager (and Alternate) having a secret Personal Security Clearance (PCL) so that they might access government computers and site, is this still an initiative? |
| RESPONSE: The contractors will not require a Secret clearance to access the Government unclassified computers provided in PWS para 3.3.5. These individuals will require a Favorable Background Check per PWS para 1.21.3. | |||||
| 25 | PWS 1.6.2 | The government is requesting a Training and Certification Plan be provided as part of the proposal submission. Does the government have a specific template or format they would prefer for this deliverable? | |||
| RESPONSE: Per CDRL B002 the Plan will be in an electronic format compatible with Microsoft Office. Specific Plan contents may be in contractor format. | |||||
| 26 | PWS 1.19.2.2 | The PWS directs readers to "Para 3.7.6" for technical equipment requirements. The PWS does not include a section 3.7.6. Can the government confirm its intent? | |||
| RESPONSE: PWS will be updated to indicate correct reference as para 3.8.6. | |||||
| 27 | PWS 3.4 | The PWS states, "This listing [of equipment] is for the Contractor’s information only, and does not indicate that any of this equipment or supplies are for use by the Contractor." For those requirements where contractor personnel are required to engage in activities alongside students (e.g. parachute jumps), can we expect to have access to the same equipment, or should we provide pricing for commercial acquisition of comparable items? | |||
| RESPONSE: Per referenced paragraph "The Government shall provide the Contractor use of the equipment listed in Appendix E, para E1.0 during the Fixed Wing Insertion and Parachute Operations." Also in the same paragraph the PWS refers to Appendix E, para E2.0 and states "If Contractor personnel require similar equipment/supplies to perform the required tasks in these phases, it is the Contractor’s responsibility to furnish them." | |||||
| 28 | Appendix C | The PWS addresses levels of effort for certain personnel but not all. Would the government consider allowing candidates who have a commensurate amount of experience in additional, relevant fields? | |||
| RESPONSE: Appendix C does not indicate a "level of effort". This appendix specifies Government minimum work experience and certifications for the specified positions. Contractor employees proposed for these positions must meet the requirements as stated. | |||||
| 29 | Appendix C | The PWS outlines a requirement for 5-years of experience in supporting infantry or SOF scenarios. Would the government consider allowing candidates who have a commensurate amount of experience in additional, relevant fields? | |||
| RESPONSE: This appendix specifies Government minimum work experience and certifications for the specified positions. Contractor employees proposed for these positions must meet the requirements as stated. | |||||
| 30 | RFP | Does the government have a specific number of deliveries and iterations of modules it can confirm? | |||
| RESPONSE: The PWS states the Government's requirements. | |||||
| 31 | RFP | All vendors are required to have annual site visits to ensure conformance with LTT standards and protocols. Would the government consider requiring proof of a successful annual visit to help guarantee a high level of instruction for students? | |||
| RESPONSE: Offerors are required to use Government-approved LTT vendors per PWS para 1.18.2.3. | |||||
| 32 | RFP 7.2, 7.5G | The RFP states that "a maximum of six (6) references" be included in the PP volume, including 3 for the prime and the remaining 3 divided among any teammates. Is it the government's intent that "first time joint effort" apply to the prime's relationship with each subcontractor individually in a 1-1 correspondence, or, given more than 1 subcontractor, for the team as a whole? If there are more than three subcontractors, this could result in more than 6 past performance references being necessary. | |||
| RESPONSE: The offeror should submit sufficient past performance to facilitate the Government’s measure of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts. If the offeror has more than three sub-contractors critical to successful performance on their team, then past performance information on those sub-contractors should be provided. | |||||
| 33 | PWS 1.18.7 | The PWS includes requirements for the delivery of technical rescue instruction which may limit the student's scope of abilities to conduct successful operations. Would the government consider issuing additional requirements to ensure instruction meets current safety and equipment standards, to include: |
- SPRAT certification
- Power ascenders/catapults
- American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education instructor certification
- Demonstration of technical rescue expertise outside of AMGA/IFMGA certification
| RESPONSE: The Contractor shall provide technical rescue instruction IAW CFETP Atch 1, Section 6, Technical Rescue and Recovery Operations. | ||
| 34 | RFP – Page 37 of 69: 5.3 Proposal Format | “The font size requirements apply to charts e.g. organizational charts; however, these charges shall be no smaller than Microsoft Word, Times New Roman or Arial Narrow, 8 point font, and used only when absolutely necessary.” |
o Question: Can the government confirm that the phrase “used only when absolutely necessary” only applies to the use of 8 point font?”
| RESPONSE: The question mis-quotes the RFP. The correct quote is "The font size requirements do not apply to charts, e.g. Organizational Charts; however, these charts shall be no smaller than Microsoft Word, Times New Roman or Arial Narrow, 8 point font, and used only when absolutely necessary." Yes, use of font as small as 8 point should only be used when absolutely necessary. | ||
| 35 | RFP Amendment 2 – Page 6 of 26: 5.4 Electronic Proposals | “Electronic copies shall be submitted via AMRDEC Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE) (https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx) using searchable (not scanned) Adobe PDF Version XI or earlier, except for Volume III, price which shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format only.” |
o Question: If the government requires supporting data to explain pricing methodology and reasonableness, offerors may find it better to submit a pricing narrative in PDF format that addresses specific section L instructions. Would the government accept a PDF format pricing narrative to describe pricing along with an Excel Spreadsheet?
| AMIC | RESPONSE: Pricing data is required in Microsoft Excel format | ||
| 36 | RFP – 14 of 26: 8.5 Proposal Documentation | Considering that Volume III – Price is required to be submitted as an excel spreadsheet, it would be unconducive to have these documents in this volume unless a PDF format price narrative accompanied the spreadsheet. Could the government add a PDF format pricing narrative as a component of the pricing volume? | |
| AMIC | RESPONSE: Pricing data is required in Microsoft Excel format | ||
| 37 | RFP – Page 43 of 69: 7.5.C | “Provide a table of past performance contract reference and ensure each section is tabbed/labeled (to include each performance reference) for easy identification.” |
o Question: Can the government clarify their instructions?
Are offerors instructed to have a section that contains a table listing each past performance reference and their corresponding page number in the Past Performance Volume, or are offerors supposed to create a table for each Past Performance reference letters that is appropriately tabbed/labeled?
| RESPONSE: Offerors are to include a table listing each past performance reference and their corresponding page number in the Past Performance Volume. | ||
| 38 | RFP – Page 43 of 69: 7.5.D. Summary | “For each cited past performance reference, describe the nature or portion of work performed. Further, estimate the percentage of the total effort performed. Limit the summary to one page.” |
o Question: To meet this requirement, is the offeror required to provide a summary that meets the requirements and discusses the topics listed under 7.5.G.1?
o Question: If so, is only the summary limited to one page or the entire past performance reference?
| RESPONSE: For the summary of each cited past performance reference, describe the nature or portion of work performed. Further, estimate the percentage of the total effort performed. Limit the summary information to one (1) page. The full reference s will include the information in RFP Section L, para 7.5 E, F, and G as appropriate. | ||||
| 39 | RFP – Page 43 of 69: 7.5 PPI Contents | Would the government consider releasing an Attachment that presents the exact requirements for each Past Performance Contract Reference that will be included in the proposal? | ||
| RESPONSE: Para 7.5 outlines the requirements for each reference. | ||||
| 40 | RFP – Page 44 of 69: 7.5.H Organization Structure Change History | Is the prime offeror only supposed to respond to this requirement? | ||
| RESPONSE: No, this is required for all contractors in which past performance is submitted. | ||||
| 41 | RFP – Page 69 of 69: Attachment 8 – Conflict of Interest Statement | Can the government provide more instruction regarding the Conflict of Interest statements? For example, are offerors required to add signed statements from all teammates or subcontractors in to the technical volume? | ||
| RESPONSE: Attachment 8 deleted. | ||||
| 42 | Proposal Due Dates | RFP Section A, | ||
| SF 33 Block 9 & RFP L-7.1 | Would the Government grant a brief extension for due date/time of the Technical and Price Proposal volumes to allow for anticipated shipping delays during the Thanksgiving holiday? | |||
| RESPONSE: An extension will not be granted. | ||||
| 43 | CLINs | RFP Section B | Instructor ratios are dependent per phase and per additional person; therefore, for all CLINs ending in XXX3, the additional price per person is not a linear calculation. How does the Government anticipate the Offeror should represent this cost? | |
| RESPONSE: Contractor's should price this CLIN per student as instructed in the RFP and provide explanation of their approach to meet these requirements in Volume 1, Technical. | ||||
| 44 | Equipment transfer | RFP Section B | In CLINs ending in XXX6, “equipment transfer” is listed. Would the Government please specify exactly what is included in equipment transfer? Is this intended to refer to costs for transporting equipment, or is this intended to represent additional actions which would entail other expenses? | |
| RESPONSE: This CLIN is to reimburse contractors for costs associated with PWS para 3.8.3 Other Transportation. | ||||
| 45 | CLIN numbering structure | RFP Section B, & CLIN NTE List | The CLIN numbers in the NTE list differ from the CLIN numbers itemized in Section B. Is it correct to assume that the CLIN numbers in Section B are the correct ones? | |
| RESPONSE: CLIN NTE attachment has been updated | ||||
| 46 | Submission of Proposals | RFP L-4.0 | Will the ACC AMIC/PKB office at Joint Base Langley-Eustis be open on Friday November 23, with a Government representative on site to receive delivery of hard copy proposal submission? | |
| RESPONSE: Friday November 23, Joint Base Langley-Eustis will be closed. | ||||
| 47 | Hand-Delivered Proposals | RFP L-4.1 | How far in advance are Offerors required to notify the Government to schedule hand-delivered proposals? | |
| RESPONSE: Offerors must notify the Government 2 business days in advance to hand-deliver; Langley AFB access will not be facilitated by the contracting office. | ||||
| 48 | Method of Proposal Submission | RFP L-4.1, RFP L-5.4, & RFP L-5.5 | Section 4.1 provides a physical address for hand-delivery or mailed proposal packages, as well as email addresses for electronic proposals. Section 5.4 discusses electronic proposal submission via AMRDEC SAFE, and Section 5.5 details paper & CD ROM copies. Does the Government desire both electronic and hard copy proposals, or is the method of submission at the discretion of the Offeror [to submit proposals either electronically (per 5.4) or via hard copy (per 5.5)]? | |
| RESPONSE: Government requires a hard copy and electronic copy IAW para 5.5 | ||||
| 49 | Authorized Signatory | RFP L-4.3, 2nd bullet | Section 4.3 requires “evidence of agent’s authority” to accompany the signature of person authorized to sign the proposal. Would the Government specify further or provide an example of the “evidence” required? | |
| RESPONSE: A statement of position and authority held in the position. | ||||
| 50 | Executive Summaries | RFP L-5.3, RFP L-5.5, RFP L-5.7.1, RFP L-7.0, & RFP L-8.0 | Sections 5.3 and 5.7.1 requires a statement regarding exceptions and deviations in each proposal volume’s Executive Summary. However, Section 5.5 makes a note of an Executive Summary only for Volume I – Technical. Sections 7.0 and 8.0 – Instructions for Volumes II and III, respectively, do not make any reference to an Executive Summary as part of the requirement. Would the Government clarify if an Executive Summary is required only for Volume I – Technical Capability, or for all volumes? | |
| RESPONSE: Para 5.7.1 updated. Executive Summary required in Volume I only. | ||||
| 51 | Electronic Copies & Instructions for Volume III | RFP L-5.4, & RFP L-8.0 | This section of the RFP discusses the format for electronic submission, “except for Volume II, price which shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format only.” |
(1) Does the Government intend to provide a pricing template in Microsoft Excel format for submission of pricing elements for all CLINs listed in Section B, or should Offerors independently develop a formatted table(s) in Microsoft Excel for cost/pricing data?
(2) If the answer to the above question is ‘Yes’, is it correct to assume the Government expects and will accept the remaining elements of Volume III – Price Proposal (as listed in Section 8.0) in Microsoft Word format?
(3) Also, should the volume number reference here be Volume III rather than Volume II?
| RESPONSE: No, the government does not intend to provide a pricing template in Microsoft Excel format. Para 5.4 updated to reflect Volume III. | |||
| 52 | Proposal tabs | RFP L-6.2.A | This section states, “Each subfactor, aspect, and section will be clearly marked and tabbed for easy reference…” Does the Government desire/require paper copies of the volumes (Volume I, Technical in particular) to have tabs separating the multiple sub-sections under each aspect (there are 25 such sub-sections at the level of lower-case letters a. through d. under all Aspects of all Subfactors A through D within Factor 1). Physical separation of the proposal sections at this level would require several page breaks in both paper and electronic copies – is this the Government’s intent? Or would it be sufficient to have tabs/separation solely at the Subfactor level? |
| RESPONSE: Tabs shall be used to separate subfactors, and aspects within the subfactor. Sub-sections below the Aspect level do not require individual tabs. | |||
| 53 | Small Business Commitment | RFP L-6.2 Subfactor A Aspect 3 | In the Technical Contents, Subfactor A, Aspect 3 states, “Offeror shall complete a commitment document IAW template, Appendix 1 to Section L, demonstrating how the offeror intends to meet the 30% requirement.” However, Appendix 1 on Page 47 of the RFP is a sample Consent Form Letter and does not reference the commitment document. Does the Government plan to provide a commitment document separately (e.g., via posting to FBO.gov), or will the Government remove the requirement for Offerors to complete a small business commitment document? |
| RESPONSE: Section L, para 6.2D, Subfactor A, Aspect 3: the reference to Appendix 1 removed. Section L, para 7.5G2, Subcontractor Consent: the reference to Appendix 1 added. Section M, Evaluation Factors, para 3, Subfactor A, Aspect 3: the reference to Appendix 1 removed. | |||
| 54 | PPI Contents | RFP L-7.5 | Section 7.5.C requires “a table of past performance contract reference.” Is this “table” intended to include the contract information listed in Section 7.5.E? If not, would the Government please specify exactly what information Offerors should include in the table? |
| RESPONSE: The table should provide a quick reference to all the past performance references included in Volume II. Include information such as contract number, points of contact (Government and contractor), phone and/or e-mail, short description of effort, and tab where the reference is located. | |||
| 55 | Table of Past Performance | RFP L-7.5.C | This section calls for Offerors to “ensure each section is tabbed/labeled (to include each performance reference) for easy identification.” |
1) Is it correct to assume there should be one table per contract reference?
2) If so, does the Government desire to have a tabbed section for all tables together and then a separately tabbed section for all summary sheets? Or is it intended for each contract reference to have its own tab (with both the table and one-page summary following the tab)?
| RESPONSE: There should be one table for all contract references. Each reference should be tabbed. | |||
| 56 | Information required for teaming | RFP L-7.5.G | This section states, “Offeror and (if applicable) Subcontractor, Proposed Partner, and/or Proposed Joint Venture Partner – Past and Present Performance Contract References. If a teaming arrangement, partner arrangement, or joint venture is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any recent and relevant past performance information (as required) on previous partner arrangements with same partner.” |
Would the Government expound further and specify what is considered to be “…complete information as to the arrangement…”
| RESPONSE: Offerors should provide sufficient information to facilitate the Government's determination of the type of partnership or venture proposed. | |||
| 57 | Key Personnel/ Qualifications Additional Information | PWS Appendix C | Would the Government specify, or provide an example of, what is “Other Information Provided by the Offeror” (far right column in the Key Personnel/Qualifications table)? |
| RESPONSE: This space is provided for the offeror to add other amplifying information on their proposed key personnel. It is filled in at the offeror's discretion. | |||
| 58 | Air Boss |
work experience
| PWS Appendix C | Would the Government consider an individual with at least five years’ experience in air battle management? (Such an individual likely would have broader experience regarding the complete air order of battle and aviation assets than a JTAC). | |||
| RESPONSE: Appendix C specifies Government minimum work experience and certifications for the specified positions. Contractor employees proposed for these positions must meet the requirements as stated. | ||||
| 59 | GFE & Equipment Lists | PWS Appendix E | We are unable to open the two (2) Excel spreadsheets embedded within PWS Appendix E. Would the Government provide these files in their native/MS Excel format (either via posting to FBO.gov, or via email attachment)? | |
| RESPONSE: PWS posted in Microsoft Word version | ||||
| 60 | Appendix C Key Personnel/Qualifications | Lead Parachute Instructor Experience; “Has performed duties a SMU Closed Course Director and/or a USSOCOM Course Director/Lead Instructor…..Minimum of 500 verifiable Military Freefall jumps on RA-1 parachute system used by USAF and USASOC.” Question: There is a very limited pool of former SOCOM course directors in the MFF community. There probably are not any with over 500 jumps using an RA-1. First, because the parachute is too new, and second, most instructors jump a non-standard smaller canopy. The manufacturer, Airborne Systems was the original certifying authority for the RA-1 NET instructors. In fact, Airborne Systems certified Army NET teams so they, in turn, could certify instructors and transition jumpers to the RA-1. Given this experience and expertise in the field, Airborne Systems does not believe it is credible for anyone certified to have 500 jumps on the RA-1 yet. | ||
| RESPONSE: PWS Appendix C revised to remove requirement for 500 RA-1 jumps, and add requirement for a minimum of two years of training with and teaching the jumpmaster function of ATAK (or equivalent digital interface system). |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .