QA_GA_RITS_RFP_Questions_1_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 a sources sought notice and draft performance work statement for Rescue Instructional and Training Services. The Air Force is seeking input from industry to determine if this acquisition should be conducted as full and open competition or set aside for small businesses. The applicable NAICS code is 611512 for flight training with a size standard of $27.5 million. Potential offerors are requested to complete attached market research and small business capability questions by the response dates. The draft performance work statement outlines requirements for contractor-provided personnel, aircraft, equipment and facilities to conduct PJ 5-level and 7-level upgrade training at the 68th Rescue Squadron, including classroom support, medical instruction, parachute operations, water survival, and other specialized training events. Acquisition milestones will be presented at an upcoming industry day with posting timelines on FedBizOpps. Feedback is welcome but requested to be submitted by the dates specified using the identified email subject line format. This information request is solely for market research and will not be used for later proposal evaluation.
Responses to questions received
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 | Past Performance | Draft RITS RFP | L.7.2 | 8/33 | Section L states "Past performance will be evaluated by examining a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) references determined by the Government to be the most recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code 611512, Flight Training." |
Q - Is it the Government's intent that only past performance references with a NAICS of 611512 will meet the above stated relevancy requirements?
| RESPONSE: No, Relevancy for past performance will be determined in accordance with Section M, Table 4, page 28/29 of 33. The NAICS code of the referenced contract is not considered in the determination of relevancy. | |||||
| 2 | Past Performance | Draft RITS RFP | L.7.3 | ||
| M.C.1.a | 8/33 | ||||
| 28/33 | L.7.3 Past Performance Recency. Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. References for contracts with less than 12 months of performance will not be considered. |
M.C.1.a. Recency for this solicitation is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Current performance will have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than older performance. Further, references for contracts with less than one (1) year performance will not be considered.
Q - The 1 year performance requirement eliminates the use of recent and relevant episodic exercise support where the period of performance for individual exercises contracted is less than one year. Would the Government consider removing the 12 months / 1 year performance requirement to ensure the most relevant past performance is evaluated?
| RESPONSE: The past performance has been updated in RFP, Section L to reflect 6 months. | |||||
| 3 | Past Performance | Draft RITS RFP | L.7.2 | 8/33 | 7.2 Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract References. Offerors may provide information for a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) references; three (3) of the references provided should be on the offeror (prime), if available. The remaining three (3) references may be provided for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners considered critical to successful performance of the requirement. |
Q - Can the Government please clarify "if available", will an offeror be considered non-compliant if the prime has less than 3 past performance references? Is there a 3 reference maximum out of the total six references for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners?
RESPONSE: The use of "may", "should", and "if available" in this section allows the Government to assess less than three (3) references for a prime offeror if necessary. For example, to permit/encourage contractors with no PPI (absolutely none, as in they are less than 1 year old or have only worked on efforts that do not require CPARS) to submit offers. If an offeror has multiple sub-contractors critical to performance, the Government may assess more than three (3) references for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners.
4 Past Performance Draft RITS RFP L.7.2 8/33 7.2 Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract References. If the PPI reference is an overarching Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) or Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), the Government will only assess performance at the ID/IQ level and not performance on each individual underlying task/delivery order. If offerors would like assessment of an individual task/call/delivery/purchase order, the offeror shall submit that as a separate PPI reference. PPI Reference inputs will be treated as source selection information IAW FAR Part 2.101 and 3.104.
Q - Is it the Government's intent that offerors may choose whether to submit IDIQs for evaluation of past performance at either the IDIQ level or individual task order level? Is this statement prohibitive of submitting at both levels (evaluation of overall IDIQ & Task Orders independently)?
| RESPONSE: Yes, offerors may choose whether to submit IDIQs for evaluation of past performance at either the IDIQ level or individual task order level. Offerors should consider how well the reference meets the recency and relevancy criteria in Section M, Factor 2, page 28/33 in determining how to categorize the past performance. References must meet both recency and relevancy criteria to be considered as part of the overall Performance Confidence Assessment. References that are not recent and relevant will not be considered. | ||||
| 5 | Draft RITS RFP | Section L, para 8.4 | Why is supporting price backup data required when Price Competition is highly anticipated? | |
| RESPONSE: Supporting data is requested to verify that pricing is balanced per FAR 15.404-1(g). Supporting data should explain the methodology used in developing proposed CLIN prices. | ||||
| 6 | Draft RITS RFP | Section L, Technical Subfactors, Subfactor A – Program Management. Aspect 1.d. | Quality Management is mentioned in the PWS para 1.6.1. Management Plan. It states the contractor shall develop a Management Plan that integrates the contractor’s Quality Management System (QMS), but it does not discuss the details of the QMS.) Will the Government add the requirement to the PWS based on the QASP? | |
| RESPONSE: The QMS is the contractor's own processes and procedures to perform internal Quality Control. The details of the QMS to be included in the Management Plan are in PWS Appendix B, CDRL B001. Your QMS should cover all of the services listed in the Services Summary, PWS Section 2. The QASP is the Government's plan to surveil the contractor. | ||||
| 7 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.2 | pg 9 | What is the Government’s definition of “Medical Rescue”? |
| RESPONSE: PWS revised to remove term "Medical Rescue" | ||||
| 8 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.4 | pg 1 | Are there pre-existing classrooms currently being utilized? Are these facilities/classrooms satisfactory? |
| RESPONSE: Yes, there are contractor-furnished locations that are currently being used for training. They are described in the Industry Day briefing posted on FBO on 28 Jun 18; and are included in the Pre-proposal Conference briefing which will be posted on FBO after the conference as well. See PWS para 1.18 and 3.7.5 for current requirements. | ||||
| 9 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.2.1 | pg 9 | Are there pre-identified and currently used field locales for training? Are these locations satisfactory? |
| RESPONSE: Yes, there are contractor-furnished locations that are currently being used for training. They are described in the Industry Day briefing posted on FBO on 28 Jun 18; and are included in the Pre-proposal Conference briefing which will be posted on FBO after the conference as well. | ||||
| 10 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.2.1 | What is the Government’s definition of a Medical Director? What is this position’s role requirements? | |
| RESPONSE: See PWS para 1.18.2.1. for duties, Appendix C for qualifications. | ||||
| 11 | No ref | Can students conduct clinical practice applications on one another? | ||
| RESPONSE: Yes. | ||||
| 12 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.2.2.1 | pg 9 | Patients are “Government furnished”, can Government more clearly define what this means? |
| RESPONSE: The Government will provide personnel and/or manikins for use during the mass casualty medical exercises. The contractor is not required to supply the patients used in the exercise. | ||||
| 13 | No ref | Will Government confirm it is responsible for medical waste? (Refuse is covered in Section 3 (PMR) but not medical waste and standards) | ||
| RESPONSE: No. PWS para 1.18.2.1. revised to state contractor responsibility. | ||||
| 14 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.3.2.1 | pg 10 | Contractor supplied medical coverage for land MFF training is not specified. What is the specific requirement? |
| RESPONSE: The Government will provide any emergency medical services required during training. | ||||
| 15 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.3.4.1 | pg 12 | The water jump day specifies a requirement for medic coverage but, will AF regulations require a rescue diver or swimmer? |
| RESPONSE: PWS Revised to remove DZ Medic requirements, AF provides rescue swimmer. | ||||
| 16 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.3.2.1 | pg 10 | 2 x medical instructors for minimum of one day – when will the length of time required for that requirement be established? |
| RESPONSE: PWS states the minimum. Length of time will be determined post award based on class schedule. | ||||
| 17 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.4.1 | pg 12 | Maritime and Dive Recovery. Medical coverage and number of days required is not specified. What is the specific requirement? |
| RESPONSE: No medical coverage required. Contractor is responsible for the requirements as outlined in the PWS. | ||||
| 18 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.5.1 | pg 12 | Combat Marksmanship. Medical coverage and number of days required is not specified. What is the specific requirement? |
| RESPONSE: No medical coverage required. Contractor is responsible for the requirements as outlined in the PWS. | ||||
| 19 | No ref | Small Unit Tactics. Is medical coverage required for live fire operations? | ||
| RESPONSE: No medical coverage required. Contractor is responsible for the requirements as outlined in the PWS. | ||||
| 20 | No ref | Small Unit Tactics. What is the number of medics required and the duration? | ||
| RESPONSE: No requirement. | ||||
| 21 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.6.1 | pg 13 | 3 x medical instructors for minimum of one day – when will the duration of this requirement be stated? |
| RESPONSE: PWS states the minimum. Length of time will be determined post award based on class schedule. | ||||
| 22 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.7 | pg 13, | Technical Rescue. 2 x medical instructors for minimum of two days – when will the length of this |
requirement be established?
| RESPONSE: PWS states the minimum. Length of time will be determined post award based on class schedule. | ||||
| 23 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.8.1 | pg 13 | Rotary Wing Operations (Static). The assumption is that contracted medical support is not applicable/required in this phase. Is this a valid assumption? |
| RESPONSE: Yes valid assumption. No contracted medical support is applicable/required in this phase. | ||||
| 24 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.9.1 | pg 13 | Rotary Wing Operations (Airborne). Is there a contractor supplied medical coverage requirement in this phase? |
| RESPONSE: No medical coverage required. Contractor is responsible for the requirements as outlined in the PWS. | ||||
| 25 | No ref | If medics are required, how many, what is the duration, and when will this requirement be established? | ||
| RESPONSE: No medical coverage required. Contractor is responsible for the requirements as outlined in the PWS. | ||||
| 26 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.10.1 | pg 14 | SERE. Is there a contractor supplied medical coverage requirement for the scope and extent of SERE training in this phase? |
| RESPONSE: No medical coverage required. Contractor is responsible for the requirements as outlined in the PWS. | ||||
| 27 | No ref | If medics are required, how many, what is the duration, and when will this requirement be established? | ||
| RESPONSE: No medical coverage required. Contractor is responsible for the requirements as outlined in the PWS. | ||||
| 28 | No ref | What are the DoD/AF regulations for medical coverage of SERE training? Psych? | ||
| RESPONSE: No SERE psychologist required. | ||||
| 29 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.11.1 | pg 14 | Mounted Operations. Is there a contractor supplied medical coverage requirement in this phase? |
| RESPONSE: No medical coverage required. Contractor is responsible for the requirements as outlined in the PWS. | ||||
| 30 | No ref | If medics are required, how many, what is the duration, and when will this requirement be established? | ||
| RESPONSE: No medical coverage required. Contractor is responsible for the requirements as outlined in the PWS. | ||||
| 31 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.19.4.1 | pg 16 | Currently, there is no stated medical requirement in the Maritime Full Mission Profiles, is this correct and/or is this anticipated to change? |
| RESPONSE: No medical coverage required. Contractor is responsible for the requirements as outlined in the PWS. | ||||
| 32 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.6.2 | pg 3 | Training and Certification Plan requirements – Is there a specified format the Government requires? |
| RESPONSE: Per CDRL B002 the Plan will be in an electronic format compatible with Microsoft Office. Specific Plan contents may be in contractor format. | ||||
| 33 | No ref | Will Government assume Medical Director/supervisor legalities for contractor medical coverage or training? | ||
| RESPONSE: If in reference to medical oversight; the USG will NOT assume legalities. | ||||
| 34 | No ref | Request the MFR Approved LTT Vendor listings; could not access/open on FedBizOps (FBO) listing or from the draft PWS. | ||
| RESPONSE: The USAF memorandum for record on approved LTT vendors will be posted as an individual document on FBO. | ||||
| 35 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.2.1 | Can Government provide a copy (digital or hard copy) of CFETP Section 7 or location to receive a copy of the document, Emergency Medical Operations? | |
| RESPONSE: The CFETP, in its entirety, is posted on FBO, see 15 May 18 posted documents. PWS dated has been revised to indicate CFETP reference is "Atch 1, Section 7" | ||||
| 36 | No ref | Can Government provide a current copy of approved IACUC (this is LTT) protocols for this unit? | ||
| RESPONSE: No, the IACUC protocols are specific to the approved vendors listed in Appendix E. Contact the approved vendor for their IACUC protocols | ||||
| 37 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.2.2 | What are the USAF and local AFB regulations for range coverage? | |
| RESPONSE: Reference AFI 36-2654 as applicable | ||||
| 38 | No ref | What is the request process and time frames for Government participation in LTT? | ||
| RESPONSE: LTT requirements are discussed in PWS para 1.18.2.2.2. | ||||
| 39 | No ref | Is the contractor involved in this request process other than at the 60-day notification? | ||
| RESPONSE: Contractor is responsible for LTT process IAW PWS. | ||||
| 40 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.10.1 | There appear to be several variations of AFI 33-322 publicly available. Will the government please clarify if AFI 33-322 Davis Monthan Air Force Base Supplement, dated 13 November 2017, is the correct reference document? Also, will the Government please clarify which paragraphs are applicable, as a Paragraph 10 does not exist in this document? | |
| RESPONSE: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/ maintains all current AFIs. Paragraph references have been removed from PWS and it is the contractor's responsibility to be familiar with the requirement and to determine applicability. | ||||
| 41 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.10.1 | Will the government please clarify if AFI 33-364 AFGM2018-01, dated 23 May 2018, is the correct reference document for “AFMAN 33-364” above (Instruction instead of Manual)? AFMAN 33-364 does not exist on the http://www.e-publishing.af.mil site. Additionally, will the Government please clarify which sections of this document are directly applicable to the contract? | |
| RESPONSE: Refer to AFI33-364 (AFGM2018-01) as applicable | ||||
| 42 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.10.3 | DoD 5400.7-R appears to have been incorporated into and canceled by DoD Manual 5400.07, dated 25 January 2017. Will the Government please clarify if this is accurate and which Chapter/Sections are now applicable? | |
| RESPONSE: Please see appendix D Para D1.2, contractor is responsible for updates to manuals, regulations, AFIs, etc as applicable. DoD Manual 5400.07 dated 25 Jan 17 is the current version. | ||||
| 43 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.10.3 | AFI 33-129, dated 4 April 2001, contains the paragraphs (7.4, 8.2.3, 16 and 17); this appears to have been superseded by AFI 33-129, dated 3 February 2005, which does not contain those paragraphs. Regardless, AFI 33-129, dated 3 February 2005, looks to have been superseded by AFI33-115, dated 16 September 2014. Will the Government please clarify the documentation to be used in the administration of this PWS section? | |
| RESPONSE: Please see appendix D Para D1.2, contractor is responsible for updates to manuals, regulations, AFIs, etc as applicable. | ||||
| 44 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.10.3 | AFI33-201 Volume 2 appears to be an FOUO document regarding COMSEC programs. Will the Government clarify the extent to which the contractor will need COMSEC materials? Will an account with NSA be needed? Will the Government make this document available? | |
| RESPONSE: Contractor will not be required to handle any COMSEC | ||||
| 45 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.3.2 | Will the Government please specify for the sake of evaluation the number of blade hours and the number of daily jumps? The ranges provided [30-50 blade hours and 3-5 jumps have a significant impact on pricing] Or will the Government consider alternate pricing CLINS that allow for the variation, i.e. a CLIN for 8 students, a second CLIN for 16 students, and third CLIN for 24 students? This CLIN structure is also more compatible with 1.18.3.2.1 MIR student to instructor ratio. It also assists with 1.18.3.4 rigger support ratio. | |
| RESPONSE: The PWS will be revised to specify class size and flight hours. The CLIN structure will also be revised | ||||
| 46 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.3.2.2 | Will the Government please provide the following documents (they are not publicly available): a. AFI 11-410, Personnel Parachute Operations; b. AFMAN 11-420, Static line Parachuting Techniques and Training; c. AFMAN 11-411, Special Forces Military Free-fall Operations; d. TC 18-11, Special Forces Military Free-fall and Double-bag Static Line Operations | |
| RESPONSE: Please see PWS Appendix D para D1.1 | ||||
| 47 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.18.3.4.1 | Will the Government please specify an exact number of boats and boat drivers required? “At least one” leaves it open to interpretation and varies the cost significantly. Specifying an exact number for evaluation purposes is preferable. | |
| RESPONSE: The PWS specifies the minimum requirements for support. 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. | ||||
| 48 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.20.3.1 | Will the Government please clarify what, if any, part of this contract will be classified and under the directives of the security manuals identified in this section? | |
| RESPONSE: The contract is not classified | ||||
| 49 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.20.4 | Will the Government please clarify what, if any, part of this contract will be classified and require access to JPAS? A contractor cannot have access to JPAS without a classified contract and corresponding DD254. A contractor cannot process personnel clearances, nor visit requests, in JPAS without access to the system. If the contract is to be unclassified, what alternate method will be needed to provide Visit Requests to the Government? | |
| RESPONSE: The contract is not classified. | ||||
| 50 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.22.1 | Will the Government please clarify if AFI10-701 AFGM2018-01, dated 30 July 2018, is the correct document to reference for this requirement? If not, can the government identify which supplement is applicable? | |
| RESPONSE: Please see PWS Appendix D para D1.1 | ||||
| 51 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 3.3.3 | If space is not available but required, is there an alternative? How many days of notice is required to request the use of these drying towers? | |
| RESPONSE: Contractor will provide the alternative IAW PWS para 3.7.5.3.1. Contractor will be notified of availability during the course preparation phase. | ||||
| 52 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 3.3.4 | If space is not available but required, is there an alternative? How many days of notice is required to request the range? | |
| RESPONSE: Contractor will provide the alternative IAW PWS para 3.7.5.4. Contractor will be notified of availability during the course preparation phase. | ||||
| 53 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 3.6.2 | Web research suggests AFI 33-111 is now called “Voice Systems Management,” dated 24 March 2005; however, the document itself is unavailable. Will the Government please clarify which AFI is correct and how the Contractor may obtain a copy? | |
| RESPONSE: Please see PWS Appendix D para D1.1 and D1.2. | ||||
| 54 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | GSE List | What commercial type of moulage kits are these noted on the GSE list? | |
| RESPONSE: Kits are comprised of multiple commercially procured items and are provided by the government for student training. | ||||
| 55 | No ref | Are all of the GSE medical equipment calibrated and maintenance routinely by the government? Can this schedule be coordinated off of the course schedule for fuller inventory? | ||
| RESPONSE: All government supplied equipment is maintained and calibrated by the government. | ||||
| 56 | No ref | Is there, and how much or the GSE supplied medical equipment list can be used with LTT? Or is that supplied by the LTT contractor/Prime Vendor? | ||
| RESPONSE: Per PWS para 1.18.2.4 the Government will provide students with all required medical training equipment and resupply in-conjunction with the requirements stipulated by the phase lesson plan. | ||||
| 57 | No ref | Why has the government specified Arizona state licensure for the Veterinarian? Per Arizona Law Chapter 21, Article 2, subsection 32-2211, individuals practicing on animals owned by their employer are not required to be licensed in Arizona. Given that the animals would be the legal property of the contractor and the veterinarian is employed by the contractor. | ||
| RESPONSE: PWS will be revised to remove State licensure requirement for Veterinarian. | ||||
| 58 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | para 1.9 | Will the Government provide a listing of the contractors with whom the RITS Prime contractor is to develop Associate Contractors Agreements? | |
| RESPONSE: Para 1.9 will be removed from PWS. | ||||
| 59 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | Appendix B | Appendix B requires submission of several plans with the proposal. We read the requirement as placing the plans within Volume I, Technical. Would the Government accept the plans included as appendices to the volume, for easier removal in the future for inclusion in the contract? | |
| RESPONSE: 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. The offeror is responsible to determine if the organization of their proposal will facilitate the evaluation and is in a form consistent with the Technical Criteria set forth in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. However, if used, these appendices must be included in the page count. | ||||
| 60 | RFP L-1.4,RFP L-5.2 | Paragraph 1.4 instructs offerors to include signed/dated Page 1 of each Standard Form (SF) 30 in Volume II, Price. However, subsequent sections indicate Volume II is Past Performance and Volume III is Price. Would the Government please clarify the appropriate volume numbers and corresponding titles? | ||
| RESPONSE: Please include in Volume III, Price. Para 1.4 should read "...and include it in Volume III, Price, of the proposal." | ||||
| 61 | RFP 4.3 | Where/how does the Government prefer Offerors to submit name(s) and contact information of person(s) authorized to negotiate and sign? In the form of a Cover Letter to accompany the hard copy proposal submission? Or would it suffice to have these details listed on the cover page of each volume, along with the signed SF 30 and SF 33? | ||
| RESPONSE: A cover letter is sufficient with the proposal. | ||||
| 62 | RFP L-5.3, RFP L-5.5.1 | In paragraph 5.3 “Proposal Format,” subset paragraph “Pages Not Included in Page Count,” the RFP refers to multiple executive summaries (“…exceptions will be documented in each volumes executive summary…”). However, in paragraph 5.5 “Copies and Page Limits,” Note 1 implies only one Executive Summary – to be included in Volume I, Technical. Would the Government clarify how many Executive Summaries are required, and in which volume(s)? | ||
| RESPONSE: There is only one (1) Executive Summary required and it shall be included in Volume I, Technical | ||||
| 63 | RFP L-5.4, RFP L-5.5 | Paragraph 5.4 “Electronic Copies” states, “All three volumes may be included on the same CD-ROM.” Subsequently, the table in Paragraph 5.5 “Copies and Page Limits” indicates one (1) CD ROM for each volume. Would the Government clarify if the electronic copies are desired/required on one consolidated CD ROM vs. individual CD ROMs (e.g., one for each volume), or is this at the discretion of the Offeror? | ||
| RESPONSE: Offeror discretion | ||||
| 64 | RFP L-5.5 | Given that neither the pricing spreadsheet nor portions of the RFP outlining the terms and conditions (e.g., Sections I, J, K) have been issued with the Draft RFP for Offerors to review, will the Government still afford a 6-week period for proposal preparation upon release of the Final RFP? | ||
| RESPONSE: No. The deadline for proposal submission will be 30 days after final RFP release. | ||||
| 65 | RFP L-6.1, RFP L-6.2. | Subfactor A, Aspect 3b. The last sentence of Section 6.1 states, “The Technical Volume … shall not contain any pricing data.” Section 6.2 “Technical Contents” requires all Other than Small Business offerors to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and implies that this plan will be included in Volume I Technical Capability. However, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan may contain cost/price information, so how would the Government prefer Offerors to deliver this plan as part of the proposal without including it in Volume I, Technical? | ||
| RESPONSE: Small Business Subcontracting Plan should not contain cost/price information as it pertains to the offeror's pricing approach. Include the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in Volume I, Technical | ||||
| 66 | 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 page breaks in both paper and electronic copies – is this the Government’s intent? Or would tabbing/separation of each Subfactor suffice? | ||
| RESPONSE: The tabs are to facilitate the evaluation of your proposal and specific marking and tabbing is left to the offeror’s judgement. | ||||
| 67 | RFP L-6.2.D | Is it the Government’s intent for each volume to have a Cross-Reference Matrix, or is this requirement applicable only for Volume I, Technical? | ||
| RESPONSE: The cross-reference matrix is applicable to the Technical Factor only as stated in referenced paragraph and Appendix 3. | ||||
| 68 | RFP L-6.2.B, RFP L-7.5.B | Would the Government accept a consolidated glossary to be used for all volumes, or does the Government want a separate glossary for each volume? | ||
| RESPONSE: As stated in referenced RFP Section L, paragraph 6.2B: “Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used, and with an explanation for each.” | ||||
| 69 | RFP L-7.2, RFP L-7.5.G | Paragraph 7.2 “Past Performance Information (PPI) Contract References” levies a maximum of six (6) PP references for relevant efforts [three (3) maximum for the Prime, and up to three (3) total for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or JV partners “critical to the success” of the effort]. |
Paragraph 7.5 “PPI Contents” G omits the “critical to success” requirement, broadening the requirement to all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or JV partners), and does not define a limit to the number of references if the Offeror and partner(s) have/had a relationship on other relevant contracts. This paragraph also states if this proposal is the first effort where the offeror and partner(s) have worked together, the offeror and each partner (again, not each “critical to success” partner) must submit no more than three (3) PP references.
Would the Government please clarify: does Paragraph 7.2 prevail, where all partner references must only be for “critical to success” partners? And is the total number of past performance references limited to six (6), regardless of whether or not the offeror and proposed partners have worked together previously?
RESPONSE: The use of "may", "should", and "if available" in this section allows the Government to assess less than three (3) references for a prime offeror if necessary. For example, to permit/encourage contractors with no PPI (absolutely none, as in they are less than 1 year old or have only worked on efforts that do not require CPARS) to submit offers. If an offeror has multiple sub-contractors critical to performance, the Government may assess more than three (3) references for subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners
| 70 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | 1.15.1.3 5 | Should contractors assume that 7-level classes would have eight (8) to twenty-four (24) students like 5-level classes? |
| RESPONSE: No, 7-level classes will be 12 students. 5 and 7 Level class size will be provided as part of the RFP | |||
| 71 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | 1.18.3.2 | Can the government confirm that daily jump operations are administered to 3 to 5 students daily with a minimum of 1 to maximum of 6 jumps per student? |
| RESPONSE: PWS will be revised to clarify 3 to 5 jumps per student per day with a minimum of 1 jump to a maximum of 6 jumps per student per day. | |||
| 72 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | 1.18.3.4 | If 3 to 5 students are required to complete jumps daily, will 1 qualified parachute rigger fulfill the minimum of 1 qualified rigger per 3 jumpers if 5 students are set to jump on one day? |
| RESPONSE: No. PWS para 1.18.3.4. states "The Contractor shall provide a minimum of one (1) qualified parachute rigger per three (3) jumpers." To meet this requirement for 5 jumpers, 2 riggers are required. | |||
| 73 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | 3.7.1.1.2 | As done in requirement 3.7.1.2.2.a, can the government explicitly list the positons and quantities per position required to meet aircrew personnel requirement. |
| RESPONSE: No. The fixed wing aircrew requirement will be determined by the FAA minimum crew requirements for the specific aircraft proposed by the offeror. The helicopter crews will be as described in the PWS even if the FAA requirement for that particular aircraft is a smaller crew. | |||
| 74 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | 1.6.2 | Can the government define the acronym TSME? |
| RESPONSE: "TSME" has been replaced with "local COR" in PWS. | |||
| 75 | Draft RFP: Section L and M; Subfactor B: Instruction | Can the government explicitly state which aspects of 7-level courses are contractors required to address for evaluation purposes? | |
| RESPONSE: The requirements for 7-level course support are specified in PWS para 1.19. There is no requirement for contractor instruction in the 7-level support, therefore Subfactor B, Instruction, is not applicable. | |||
| 76 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | 3.5.7.1 | “The Contractor shall provide gym access suitable for at least 24 students throughout the duration of the class.” |
o Question: Can the government clarify whether gym access is required for an entire 5-level training course or one specific phase/course (i.e. 5 days for Survival, Evasion, Resist, Escape phase)?
| RESPONSE: Gym access is required for all phases in the 5-level course. See PWS Appendix A definition of class : "A class is defined as a complete iteration of all training phases for a set number of students." And also the definition of course: "A course is defined as all the past, current, and future classes. Courses are divided into “5-level” and “7-level” specific training." | |||
| 77 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | Appendix C | Lead Parachuting Instructor – “Minimum 500 verifiable Military Freefall jumps on the current military approved parachute system by the USAF and USASOC.” |
o Question: Because of a lack of the industry’s lack of operational experience using the RA-1 parachute, will the government accept MC-4 Ram Air Parachute Systems to meet the 500 jump minimum requirement?
| RESPONSE: The MC-4 parachute system is not a suitable substitute for RA-1 parachute experience. Lead Instructor must meet work experience and certifications in PWS Appendix C. | |||
| 78 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | PWS para 1.5.2 | This section defines the Site Manager duties/responsibilities. In three other sections (Appendix A, Definitions, Abbreviations and Acronyms, Page 33, “Program Manager”, the description is the same as that described in Section 1.5.2 for the Contractor Site Manager. Note: The Site Manager is not defined. Question: Can we assume Contractor Site Manager and the “defined” Program Manager are the same position/person? |
| RESPONSE: The site manager is a local (at the place of performance) position with duties and responsibilities identified in several parts of the PWS: Para 1.5.2.; 1.5.3.; 1.5.4.; 1.18.12.; 4.8.; and 4.9.. Hiring qualifications are in Appendix C. Definition of Site Manager will be added to PWS Appendix A. This position is a contract requirement. The Program Manager is defined as a corporate-level position in Appendix A that is at the contractor’s discretion. Duties and responsibilities are found in PWS para 1.11.1.3. and 4.9. The contractor may designate the Site Manager as the Program Manager in their Management Plan at their discretion. | |||
| 79 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | PWS 1.18.6.1. | Second sentence states, “The Contractor shall only provide logistics support for this phase.” Then goes on to state that the Contractor will provide personnel support. It mentions nothing about any “logistics” support, or anything else the Contractor needs to provide for this phase. The Fifth sentence states, “See paragraph 1.18.3.2.1” for expanded description of these positions.” Question: Are there any specific logistics requirements for this phase? and can we assume the “1.18.3.2.1.” is a typo and the paragraphs of interest that provide expanded descriptions are actually 1.18.3.2.1.1. (White Cell Coordinators) through 1.18.3.2.1.4. (Medical Instructors)? |
| RESPONSE: The logistics required for the Small Unit Tactics phase is only the contractor-furnished lodging for students. This support will be detailed in the contractor’s Logistics Plan, see PWS para 1.15.1.5 and CDRL B006. The reference to PWS para 1.18.3.2.1. is intended to include all sub-paragraphs. | |||
| 80 | DRAFT PWS 4 Sep 18 | Appendix C | In Appendix C, 3rd Row, Medical Director, it states, “Required: Minimum of ten (10) years’ experience since 2001, working with and/or training USSOCOM Forces OR experience working in a level one trauma center as a M.D., D.O., or P.A.” Question: If a former Special Operations Forces Medic (18D) meets the ten (10) year requirement and is current is all aspects, but doesn’t have the “Certification” as suggested is required in the same table, e.g., M.D., D.O. or P.A., can he still be appointed the Medical Director? |
| RESPONSE: No, the Medical Director must meet both work experience and certifications as listed in APPENDIX C. | |||
| 81 | Will the Attendees List also be posted together with the slides or is that something I can request through you? | ||
| RESPONSE: No, the attendees list will not be posted or provided. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .