Q&As_19R0002_Amd_0001_(22Apr19).pdf

Compiled Question and Answers 19R0002 WCP WCGS Services

22 April 2019

Number Document Reference Paragraph /Section

Questions/Comments

1) Attachment 7 and Service Contracts Act

Q: Since the Wage Determination is provided, can the government please confirm the mapping to the proper WD labor categories for the position? With the qualifications and certification requirement, we do not see link these should fall under the SCA/WD.

Government Response: See added subparagraph L.3.4.1 (section L) and revisions in red font in Atch 6 – Price Matrix provided with this amendment (0001). Also note: columns for identifying ‘exempt / non-exempt’ and ‘occupational codes’ are only included in #2 TEP tab (now), these columns have been removed from the ‘compensation data’ tabs.

2) Section L.0.8 Instructions to Offerors

Q: Are the 2 key resumes to be submitted as separate documents following the naming conventions listed?

Please confirm that these will not count toward the 20 pages limit for volume I.

Government Response: Yes, 2 key resumes shall be provided in the naming convention provided in paragraph L.0.8 (Section L). No, key resumes are not included in the page limitation for Volume I. See revised paragraph L.0.7 (section L) provided with this amendment.

3) Exhibit 5 N/A Q: The RFP requires key resumes for the RCC – Task Manager and an RCC quality lead. Both require 8 years of SOF experience and 8 years of Recovery Care Coordination (RCC) experience. There are no other contracts or places that personnel would receive 8 years of RCC experience and have 8 years of SOF experience except for the incumbent contract. The Government has established a requirement that only the incumbent can meet. In addition, there are specialized PM skills and experience that are required to manage a task of this size and complexity such as risk management, schedule management, budget management, staffing experience, personnel management, effort estimation, and executive reporting experience. The most experienced Task Managers would obtain these skills on contracts/tasks other than this contract. RCC-specialized experience will be provided by other positions on the team than these two positions. Would the Government consider modifying the requirements for the RCC - Task Manager and RCC - Quality Control Specialist to the following: “8+ years of SOF experience and 5+ years of experience managing large military programs?” Without this expansion of the requirements, the Government has limited the competitive field to only the incumbent.

Government Response: Due to the nature of the skills and qualifications for these personnel, the requirements are written to meet the Governments requirement and are currently at minimum acceptable level and will not be further reduced. Reference PWS 4.7.1, RCC-Task Manager and 4.7.3 RCC – Quality Control Specialist, these two personnel require RCC experience more than traditional contract “PM” or “QA” experience alone. The RCC-TM will need to provide RCC technical expertise in case resolution to his RCC-Regional Leads (RCC-RLs) when they run into issues, and also must understand the full-breadth of processes for Recovering Service Members (RSM) across DoD for all four Services, along with the VA processes, so when there is a case that is at an impasse, this individual can approach the Warrior Care Program (WCP) Leadership with a clear issue of why there is an impasse and potential COAs to resolve.

The RCC-QC needs RCC experience as they must scour cases to see that RCCs considered all issues and addressed all needs, all of which are situationally dependent based on the nature of the RSMs, their injuries, their family dynamics, what their situation is, what they may be eligible for, etc.; all of this to ensure that the RCCs are not only meeting measures of performance, but also measures of effectiveness. These things cannot be quantified in a report and require a high level of RCC experience to identify.

Furthermore, it is crucial for those in these key positions to fully understand SOF organizations and culture in order to understand and successfully assign, mentor, coach, and lead the contracted team with minimal Government oversight and risk of unsuccessful performance.

Also reference Tech Ex 5 – “Notes” which states, “Unless specified as "Mil/Unit specific", SOF experience can be combination of military/gov't civilian/contractor experience in SOF organization.”

4) TE 5 TE 5 Q: The USSOCOM-Care Coalition was a commander's program starting in 2006 (12 years ago). The Warrior Care and Coordination Task Force was formally established in

May 2012 at the direction of the DoD–VA Joint Executive Committee (JEC) to assess both redundancies and continued transition gaps for Wounded Warriors as well as the overall program management of Wounded Warrior services between DoD and VA. The Warrior Care Program was not congressionally passed in the NDAA until 2013 (6 years ago). USSOCOM began sending at the time Advocates now called RCCs to the RCC certifying course in March 2013 (6 years ago).

TE 5 – Skills and Qualifications identifies the amount of time certified as a Recovery Care Coordinator (RCC) which ranges from 3 years (RCC Journeyman/Mid) to 10 years (RCC Senior/Upper). With only very few incumbent personnel meeting the minimum requirements will the government be grandfathering in all incumbent personnel on the Certified RCC experience? If not during the transition period screening of incumbent personnel will the government be providing waivers for the incumbent RCC staff who do not meet the minimum RCC requirements?

Government Response: Reference TE-5 Notes. The requirement is minimum RCC experience, not “Certified RCC experience”. The RCC time qualifications are not meant to capture the time the individual has been certified, but to express time served as a Recovery Care Coordinator or Advocate (or any similar term used for an individual who has conducted recovery care coordination in one or more of the Services’ DoD Warrior Care Programs, also known as Wounded Warrior Program, or Warrior in Transition Program) and to ensure that they currently have certification. Any RCC with current, relevant experience will be RCC certified and certification is a requirement at onset of employment when meeting RCC experience criteria. For example, an individual may have 9 years of experience as a RCC in a DoD Warrior Care Program, but have only been certified by the DoD RCC course 5 years ago; this individual qualifies as having 8+ years of RCC experience and is RCC certified. What does NOT count is time served providing recovery care coordination or other services in a program outside the military Services’ programs. Examples of programs that “count” therefore include Army Wounded Warrior Program, Navy Wounded Warrior Program (previously called Navy Safe Harbor), Air Force Wounded Warrior Program, Marine Wounded Warrior Regiment, or USSOCOM Warrior Care Program (Care Coalition).

5) TE 5 TE 5 Q: The USSOCOM-Care Coalition was a commander's program starting in 2006 (12 years ago). The Warrior Care and Coordination Task Force was formally established in

May 2012 at the direction of the DoD–VA Joint Executive Committee (JEC) to assess both redundancies and continued transition gaps for Wounded Warriors as well as the overall program management of Wounded Warrior services between DoD and VA. The Warrior Care Program was not congressionally passed in the NDAA until 2013 (6 years ago). USSOCOM began sending at the time Advocates now called RCCs to the RCC certifying course in March 2013 (6 years ago).

TE 5 - Skills and Qualifications identifies the amount of time certified as a Recovery Care Coordinator (RCC) for the Task Manager to be 8+ years. With the RCC certifying course being developed and began conducting training/certification in March 2013 (6 years ago) there is no way for a Task Manager to have 8+ years as a Certified RCC. Will the government reconsider this requirement allowing Care Coalition experience as acceptable or will the government lower the RCC Certification requirement to 4 years?

Government Response: No. Reference Government Response to Question #3 and #4.

6) TE 5 TE 5 Q: The USSOCOM-Care Coalition was a commander's program starting in 2006 (12 years ago). The Warrior Care and Coordination Task Force was formally established in May 2012 at the direction of the DoD–VA Joint Executive Committee (JEC) to assess both redundancies and continued transition gaps for Wounded Warriors as well as the overall program management of Wounded Warrior services between DoD and VA. The Warrior Care Program was not congressionally passed in the NDAA until 2013 (6 years ago). USSOCOM began sending at the time Advocates now called RCCs to the RCC certifying course in March 2013 (6 years ago).

TE 5 - Skills and Qualifications identifies the amount of time certified as a Recovery Care Coordinator (RCC) for the Quality Control Specialist to be 8+ years. With the RCC certifying course being developed and began conducting training/certification in March 2013 (6 years ago) there is no way for a Quality Control Specialist to have 8+ years as a Certified RCC. Will the government reconsider this requirement allowing Care Coalition experience as acceptable or will the government lower the RCC Certification requirement to 4 years?

Government Response: No. Reference Government Response to Question #3 and #4.

7) PWS, TE 1-PRS, TE -2 and TE 5 PWS 4.7.1 pg

37, TE 1-PRS,

TE -2 and TE

Q: The duties and responsibilities of a Task Manager responsible for the management of a contract that consists of 75 + FTEs in multiple locations with the contract responsibilities outlined in the PWS, TE 1-PRS, TE -2 Deliverables are not commensurate to the Skills and Qualifications requirements found in TE 5. The Task Manager in TE 5 requirements are 8+ years in SOF and 8+ years as a Certified RCC and experience in business management, personnel development and a proven ability to respond to the client. Historically a Task Manager of a contract of this size and scope would have an education requirement (Master’s Degree), 5+ years as a Program/Project Manager of an equal size and scope contract and some form quantifiable and evaluable data to present proven ability to respond to the client. Recommend the government relook the qualifications and skills requirements of the Task Manager to be in line with the duties and responsibilities of a similar size and scope contract.

Government Response: Reference Government Response to Question #3.

8) PWS, TE 1-PRS, TE -2 and TE 5 PWS 1.4.1 pg

16 PWS 4.7.3

Q: The duties and responsibilities of a Quality Control Specialist (QCS) found in the PWS section 4.7.3 only has pg 37, TE 1-

PRS, TE -2

and TE 5 one QC responsibility being found in PWS 4.7.3.9 Provide written recommendations to the government for programmatic improvements in quality control transition.

The PWS section 1.4.1 Quality Control, TE 1-PRS and TE -2 Deliverables have an extensive amount of QC tasks which could fall into PWS 4.7.3.9 but that PWS section only states during transition not during the life of the contract. Additionally, the responsibilities for Quality Control outlined above are not commensurate to the Skills and Qualifications requirements found in TE 5. The QCS in TE 5 requirements are 8+ years in SOF and 8+ years as a Certified RCC and experience in quality control measures, metrics, and analysis. Historically a QCS of a contract of this size and scope would have an education requirement (Bachelor’s Degree), a Six Sigma Certification (Yellow/Black/Green) and 3+ years as a QCS of an equal size and scope contract. Recommend the government relook the qualifications and skills requirements of the QCS to be in line with the duties and responsibilities of a similar size and scope contract.

9) PWS PWS 4.7.3 pg

Q: The duties and responsibilities of a Quality Control Specialist (QCS) found in the PWS section 4.7.3 are mirrored that of an RCC with the only QC responsibility being found in PWS 4.7.3.9 Provide written recommendations to the government for programmatic improvements in quality control transition. Can the govt explain why the QC is key personnel since there is only one duty & responsibility that differs from a standard RCC position?

10) Pricing Volume

L.3.8 Compensation Plan, pg 70

M.3.1.3 Compensation Plan, pg 78

Atch-6 Price Matrix

Q: Atch-6 Price Matrix in both the prime and subcontractor compensation tabs has a breakout of the fringe amounts (highlighted) applied to each position and at the top of each sheet industry is to enter its Fringe % applied.

As stated in section L and M industry must develop and present a Compensation Plan in the pricing volume. As a part of this compensation plan required by 48 CFR § 52.222-46 - Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees this compensation plan must breakout the fringe benefits provided.

As this is a best value trade off we have developed additional Fringe items that are not found on your sheet and by adding in columns will change the ability to compare our value added items to other bidders.

Additionally, there are fringe items that are not on your sheet such as Dental, Vision, STD/LTD, Life Insurance that are included in our approved fringe percentage but will not be shown in columns that will make our data presented in the narrative contradict the matrix and then throughout the matrix using our approved fringe percentage without columns to apply it to will again show a discrepancy in the data presented.

According to DCAA the use of indirects for fringe is acceptable and does not require each item to be broken out similar to how OH, G&A and Fee are applied to the unburdened hourly rate.

Would the government remove the breakout of the fringe information and allow industry to use our developed and approved fringe rate percentage just the same as it is done for OH, G&A and Fee? The compensation plan narrative would still allow the government to analyze the information on the fringe benefits provided to each employee and the pricing matrix would still allow the cost buildup to be shown from unburdened hourly rate through Fringe, OH, G&A and Fee applied reaching the FBLR.

Government Response: Reference Revisions in Atch-6_Price Matrix, provided with this amendment. Fringe benefit elements are removed from the price matrix; however, shall be thoroughly described in the compensation plan narrative(s) for fringe benefits that will actually be received by each employee.”

11) Atch-6 Price Matrix

Q: The Pricing Matrix does not have a location to add in subcontract management fee when using subcontractors.

Will the government please include a location to add this fee in there in between the compensation data tab and the total evaluated price tab?

Government Response: Reference Revisions in Atch-6_Price Matrix, provided with this amendment. Offerors may add columns and/or rows, if applicable, but are responsible to ensure accurate calculations across all tabs. Offerors are cautioned that FAR provision 52.215-22 and FAR clause 52.215-23 are applicable and incorporated with this amendment.

12) Atch-6 Price Matrix

Q: Does the government expect the submitted price matrix to include subcontractor indirect rates which are proprietary to a company and not normally shared with the prime.

Does the government want each subcontractor to submit a Pricing Matrix in a sealed bid to the government and only show the FBLRs in a subcontractor tab or how does the government want this presented?

Will the government allow the prime to submit a single pricing matrix with the Subcontractor positions identified and showing the FBLRs but no additional data (indirects) and therefore not be required to provide sealed bid directly by each subcontractor to the government?

Government Response: Reference Government response to question #10 and revisions in Atch-6_Price Matrix, provided with this amendment. (The requirement to detail indirect rates has been deleted).

13) PWS; 1.23.5. Pending Government approval of SOFA status of the contract

1.23.5 Q: Since a contractor without SOFA status is risky for the employee with increased expenses, can the government and positions, the Government will reimburse the contractor for actual costs associated with positions in Germany if the position is not covered under Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

clarify if their intent is permanent non-SOFA status (meaning Ordinary Resident (OR)) or merely keeping the employee in country for the maximum allowed number of days permitted by the German government until the SOFA status is approved? If it is the former, then is the government requiring vendors to be established with a German business license and accountant to meet the initial OR minimum requirements?

Government Response: The current contract is classified as Troop Care (TC) and falls under the Article 72 NATO SOFA Status Accreditation process. The current contract has not yet been approved for SOFA; however, the Government expects the contract to receive approved SOFA status. If the contract has not received SOFA approval, the Government intends for the contractor to use the BACO-90 (formerly Fax-Back) process.

14) Section L L.0.10 Q: Per the FBO Vendor Guide, there should be a blue click link in the Notice Details sub-tab of the opportunity that allows for electronic responses. Could the government please verify the link has been established for electronic submission through fbo.gov?

Government Response: FBO Notice (H9240019R0002) was amended (18 Apr 2019) to allow for electronic submission.

15) Section L L.4.2 Q: Please clarify what documentation is required to meet the requirements of Section L.4.2.

Government Response: Reference Section L.4.2 for updated language

16) Section L L.4.5 Q: FAR Clause 52.212-3 is not included in the solicitation. Please clarify if the government is looking for completion of the Reps/Certs clause or a statement validating Reps/Certs are current and provided in the contractor’s SAM.gov registration.

Government Response: FAR provision 52.212-3 is not applicable to this solicitation. Reference updated language in L.4.5.

17) Section L L.0.6 Q: Where should we put the compliance matrix? In Vol 4?

Government Response: Reference Sections L.0.5 and L.0.6 for updated language.

18) Section L L.0.5 Q: Will the Government allow for tables, graphics, figures and pictures to have an 8pt Ariel font?

Government Response: Yes. Reference L.0.5 updated language. “For tables, charts, graphs, and figures, the text shall be no smaller than Microsoft Word 10 point, Times New Roman or 8 point Arial.

19) Section B and PWS CLIN 0002, 0003, 1002, 1003, etc and PWS paragraph 1.2

Q: These CLINs reference a lot of 500,000, 300,000 per option year. This appears to be the plug number for amounts for this. This seems to be an error in the CLIN descriptions. Can the Government provide more insight into the process and timelines for adding surge hours/personnel using this CLIN?

Government Response: Reference PWS 1.12 and 1.3.2. When supporting Recovery Service Members as required for this effort, unpredictable events are possible (i.e., Sudden mass injury in a particular location or an influx of RSMs in the same phase of recovery) which require contractor personnel and caseload management flexibility. The language referenced in PWS Paragraph 1.3.2 allowing for a modification for variation in workload exceeding 15%, as well as the surge COST CLIN are included to decrease risk.

20) Industry Day slides

PWS

Technical Exhibit 3

Slide 11 Para 1.2, 1.3.2, 4.2

Q: The slides and technical exhibit 3 demonstrate a rapid growth in the population covered. The PWS discusses RCC/advocate case load ratio to RSMs and a contract deficiency for not meeting the DoD approved ratio. The pricing model specifies locations and personnel per organization. Given this growth trend, an FFP contract type does not seem appropriate for a contract with undefined future labor requirements. Paragraph 1.3.2 states that a modification will be issued if caseloads increase by more than 15%. Is this 15% by location/organization? Or across the contract? RCCs at each location could see significant growth in case load but still not meet this 15% variance across the contract.

However, the PWS requires the contractor to meet ratios or be deficient. Given the known growth of population, Government provided pricing template specifying personnel, and uncertainty of adjusting workforce mix, this increases pricing risk and performance risk significantly on a FFP effort. We recommend the Government use a flexibly priced contract type such as CPFF or Labor-Hour for the base CLINs (0001, etc).

Government Response: No. The Government will not change contract type. The number of RCCs per location are based both on case-load and/or geographic location. The RCC to Case Load ratio is not the only determinant factor for the number of RCCs per site. The 15% variance is site specific and not across the contract.

21) Section L Pg 60, L.3 Volume 3 - Price Factor (Factor 3)

Q: Does the Government prefer that offerors submit pricing based on the LOE provided in “DRAFT_RFP_Technical_Exhibit- 4_Performance_Locations.xlsx”, or will the Government consider an alternative mix of LCATs and hours to meet mission requirements?

Government Response: The Government has provided the ‘functional labor category’ and estimated number of FTEs based on known historical data and current workload conditions. The contractor shall map the provided functional labor categories to its proposed approach in accordance with Section L.3.4.1. Additionally, see update to TE-4 Performance Locations that indicates positions currently on contract.

22) Attachment 6 Price Matrix

Q: Please confirm that large business subcontract offerors should comply with the cost accounting structure established under their FPRA or FPRR as applicable so as to represent the most current, accurate and complete information available in lieu of submitting the fringe breakdown in the Attachment 6 Price Matrix.

Government Response: Reference Government response to question #10.

23) Attachment 6 Price Matrix

Q: The information requested for the completion of the Attachment 6 Price submission is proprietary data cost and pricing data. Please confirm that subcontract offerors who consider the compensation plan (narrative and subcontractor tabs #5 - 8) per Section L.3.4 as proprietary data and prefer to disclose the wage rates, compensation plan, and indirect cost rate data as a sealed package may do so by submission directly to the Government. Please confirm and provide instructions regarding the delivery of sealed proprietary data.

24) Attachment 6 Price Matrix

Q: Attachment 6 Price Matrix tabs #5 through #8 have cell A2 denoted as (Prime), please confirm A2 labeled as (Subcontractor) applies.

Government Response: Reference Government response to question #10.

25) Attachment 6: Price Matrix N/A Q: Question, on Attachment 6 the pricing submission requires 9 different columns showing the contributions to Fringe Elements. Between primes and subcontractors many additional elements may exist that contribute to Fringe Elements that would not be captured for instance if the firm covers certain benefits not listed in the Attachment 6. Additionally, typical industry practice for pricing is to list one Fringe Hourly Rate. To alleviate this situation we recommend that the Fringe Element rate build component be one column instead of the mix of elements.

26) General N/A Q: Would the government consider oral presentation in addition to hard copy submittals in order to further evaluate?

Government Response: No, the approved acquisition strategy does not include oral presentations for this effort.

27) N/A

Technical Exhibit 3 – Historical Population

Q: Is the historical population rate expected forecasted to continue based upon the trends?

Government Response: Yes. Reference PWS Paragraph 1.3.2 allowing for a modification for variation in workload exceeding 15%.

28) PWS Pg 16, Para. 1.7 Q: Is the Government able to provide the current metrics agreed upon for quality control?

Government Response: The Government is unable to provide the requested information.

29) PWS Pg 21, Para.

1.19.1 1.19.2

Q: In addition to the KP’s and Critical Personnel will the government allow for the submission of additional representative resume’s against proposed or current roles?

Government Response: No. Reference L.1.3 for resume requirements.

30) PWS Pg 16, Para.

1.19.6

Q: Are we able to submit personnel that meet this criteria allsoing us to “prove/show” that we can bring this expertise?

Government Response: No. The Government is not requesting additional resumes.

31) PWS Pg 16, Para.

1.25.1

Q: Is the government able to provide the current phase-out plan so that we are able to submit a phase-in plan with enhanced specificity?

Government Response: The Government is not authorized to release this proprietary data.

32) General N/A Q: Will the government allow the proposal of LCATs not currently listed?

Government Response: See Government response to Question #21.

33) General N/A Q: Can civilian COLA rates and housing allowance be provided in advance?

Government Response: No. This is the business decision of the offeror.

34) Section L L.2.1 & L.2.3 Q: Can other relevant past performances be referenced in the past performance summary that is not cited in the three past performance citations?

Government Response: Yes. Reference L.2.1

35) General N/A Q: Can the government provide the current snapshot of locations and positions currently authorized?

Government Response: Reference updated PWS Technical Exhibit (TE)-4.

36) General N/A Q: Is the utilization of the optional positions at the government’s discretion?

Government Response: Yes, providing written notice is provided IAW FAR 52.217-7 incorporated by full text in this amendment.

37) General N/A Q: Do regional lead positions currently exist?

Government Response: No. Reference updated PWS Technical Exhibit (TE)-4.

38) General N/A Q: Is surge support to be utilized by existing personnel or will new positions be added?

Government Response: Reference PWS paragraph 1.12., surge support utilizes contractors performing services under this contract who, during surge requirements, must comply with all reporting requirements including the utilization of their services and time worked. There may be rare instances require additional positions for short durations of time.

39) Section M M.2.5 Q: Will the government accept relevant past performances within 5 years?

Government Response: Due to the evolution of the program, the Government is unable to accept relevant past performance later than 3 years.

40) General N/A Q: Will this be awarded as an SCA contract?

Government Response: Reference Government response to question #1.

41) Atch-6_Price_Matrix TechEx-4_PerformanceLocations TechEx-5_Skills-Quals

N/A Q: The performance locations and skills/qualifications exhibit show that there are different qualifications for the different tiers of RCCs. The price matrix attachment does not differentiate if there are separate pricing expectations within the tiers of Journeyman/Senior RCC’s (lower-level, mid-level, upper-level). Please clarify the pricing expectations for the different level tiers.

Government Response: Reference Government response to question #1.

42) TechEx-4_PerformanceLocations

N/A Q: Position CT02 shows it is under WCP East Region, yet it also shows it is supporting component command HQ USSOCOM out of MacDill Air Force Base.

Does this mean CT02 will be supporting all WCP East while being based out of MacDill?

Government Response: CT02 will be supporting WCP East out of MacDill, but only WCP East cases as identified and distributed based on caseload and unit specificity.

43) PWS

TechEx-4_PerformanceLocations

Pg 37, PWS Section 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, 4.7.5

Q: In the PWS, section 4.7 addresses five sections of Recovery Care Coordinators; 4.7.1-Task Manager, 4.7.2-Regional Lead, 4.7.3-QCS, 4.7.4-Training Coordinator, and 4.7.5 Recovery Care Coordinator.

In Technical Exhibit 4, there are four variations of the

4.7.5 Recovery Care Coordinator:

Mid-Level, Senior Lower-Level, Senior Upper-Level, Journeyman Mid-Level, Journeyman

Other than having a difference in qualifications/experience; are there any differences in responsibilities for these RCC roles?

Government Response: There are no differences in the responsibilities for RCCs under 4.7.5 other than the qualifications and level of experience.

44) Section L L.2.5 Q: The solicitation defines "recent" for past performance as performed in the past 3 years. Given the length of the current contract (approaching 6 years), the 3-year requirement may arbitrarily disadvantage other well-qualified vendors. Would the government consider changing the past performance requirement to within the past five years to match the length of the current contract?

Government Response: Reference Government response to question #39.

45) PWS, Section L, TE-4 Q: The solicitation requires resumes for two key personnel and names for at least three critical positions.

PWS 1.19 and Section L 1.1.2

Due to the extensive qualifications required, can the contractors get the names and contact information for incumbent personnel in these positions?

Government Response: No. Incumbent personnel information will be provided to the awardee upon award.

46) TE-4 General Q: Please confirm that TE-4 list all positions, including all RCC’s.

Government Response: The Government has provided the ‘functional labor category’ and estimated number of FTEs based on known historical data and current workload conditions. Additionally, see update to TE-4 Performance Locations that indicates positions currently on contract.

47) General General Q: Is there (or is there an option to add) a position designated for Family/Caregiver Advocacy Lead?

Families/Caregivers are mentioned frequently but there doesn’t appear to be a specific position designated to handle this aspect of the project.

Government Response: No. There is no specific position that is to be designated to handle Family/Caregiver Advocacy Lead. These matters currently fall within the RCC scope of responsibility.

48) General General Q: Does the targeted population of about 15K include Reserve and Guard WII RSM’s?

Government Response: Yes, those with SOCOM affiliation.

49) Section L.2.6 Pg 68 relevancy

Q: Can the same definition of relevancy be used for the sub as the prime? Why is the sub definition only taking into account the relevancy of a specialty?

Government Response: No. Evaluation of subcontractors past performance is based on services they will actually perform under this contract.

50) Section L.2.3 Pg 68 # of PPS

Q: Due to the complexity of requirement and number of specialties needed, there is a high likelihood of having subcontractors or multiple subcontractors.

Wouldn’t be in the best interest of the Govt. to evaluate the entire breadth of the team including their past performances? Would the Govt. please allow for 5 total past performances instead of the 3 currently?

Government Response: Reference updated language to Section L.2.3.

51) Section L.2.3 68 Past Performance citations

Q: It states, in order to use a sub’s past experiences , the sub must perform 25% of the services. Why stipulate a percentage?

Will the Govt. consider removing this stipulation as it provides an unfair advantage to the incumbent as well as prohibits the Govt from evaluating the full potential of the proposed team?

Government Response: Reference updated language to Section L.2.3.

52) PWS 4.4.1.1. New‐Hire Onboarding and Orientation Training. All contractor personnel at point of hire or point of re‐hire, performing support in accordance with TE‐4, shall attend the DoD mandated one‐week, USSOCOM WCP New Hire Orientation at USSOCOM WCP Headquarters, MacDill AFB, FL within 30‐days of hire and

4.4.1.2. DoD Recovery Care Coordinator

New‐Hire Training. All contractor personnel at point of hire or point of re‐hire, performing Recovery Care Coordination and Operations Case Coordination support in accordance with TE‐4, shall attend the DoD mandated one‐week, DoD RCC New‐Hire Course in Wash, DC within 90‐days of hire.

Pg 33 Q: Is it the Govt’s intention to have all associated personnel hired or re-hired to attend 1 week training programs within the first month of the contract?

Government Response: Reference updated language in PWS paragraphs 4.4.1.1 and 4.4.1.2..

53) Section H- H.1 Travel The Government does not authorize reimbursement for travel or expenses associated with personnel interviews, training required to meet minimum qualifications outlined in PWS TE-4, required visas, immunizations, or mandatory training requirements not specified as Government directed unique.

Pg 54 Q: Is the cost of the travel, hotel and per diems borne by the contractor for the required initial week long training for all personnel as well as for 4.4.1.3.

Biannual Training (Spring) and 4.4.1.4. Biannual Training (Fall/Autumn)?

Government Response: No. Because the initial training and the spring/fall training are Government unique. Reference PWS 1.23, travel required to attend Government unique training is cost reimbursable.

54) Section L.2.3 – Past Performance Citations.

Submit a maximum of three past performance citations of recent and relevant contracts and/or subcontracts with an emphasis on the prime offeror. The offeror may cite experience data of its proposed subcontractor(s) if the subcontractor is proposed to perform at least 25% of the services under this task order.

Pg 68 Past Performance

Q: Considering the expansion of this effort as well as the diverse specialization of the tasks, ie Adaptive Sports Programs, involved in the successful execution of WCGSS wouldn't it be appropriate to include past performances from companies that have less than 25% of the services under this task order.

Government Response: Reference updated language to Section L.2.3.

55) Section L.2.3 – Past Performance Citations Pg 1, Eval Statement

Q: Please confirm that offerors are not limited to the number of citations for submission. Volume II, Factor 2, states there is no page limit to this requirement and indicates a minimum of 3 citations are required. However, the number of citations conflicts with section L.2.3 where it states a maximum of 3 citations.

Government Response: Reference updated Table L.1 and updated language to Section L.2.3.

56) Attachment 6 Price Matrix Attach. 6 Q: If incumbent employee capture is critical to the successful execution of WCGSS, can the government please provide the current salaries of all incumbent employees?

Government Response: The Government is not authorized to release this data.

57) Attachment 6 Price Matrix Attach. 6 Q: If incumbent employee capture is critical to the successful execution of WCGSS, can the government please provide GS equivalent grades to the staffing matrix?

Government Response: Reference FAR 52.222-42 incorporated by full text in this amendment.