H9223923R0005 Amend 2 JSOMTC Q and A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- H9223923R0005
- Issued by
-
United States Special Operations Command
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding Solicitation Number H9223923R0005 for Medical Instructor and Medical Instruction Writer Support services. The solicitation, issued by the United States Special Operations Command, seeks proposals to provide medical instructors, technical writers, and training developers to support medical training programs at the Joint Special Operations Medical Training Center. Key details include that offerors must propose at least 52 full-time equivalents consisting of 49 SOF Medical Instructors, 3 Advanced Medical Instructors, a Contract Manager, and a Senior Instructor Manager. The period of performance is one base year with four optional one-year periods. Offerors must demonstrate experience providing similar medical training support and submit details of relevant past performance along with resumes and letters of commitment for the proposed Contract Manager and Senior Instructor Manager.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| H9223923R0005 Industry Questions & Answers | |||||
| Question # | Reference | Description/Comment | Question | Answer | |
| 1 | RFP, Section C, PWS, 1.6.11.2.2, pg. 32 | Senior Instructor Manager:….......The SIM shall be one of the "working" contract instructors and will require the same credentials as listed for the SOF Medical Instructor/Technical Writer/Training Developer in PWS Section 1.6.8.2.2. | Please clarify this statement. PWS section 1.6.8.2.2 refers to "Advanced Medical Instructor-1 (AMI-1) Personnel", whereas "SOF Medical Instructor/Technical Writer/Training Developer" is PWS section 1.6.8.2.4. Please clarify which credential (AMI-1 or SOF Med Instructor) does the SIM need to have? | See revised PWS paragraph 1.6.11.2.2. The SIM requires the same qualifications as the SOF-P. A SOF-P is the "SOF Medical Instructor/Technical Writer/Training Developer". | |
| 2 | RFP, Section C, PWS 5.2.5, pg. 43 | The Contractor shall manage its personnel in close coordination JSOMTC’s schedule of training, exercises,and events. | How frequently is the JSOMTC schedule of classes updated and how much lead time is the contractor provided with respect to changes in schedule? | See revised paragraph 5.2.5 | |
| 3 | RFP, Section C, PWS 5.2.7, pg. 43 | The Contractor shall attend JSOMTC’s coordination and synchronization of activities meetings. | What is the frequency of the JSOMTC coordination and synchronization of activities meeting? | See revised paragraph 5.2.7 | |
| 4 | RFP, Technical Exhibit D, pg. 57 | Course/Length/Classes/yr/Class Size/Total/Yr Table | In the table identifying the length of classes and number of classes per year are the number of classes indicated started and completed within a 12-month period? For example, are 7, 36-week long SOCM classes completed within a 12-month period? | See revised table referenced at Technical Exhibit D. | |
| 5 | RFP, Section L, Instructions to Offerors, 2.3.3.5.2, pg. 98 | For proposed subcontractors/teaming partners/affiliates, relevancy is defined in accordance with Table M4 of Section M and also focuses on experience in the area of expertise the subcontractor is projected to actually perform (i.e.specific area(s) in the PWS). | How does the "experience in the area of expertise the subcontractor is projected to actually perform (i.e.specific area(s) in the PWS)" factor into the rest of the eight (8) criteria in Table M4? For example, is it considered as another "criteria" and therefore should be included in Table M4? Or is it a completely separate "factor" that is on the same par (or level) as Table M4? | Table M4 has been removed. | |
| 6 | RFP, Section M, 2.4.3 & 2.4.4, pg. 104 | The Government will evaluate the present and past performance of the efforts (that meet the recency and relevancy criteria in Section L) in order to determine the Government's overall level of confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully perform the required effort. | How does the Government intend to quantitatively evaluate Offerors with differing numbers of submitted past performance projects (ppp) each with different relevancy scores? For example, Offeror A provides a total of 7 PPP each with different relevancy scores while Offeror B provides a total of 6 PPP each with different relevancy scores? | The Government's Present and Past Performance Evaluation does not include a quantitative method. Refer to EVALUATION FOR AWARD, Section 2.4 for the Government's Past and Preseent Performance evaluation process. | |
| 7 | RFP, Section M, 2.4.3 & 2.4.4, pg. 104 | The Confidence Ratings with definitions that will be utilized are contained within Table M3…....: | How does the Government intend to "normalize the relevancy scores" so as to fairly evaluate each Offeror's Past Performance Relevancy? | The Government's Present and Past Performance Evaluation does not include scores within its relevancy assessment. Refer to EVALUATION FOR AWARD, Section 2.4 for the Government's Past and Preseent Performance evaluation process. | |
| 8 | RFP, Table M.4, pg. 105 | Table M4. Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Baseline | Are the relevancy criteria specific to each individual past performance citation or are they aggregated across the portfolio of submitted citations? In order to be assessed as highly relevant does an individual citation have to demonstrate that it meets the highly relevant benchmark in all 8 criteria? | Table M4 has been removed. | |
| 9 | RFP, Table M.4, pg. 105 | Table M4. Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Baseline | For subcontractors, how are the relevancy requirements of table M.4 adjusted to account for the portion of the effort that will be performed by the subcontractor? For example, since a subcontractor won't be managing subcontractors, how does this relevancy element apply? If a subcontractor will not be providing any of the Key Personnel, how does that element apply to the relevancy of their past performance? Similarly, how is magnitude of awarded contract applied given that a subcontractor will only be responsible for a portion of the proposed solution? | Table M4 has been removed. | |
| 10 | RFP, Section L, Instructions to Offerors, 2.2.3.3 & Table M4, pg. 97-98, 105 | For the prime offerors, relevancy is defined in accordance with Table M4 of Section M. For the prime offeror, the more the overall effort is similar to all areas listed in Table M4, the more relevant it becomes. | Table M4 consists of eight (8) criteria (e.g., Contractor mgmt exerience, KP mgmt experience, mgmt of sub-contractors, etc.). How are these criteria quantitatively weighed against each other (e.g., Contractor mgmt experience 15%, KP mgmt experience 10%, etc.) so that the sum of all the criteria = 100%? | Table M4 has been removed. | |
| 11 | RFP, Section L, Instructions to Offerors, 2.2.3.3 & Table M4, pg. 97-98, 105 | For the prime offerors, relevancy is defined in accordance with Table M4 of Section M. For the prime offeror, the more the overall effort is similar to all areas listed in Table M4, the more relevant it becomes. | Table M4 implies that each offeror's project can be assigned a numerical rating based on the some of the eight (8) criteria scores (e..g., Σ Criteria Scorei = Project Relevancy , where I = 1, 8). Please confirm or provide how the Government intends to obtain an objective numerical relevance score for each past performance project. | Table M4 has been removed. | |
| 12 | RFP, L.2.3.3.5.3 (Relevancy Table) & M2.4.4 (Table M4), pg. 98, 105 | When making the relevancy determination the definitions contained within Table below will be utilized. | Are the relevancy areas identified in L.2.2.3.3 a-h the basis for the “scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires” referenced in the relevancy determination table provided in L.2.3.3.5.3? What's the difference between the table in 2.3.3.5.3 and Table M4? The table in 2.3.3.5.3 is too general and superfluous to M4. | Table M4 has been removed. | |
| 13 | RFP, Section C, PWS, 1.6.8.2.4, pg. 30 | SOF Medical Instructor/Technical Writer/Training Developer: …... Minimum Education Requirement: Complete an approved Instructor Trainer Course and Instructor Developer Course provided by the Government during work hours. | Please explain how will a SOF Medical Instructor/Technical Writer/Training Developer candidate be able to satisfy this minimum requirement during work hours, when they have not yet been hired? | See revised RFP, Section C, PWS, 1.6.8.2.4 | |
| 14 | Attachment 2: Pricing Spreadsheet, Rate Build up Worksheet | Column S: Fully Burdened Labor Rate does not calculate profit correctly | Column R: Profit does not calculate as a percentage into Column S: Fully Burdened Labor Rate. Column S adds Column Q: Sub Total with Column R: Profit instead of calculation and adding the percentage profit in Column R. | See revised Attachment 2 Pricing Spreadsheet (Corrected and provided at Amendment 0001) | |
| 15 | RFP, Section L, Para 2.2.4.3.2(b)(i) Tab B, pg. 99 | Offerors shall submit its proposed compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the employees who will work under the contract | As to clarification of the requirements in Para 2.2.4.3.2, is the Government requesting a Total Compensation Plan per FAR subpart 22.11 and specifically 22.1103? | No. FAR 52.222-46 (Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees) is not included in this soliciation. Offerors shall provide the information required in RFP Section L, para 2.2.4.3..2(b)(i) Tab B compensation plan. | |
| 16 | RFP, Section L, Para 2.2.4.3.2 BOE and Exhibit D, Estimated Work Data, pg 99 | Section L: "Discuss the basis of price in terms of staffing proposed for the PWS (to include applicable task/service areas, rate determination methodology, productive work year, and number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)) for each performance period" Exhibit D is "historical data being provided is inclusive of all requirements as outlined in the PWS" | Section L; Tab B-Basis of Estimate require offeror to develop a BOE based on Task/Service Area while Exhibit D provides historic data that is 'inclusive" of all PWS requirements. Does the Government expect the BOE by Task/Service Area to justify the FTE be independent from the analysis provided in Exhibit D? If so, will an Instructor to Task to Hour be required to justify each position on the proposed BOE based on the annualized 1920 hours/year indicated in the workbook? | Technical Exhibit D is provided for informational purposes only. An instructor to task to hour is not required to justify each position. Fifty-two FTEs are required from all offerors. | |
| 17 | RFP, Section L, Para 2.2.4.3.2 BOE, pg 99 | Section L: "Discuss the basis of price in terms of staffing proposed for the PWS (to include applicable task/service areas, rate determination methodology, productive work year, and number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)) for each performance period" | Please provide the Course Syllabus for the 5 courses (SOCM, SFMS, CAMS, SOCMSS, SFMSSSC). Offerors need the course information in order to meet the requirements for this BOE. Without that information, the incumbent (1Prospect Technologies) will have an unfair advantage, since they have these course syllabi and course schedules. | Course syllabi are not needed for an offeror to demonstrate their understanding of this requirement. All tasks required are in the PWS. Offerors shall demonstrate their understanding of the PWS and medical training in accordance with (IAW) RFP sections L&M. | |
| 18 | RFP, Section L, Para 2.2.4.3.2 BOE, pg. 99 | Section L: "Discuss the basis of price in terms of staffing proposed for the PWS (to include applicable task/service areas, rate determination methodology, productive work year, and number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)) for each performance period" | To develop and provide the required BOE, kindly provide the historical course schedule information with course start/end dates, number of students, and course instructor support requirements for each portion/day of each course (Didactic/Hands-On (LTT)/Hands-On (Civilian Accreditation type courses)/Hands-On (non-LTT) simulation training) for the incumbent contract's Base Period and Option Periods. Without that information, the incumbent (1Prospect Technologies) will have an unfair advantage, since they have these course syllabi and course schedules. | See table within Technical Exhibit D showing course, number of students, length and number of courses per year. | |
| 19 | RFP, Section L, Para 2.2.4.3.2 BOE, pg. 99 | Section L: "Discuss the basis of price in terms of staffing proposed for the PWS (to include applicable task/service areas, rate determination methodology, productive work year, and number of Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)) for each performance period" | To develop and provide the required BOE, please provide a course schedule forecast for (at least) the base period with expected course start/end dates, number of students, and course instructor support requirements for each portion/day of each course (Didactic/Hands-On (LTT)/Hands-On (Civilian Accreditation type courses)/Hands-On (non-LTT) simulation training). | See added Technical Exhibit F (Tentative Course Schedule) | |
| 20 | Attachment 2: Pricing Spreadsheet, Rate Build up Worksheet | Column U: Includes 2% escalation in the formula. | Please clarify if the Government requires a 2% escalation or can offerors propose a different escalation rate based on their own pricing practices and inflation estimates. | See revised Attachment 2 Pricing Spreadsheet (Corrected and provided on Amendment 0001) | |
| 21 | RFP, 1.6.8.2.2. SOF Medical Instructor/Technical Writer/Training Developer, pg. 27 | "Other: For the instructors of the SFMS3 course, in addition to all the credentials above, each instructor | |||
| must be an 18D or SOIDC graduate in order to teach the course." | Can offerors propose different labor categories (LCAT) in addition to those described by the Government? For example, the SOF Medical Instructor category has additional qualification requirements for those supporting the SFMS3 course. Could an offeror propose two separate levels (e.g., Med Instructor I, Med Instructor II) for this LCAT? | The PWS requires 49 SOF-P instructors and 3 AMI I Instructors that meet requirements to maintain JSOMTC accreditation ratios. However, Offerors are free to propose and demonstrate their own solutions to be evaluated. | |||
| 22 | Attachment 2: Pricing Spreadsheet, Rate Build up Worksheet | Labor Category: Special Operations Forces- Paramedic | The labor category in "Attachment 2: Rate Build up Table" of "Special Operations Forces- Paramedic" does not appear in the PWS. Please clarify if this "SOF-P) LCAT is the same or different from the "SOF Medical Instructor/Technical Writer/Training Developer" LCAT defined in the PWS? | See revised Attachment 2 Pricing Spreadsheet (Corrected and provided on Amendment 0001) | |
| 23 | 1.6.8.2, pg. 28 | Solicitation | Are the AMI 1 and AMI 2 instructors required to maintain the below certifications outlined in 1.6.8.2? Other Qualifications: All instructors shall possess current certifications in the following: 1. Basic Life Support Instructor (BLS-I) 2. Tactical Combat Casualty Care 3. Advanced Cardiac Life Support Instructor (ACLS-I) 4. Pediatric Education for Pre-Hospital Professionals (PEPP) Instructor 5. American Heart Association (AHA) Certification. AHA certification must be accomplished within 6 weeks of hiring at the contractor's expense. 6. Emergency Medical Technician -Paramedic EMT-P, certified IAW NREMT or IAW a U.S. jurisdiction or IAW USSOCOM Advanced Tactical Practioner (ATP) requirements. | See revised PWS paragraph 1.6.8.2 | |
| 24 | 1.6.8.2.1, pg. 28 | Solicitation | Do the AMI 1 and 2 Instructors need to be licensed in NC? | No, license is required from any US jurisdiction. | |
| 25 | 1.6.8.2.6, pg. 30 | Solicitation | The labor category requirements for the SOF-P Instructor in the table is unclear. Are all SOF-P instructors required to be NREMT - EMT P certified with ATP Certification or is State EMT-P certification with an ATP Certification acceptable? | All SOF-P instructors are required to be ATP cardholders. SOF-P Instructors can be certified IAW NREMT, certified IAW a U.S. jurisdiction or certified IAW USSOCOM ATP requirements. | |
| 26 | 1.6.8.2.6, pg 30 | Solicitation | If State EMT-P Certified are the SOF-P required to be licensed in NC or will any state be accepted? | If state certified, the SOF-P can be certified from any U.S. jurisdiction. | |
| 27 | Labor Category, pg 57 | Technical Exibit D Estimated Workload Data | There are 3 FTEs for AMI Instructor but no breakout of how many AMI 1 and How many AMI 2 | All 3 AMI FTEs on Technical Exhibit D were AMI I. The AMI 2 position is newly added to this requirement | |
| 28 | Labor Category, pg. 57 | Technical Exibit D Estimated Workload Data | There are 49 FTEs listed for SOF Medical Instructor/Technical Writer/Training Developer. How many of the 49 are required to be qulified to instruct the SFMS courses? | See revised PWS paragraph 1.6.8.2.4. | |
| 29 | Surge Support Man Hours, pg. 57 | Technical Exibit D Estimated Workload Data | The 6 month labor hours for 8 Instructors in the surge support table is 7680. Based on the FTE Labor hours of 1944 should this be 7776? Or are the surge staff less than full-time? | Total hours of 7,680 reflects all hours added via the surge modification. See revised 1.6.8.2.1 and Technical Exhibit D. | |
| 30 | Surge Support Man Hours, pg. 57 | Technical Exibit D Estimated Workload Data | The 12 month surge requirement is for 3 instrctors at 3840 hours. Based on FTE of 1944 should this be 5832 or is this a part-time surge? | Total hours of 3,840 reflects all hours added via the surge modification. See revised 1.6.8.2.1 and Technical Exhibit D. | |
| 31 | Surge Support Man Hours, pg 58 | Technical Exibit D Estimated Workload Data | The total hours for surge support in the base year total 12072. When added up it totals 12192. Why the discrepancy? | See revised Technical Exhibit D | |
| 32 | 2.2.3.4, pg 98 | Solicitation, Instructions to Offerors | Will the Government accept completed CPARS in lieu of a PPQ? | No. Submission of PPQs are required under this solicitation. | |
| 33 | Table 2.1.2 and Section 2.2.3.2, pg. 93 | Solicitation, Instructions to Offerors | The table states there is a 20 page limit for the Past and Present Performance Volume, excluding SF 294/295 + Consent Letters. In section 2.2.3.2, instructions state each past performance reference can not exceed 2 pages each, which would be a total of 8 pages if submitting four references. What are the other 12 pages allocated for? | In this example, the other 12 pages could potentially be for the major subcontractor(s). | |
| 34 | 2.3.3.5, pg 98 | Solicitation, Instructions to Offerors | Will the Government consider increasing the Past Performance recency to five years? | No, the Government will not be able to accommodate this request. | |
| 35 | p. 92 & 93; 2.1.1.i, Table 2.1.2 | 2.1.1.i references Word documents; however, Table 2.1.2 references PDF documents | Please confirm whether the government wants the proposal submission in PDF or Word files. | PDF Format. See Table 2.1.2. See revised 2.1.1.i. | |
| 36 | p. 45; 5.4.6.1 | Section 1.3.1.2 lists 12, 1.3.1.2.2 lists 8, and 1.6.8.2 lists 6 courses. | Please confirm what are the nine concurrently run curriculum courses? | Paragraph 1.3.1.2 provides examples of the training topics. Paragraph 1.3.1.2.2 lists medical competencies that students will be trained to successfully perform/manage. Paragraph 1.6.8.2 lists required instructor certifications. None of these PWS paragraphs lists the courses. See revised PWS paragraph 1.1 for list of courses. | |
| 37 | p. 28; 1.6.8.2 bullet 5. | NA | Please clarify which AHA certification(s) the instructors must possess? | See revised PWS paragraph 1.6.8.2 | |
| 38 | p. 29; 1.6.8.2.3 | NA | We recommend revising the requirement to state “...no national database malpractice incidents resulting in a substantiated claim” | Thank you for the recommendation, but the requirement remains unchanged. | |
| 39 | p. 29 & 30; 1.6.8.2.4 & 1.6.8.2.6 | If offerors need to factor in the costs of this training, we will need more information about the ITC and CDC, to ensure we price our bids appropriately. | Please confirm that the ITC and CDC, which will be provided by the Government during work hours, is also provided at the expense of the government. | See revised paragraphs 1.6.8.2.6, 1.6.8.2.3 and 1.6.8.2.2 | |
| 40 | p. 57 | Technical Exibit D Estimated Workload Data | How many employees are expected to be paid or are currently paid according to a WD under this contract? I would help to get a sense of the scope of the SCA here. | The decision to pay the WD amount or more than the WD amount is a business decision for each offeror. The Government cannot provide information regarding how the incumbent pays its employees. By Law, Contractors cannot pay less than the applicable WD for covered positions. | |
| 41 | PWS 1.6.11.2 and 5652.237-9001, pg. 31 & 81 | Key Personnel | The referenced PWS citations appear to conflict. Will the GOV confirm the postions that are key personnel? | See revised PWS 1.6.11.1. See 5652.237-9001 (Key Personnel Requirements), Key Personnel are CM and SIM. | |
| 42 | Pricing Volume, Rate Buildup Table | The Wage Determination was provided and RFP Technicial Exhibit C and additionally referenced in Clause 52.222-42 about type and equivalent rates. | The government states this is an SCA contract. For the Pricing Volume, are the bidders required to show the Indirect buildup of required costs to manage an SCA contract? | Offerors are required to complete and provide the information listed on Attachment 2- Pricing Spreadsheet | |
| 43 | General | The government states this is an SCA contract. Will the government provide the amount of years the incumbent contractors have worked on this contract, to adequetly allow for SCA pricing? | The current contract was awarded for a base year of 12 months and four 12-month option years. | ||
| 44 | Table M4, pg. 105 | Table M4. Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Baseline | The government states this is an SCA contract. Would the government consider managing SCA contracts as part of the past performance relevancy criteria? | No, the management of SCS contracts will not be included in the Government's Past Peformance relevancy criteria. | |
| 45 | L 2.2.3.4, pg. 98 | Past Performance Questionnaire | By what date are completed PPQs required to be received by Debbie Harris and Justin Burke, SOCOM? | See revised L. 2.2.3.4. | |
| 46 | CLIN 0001, PWS1.5, PWS1.6.16, L2.2.4.3.1(a), pg. 2,22,34 & 99 | Phase-in | The three sections referenced seem to contradict one another regarding the Phase-In period, and whether the outgoing or incoming contract will be in effect during that month. The description of CLIN 0001 states that the contractor will "prepare to execute and assume full responsibility for the services required by contract" which seems to imply that the outgoing contract is still in effect, and that the costs associated with this ramp up month should be limited to Key Personnel. PWS 1.5 states that the phase-in period is intended to be the first month of the base year, which seems to imply that the incoming contractor will have assumed responsibility for the entire workforce. PWS 1.6.16 states "During the phase-in period, the Contractor shall become familiar with performance requirements, in order to commence full performance of services on the start of the base period of performance" which seems to imply that this is an overlap period between the incoming and outgoing contractors, but that the responsibility for execution and payment of labor wages still lies with the outgoing contractor. This section also seems to imply that the Phase-in period is "in preparation to begin performance of the base year," while PWS 1.5 includes it in the base year. | ||
| Q: Can the USG please clarify whether the incoming or outgoing contractor is ultimately responsible for JSOMTC personnel during the phase-in? | See revised PWS paragraph 1.6.16.1 | ||||
| 47 | CLIN 0001, PWS1.5, PWS1.6.16, L2.2.4.3.1(a) | The three sections referenced seem to contradict one another regarding the Phase-In period, and whether the outgoing or incoming contract will be in effect during that month. The description of CLIN 0001 states that the contractor will "prepare to execute and assume full responsibility for the services required by contract" which seems to imply that the outgoing contract is still in effect, and that the costs associated with this ramp up month should be limited to Key Personnel. PWS 1.5 states that the phase-in period is intended to be the first month of the base year, which seems to imply that the incoming contractor will have assumed responsibility for the entire workforce. PWS 1.6.16 states "During the phase-in period, the Contractor shall become familiar with performance requirements, in order to commence full performance of services on the start of the base period of performance" which seems to imply that this is an overlap period between the incoming and outgoing contractors, but that the responsibility for execution and payment of labor wages still lies with the outgoing contractor. This section also seems to imply that the Phase-in period is "in preparation to begin performance of the base year," while PWS 1.5 includes it in the base year. | |||
| Q: If the outgoing contractor is still employing JSOMTC personnel during phase-in, what costs are allowable for the incoming contractor for the phase-in CLIN? | The costs for the incoming contractor shall be listed on the Attachment 2- Pricing Spreadsheet and are key personnel only. | ||||
| 48 | 2.2.1.5, pg. 95 | SPRS Score | Would the USG waive the requirement for Subcontractors to have "minimum Basic Confidence Level score of 80 in the Supply Risk Performance System (SPRS) NIST SP 800-171 Assessment at time of proposal submission" given that the Prime is already held to that standard? If not, would the USG accept a lower score for subcontractors? | The Government will not waive the requirement for subcontracctors or lower the score | |
| 49 | Para 2.2.2.3, pg. 96 | RFP | TAB E Factor 1 - A detailed narrative demonstrating the Offeror’s (including teaming partners, joint ventures, subcontractors and affiliates that will meaningfully be involved during performance). What is the determining factor associated with meaningfully involved? | See revised Section L, paragraph 2.2.2.3(i)(b) | |
| 50 | Para 2.2.2.3, pg. 96 | RFP | TAB E Factor 1 - A detailed narrative demonstrating the Offeror’s (including teaming partners, joint ventures, subcontractors and affiliates that will meaningfully be involved during performance). Are you asking for a detailed narrative of each topic for each member of our team or a collective narrative for each team member? | The Government requires a collective narrative that demonstrates the approach for the team as a whole. | |
| 51 | Para 2.2.3.2, pg. 97 | RFP | Past and Present Past Performance Information Sheets - This section states” major” is defined as those subcontractors, teaming partners, joint ventures and affiliates who are projected to perform 25% or more of the total contract effort). Is “major” considered the same thing as “meaningful” in paragraph 2.2.2.3? | No. "Major" identifies a subcontractor, teaming partner, joint venture, or affiliate that is projected to perform at least 25% of the total contract effort. "Meaningful", while applies to affilitates of the prime contractor that will participate meaningfully during performance, it is not equated to a percentage of the total contract effort. | |
| 52 | Para 2.2.3.4, pg. 98 | RFP | Past Performance Questionaries - May we submit completed CPARS as part of Volume III in lieu of the questionnaires? | No, CPARS can not be submitted in lieu of PPQs. Please adhere to the requirements of the RFP. | |
| 53 | Para 2.2.3.4, pg. 98 | RFP | Past Performance Questionaries - If CPARS are approved for submission as part Volume III in lieu of the questionnaires are they part of the page count? | Please refer to the Government's response to Question #52. | |
| 54 | Para 1.7.3.2.1, pg. 31 | PWS | The requirement for "experience of senior supervision, management | ||
| and operation of Mission Command Training Center/Complex, with emphasis on Special Operation Forces (SOF)" places extreme limitations on the pool of potential candidates and places an unfair advantage on current incumbent or previous incumbent contractors. Will the Government please reconsider this requirement to open a larger field of fair and open competition? | There is no paragraph 1.7.3.2.1. This requirement is listed in paragraphs 1.6.11.2.1 and 1.6.11.2.2, and remains unchanged. | ||||
| 55 | Para 1.7.3, pg. 31 | PWS | Are resumes also required for the Alternate Contract Manager and Senior Instructor Manager Alternate ? | No, resumes are not required for the ACM or ASIM. | |
| 56 | Section 1.6.11.1, pg.31 | 1.6.11.1. The following are considered key personnel by the Government: The Contractor shall provide an on-site. Contract Manager (CM) who shall be responsible for the performance of the work under this contract. The name of this person, and an Assistant Contract Manager (ACM), who shall act for the Contractor when the CM is absent, shall be designated in writing to the KO at the post award conference. The CM or ACM shall have full authority to act for the Contractor on all contract matters relating to daily operation of this contract. The CM or ACM shall be available between the hours of 7:30 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays or when the government facility is closed for administrative reasons. The CM or ACM may be a contract instructor. | This section references a Contract Manager (CM), an Assistant Contract Manager (ACM), a Senior Instructor Manager (SIM), and an alternate SIM. Will the Government please confirm that only the CM and SIM are key personnel requiring resumes and Letters of Commitment (LOCs) at the time of proposal submission? | The Government confirms that the CM and SIM require Resume and LOCs. See SOFARS 5652.237-9001. | |
| 58 | Technical Exhibit D, Estimated Workload Data, pg. 57-8 | AMI= 3FTE (5,832 hours) SOF-P= 49 FTEs (95,256 hours) Total= 52 FTEs (101,088 hours) | Will the Government please clarify whether the SIM is considered to be part of the estimated workload data quantities provided for SOF Medical Instructor/Technical Writer/Training Developers (Qty 49), or whether the SIM is considered to be in addition to the Qty 49 identified? Similarly, will the Government please clarify whether the CM is included as part of the provided quantities, or is considered to be in addition to the quantity identified? | The SIM and CM are apart of the 49 SOF-P FTEs. See PWS paragraph 1.6.11.2.2. and 1.6.11.1. |
| 62 | Table M4, Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Baseline, pg. 105 | General Definitions for Relevancy | Given an offeror’s or team member’s past performance may meet or exceed many, but not all, of the criteria identified within the Very Relevant Column of Table M4, will the Government please confirm that a past performance reference would be considered to have met the relevancy criteria of that particular column, so long as it meets at least 5 of the 8 criteria as identified within that relevancy column? | Table M4 has been removed. |
| 63 | Table M4, Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Baseline, pg. 105 | Relevancy Definitions for Criteria: “Performance in recruiting, hiring, training, and retaining highly skilled personnel in similar environments for both short and long durations.” | Will the Government please consider removing “for both short and long durations” from this relevancy criteria, and rather focus on evaluating an offeror’s ability to accomplish all work tasks with qualified personnel as part of Factor 2: Staffing, Retention, and Management of Personnel? | Table M4 has been removed. |
| 64 | Table M4, Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Baseline, Performance on SOF, DoD, other Federal Government requirements, pg. 105 | Relevancy Definitions for Criteria: “Management of sub-contractors” | Given that successful management of a subcontractor is not dependent upon the customer-type, but rather a prime’s ability, systems, processes, etc., will the Government please remove “for a similar service requirement on a SOF or DoD contract” from (or change to read “for a similar service requirement on a Federal/DoD contract”) the Very Relevant and Relevant definitions? | Table M4 has been removed. |
| 65 | Table M4, Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Baseline, Performance on SOF, DoD, other Federal Government requirements, pg. 105 | Relevancy Definitions for Criteria: “Performance on SOF, DoD, other Federal Government requirements” | Will the Government please consider reverting back to the relevancy definitions for this criteria as provided in the DRAFT RFP Dated 11 July 2023? | Table M4 has been removed. |
| 66 | Past Performance Questionnaire | (intentionally left blank) | Will the Government please confirm that CPARs can be submitted in lieu of PPQs? | No, CPARS can not be submitted in lieu of PPQs. Please adhere to the requirements of the RFP. |
| 67 | Pg. 92 | iii. Page Limit does not include executive summary, tables of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms, indices, title pages, key personnel resumes, cross-reference indices, and section dividers/tables if they are inserted solely to provide ease to the reader in locating parts/sections of the proposal | Will the Government please confirm that LOC’s do not count against the overall 30 page Technical Volume page limit? | See revised Table 2.1.2 and 2.1.1. iii |
| 68 | TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 4 ESTIMATED WORKLOAD DATA | Not provided | Will the Government please provide the estimated workload data broken out by the lower-level Labor Category (AIM 1 and AIM 2) for the AMI Instructors? | The AMI-2 is a new position and is not included in the estimated workload data under the current contract. |
| 69 | RFP 52.222-42 STATEMENT OF EQUIVALENT RATES FOR FEDERAL HIRES (MAY 2014), pg. 76 | SOF-P INSTRUCTOR: GS-12, Step 6 $46.18 per hour---AMI-1 INSTRUCTOR: GS-13, Step 10 $61.68 per hour----AMI-2 INSTRUCTOR GS 15. Step 10 $84.48 per hour | Will the Government clarify if the wages listed are direct wages only, of if they are inclusive of fringe as well? | The equivalent rates listed at 52.222-42 are direct wages. |
| 70 | RFP 52.222-42 STATEMENT OF EQUIVALENT RATES FOR FEDERAL HIRES (MAY 2014), pg. 76 | SOF-P INSTRUCTOR: GS-12, Step 6 $46.18 per hour---AMI-1 INSTRUCTOR: GS-13, Step 10 $61.68 per hour----AMI-2 INSTRUCTOR GS 15. Step 10 $84.48 per hour | Will the Government clarify if the listed wages are consistent with the incumbent contract? | No, the Government cannot provide information regarding the incumbent's proprietary pricing data. |
| 71 | 2.2.3.2 Past and Present Performance Information Sheets | Submit information on contracts considered most recent and relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed effort. The offeror shall submit a maximum of four (4) and a minimum of three (3) Performance Information Sheets identifying active or completed contracts, either Government or commercial, for each prime, and a maximum of three (3) and a minimum of one (1) Past and present Performance Information Examples for each major subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture (”major” is defined as those subcontractors, teaming partners, joint ventures and affiliates who are projected to perform 25% or more of the total contract effort). | The U.S. Government Accountability Office has recognized that agencies may attribute to an Offeror the experience or past performance of a parent or affiliated company, if the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate will affect contract performance (Iyabak Const., LLC, B-409196, Feb. 6, 2014 and Wolf Creek Federal Services, Inc., February 6, 2014). Can the Government confirm that affiliates are not required to be defined as a “major” subcontractor performing 25% or more of the total contract effort in order for the Government to evaluate and attribute to an Offeror the experience and past performance of an affiliated company? Further, can the Government please confirm that affiliate past performance will be considered when submitted by the Offeror as long as Offeror is able to demonstrate how the affiliate will contribute to the performance of the contract (i.e., workforce, management, facilities or other resources, etc.) and a firm commitment of meaningful participation in the eventual contract? | See revised Section L, paragraph 2.2.2.3 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .