Amendment 0001 - MTEP QA.pdf

Amendment 0001 - H9821025RE002 Questions and Answers

Number Question RFQ Reference RFQ Page Government Response

There appears to be a discrepancy between the posted solicitation and Attachment 1 PWS regarding the purchase order for courses, occupations, and community reviews. To assist in reviewing the differences, we have attached a PDF with a comparison snapshot for reference.

Section B and Attachment 1

PWS

Various The quantities contained in Section B are correct. Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement has been updated to reflect the correct quantities.

The requirement on page 84 states that past performance must include experience in evaluating military training courses and occupations resulting in college credit recommendations expressed in semester hours. However, the criteria by which this will be evaluated (specified in the description evaluation table on page 92) strongly favors the incumbent as they have been the sole provider of this work for nearly 70 years, and they are the only respondent that would be able to meet the adjectival rating of “Very Relevant”.

Will the government consider alternative yet comparable past performance experience in evaluating military training and occupational learning for credentialing, workforce alignment, or credit for prior learning (CPL) in postsecondary education and update the table to reflect this change?

SF 1449,

Volume III, (a) Scope and b.

Factor 2, Past Performance.

Pages 84 and 92

A fundamental aspect of the requirement is evaluation of military training courses and occupations. Section B and PWS Section 4.3.3 identify the quantity of each of these requirements. Each year has between 255 and 325 course reviews and between 13 and 16 occupations reviews. The request to change the scope to an alternate approach, which is not consistent with PWS requirements, would not enable the Government to evaluate relevancy to the scope of this requirement. The request to change to an alternative approach will not satisfy the needs of the agency.

The $5 million annual threshold seems unduly restrictive related to evaluating a company’s ability to effectively oversee substantial financial commitments, deliverables, and performance metrics across multiple periods. Would the Government eliminate this requirement and consider contracts of a lesser value?

SF 1449,

Volume III, (b) Magnitude

The magnitude portion of the Past Performance states that: "Magnitude - Demonstrated experience and evidence of managing contracts with option periods valued at $5M or more annually, underscoring the capability to effectively oversee the substantial financial commitments, deliverables, and performance metrics across multiple projects."

The magnitude considers an estimated annual amount representative of this requirement and seeks to identify the relevancy of a proposed reference to the requisite requirement.

The goal is to ensure capability to perform and manage a contract of similar size.

Magnitude is evaluated in conjunction with recency, scope, complexity, and quality of performance to determine the confidence rating and conclude the appropriate expectation of successful performance. Lowering this amount would not enable the Government to determine an appropriate expectation of performance for the anticipated magnitude required under this effort. In addition, the solicitation states that "the references will be evaluated in the aggregate in order to allow offerors who may not have the entire scope, magnitude, and complexity of the requirement ..." As a result, offerors may provide references that will be evaluated in the aggregate to address the areas of scope, magnitude, and complexity.

Given that the methodologies, standards, and fundamental approaches to evaluating military training for credit remain largely consistent over time, would the government consider extending the past performance recency requirement to five years?

SF 1449,

Volume III, (b) Magnitude

The instructions and evaluation criteria are updated to reflect that performance must be within five (5) years from the solicitation issuance date. This section is also updated to enable submission of five (5) references which includes an increase to the past performance volume page count.

The requirement for past performance in this specific work, the weight placed on the past performance criteria, and the related evaluation factors inherently favor the incumbent. How will the government ensure that new entrants with equivalent, transferable expertise in military learning evaluation and credentialing are not unfairly disadvantaged?

SF 1449,

Volume III, Factor 2, Past Performance

As noted in questions 2 and 3 above, the scope, magnitude, and complexity data submitted for evaluation are necessary to consider whether the Offeror can satisfy the needs of the agency. The agency will evaluate relevancy to the requisite requirement and determine the confidence of successful performance. It is required by each Offeror to submit references which explain and correlate past performance references to the requisite the scope, magnitude, and complexity.

Would the Government consider removing or revising the requirement to weigh past performance based on a major subcontractor’s percentage of contract value? Given that this metric could introduce subjectivity into the evaluation process, adjusting or eliminating this requirement would allow the evaluation to focus on demonstrated relevant experience and performance outcomes rather than revenue-based thresholds, which accurately captures a subcontractor’s contribution to the contract’s success. Removing or revising this requirement could ensure a more equitable assessment of all past performance references, particularly for subcontractors with specialized expertise that is critical to fulfilling key aspects of the contract.

SF 1149,

Volume III, Factor 2, Past Performance

The solicitation states in Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters, Volume III: Factor 2, Past Performance: "If major subcontractor experience is provided as part of the past performance references, it will be given weight relative to the percentage of effort being provided by that particular subcontractor in the offer submitted." This approach is equitable to all Offerors because the weighted analysis evaluation applies the same percentage of consideration to a subcontractor that a subcontractor will perform.

Would the Agency be able to clarify how past performance references will be evaluated in relation to both the aggregate assessment approach and the weighting of major subcontractor experience?

SF 1149,

Volume III, Factor 2, Past Performance

As outlined in Addendum 52.212-2, Evaluation Approach, the Government will evaluate the recency and relevancy of the reference. As noted in #4, recency means the contract performance must have occurred within five (5) years of the solicitation issuance date. Contracts are evaluated for relevancy which will consider each reference to the scope, magnitude, and complexity this solicitation requires. As noted in this same section, more recent and relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than less recent or relevant past performance. The relevancy ratings are provided within this section as well. Once this is evaluated, the government will determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts in the areas of quality, timeliness, cost control, management of key personnel, small business subcontracting, and regulatory compliance, and assign an adjectival rating at the past performance level. The overall adjectival rating for past performance will consider the subcontractor relevancy, the proposed percentage of work to be performed under this requirement, and the quality of work performed on prior contracts per this section of the solicitation.

Will the government define "total transition turnover from incumbent contractor to offeror" to ensure offeror will require "minimal" support from the incumbent during the transition. Please provide a list of deliverables included in the "total transition turnover".

SF1449, PWS

Section 4.2 Page 7 Section 4.5 provides the detailed transition plan. Additionally, Section 4.5.1.3. provides the list of deliverables that the incumbent shall provide to the offeror.

Section 4.5.2 of the PWS states, "All pending requirements and enhancements to all four websites completed prior to the expiration date of current contracts." "Websites" are not mentioned elsewhere in the PWS, can the Government please name each of the four websites and describe their purpose.

Attachment 1 - PWS, Section 4.5.2

PWS will be amended to state that "all pending requirements and enhancements to external-facing websites should be completed prior to the expiration date of the current contract." This would at a minimum, include JST Operations, the Military Guide, the incumbents respective page and DANTES.

What are the technical specifications and APIs required for integration across MTEP systems and stakeholders?

Attachment 1 - PWS, Sections

4.1.4 - 4.1.7

The technical specification criteria will vary depending on the individual stakeholder. A well-defined API technical specification ensures clear communication, security and scalability and ease of integration for developers. The government expects adhering to industry standards and best practices to enhance usability security and maintainability in alignment with MTEP PWS, Sections, 4.1.4 - 4.1.7.

Will the government define "military credentials" within the context of the solicitation.

SF 1449,

Volume II Subfactor 3., a.

"Military credentials" refers to official transcripts, currently the JST. However, as official transcripts or Learning and Employment Records (LERs) evolve, it is critical that military credentialing, remain adaptable to incorporate emerging forms of official, verified records and/or other Government identified information systems used to produce credentials for military learning.

The solicitation states the offeror shall, "leverage data to measure and double the outcomes impact by 2029." Can the Government please clarify what outcomes specifically are being referred to?

Attachment 1 - PWS, Section 3.0, (3)

Sample outcomes include military credit awards by academic institutions, most common areas of military credit awards, and TA cost avoidance totals.

Once the outcomes have been defined, please provide baseline metrics that need to double?

Attachment 1 - PWS, Section 3.0, (3)

Baseline metrics will be established during the base year of the contract using the most recent outcomes from the DI&E Pilot.

The solicitation states that the offeror needs to expand data exchanges and documented transfer decisions by 20%. Can the government define what is included as part of data exchanges and transfer decisions as well as the baseline of what's been completed or in progress?

Attachment 1 - PWS, Section 3.0, (4)

API data exchanges with centralized state systems and individual academic institutions were tested to collect academic credit transfer and award decisions. Lessons learned on API, data architecture experiences, and institutional organizational change management needs to inform scaling were documented. To date, data interoperability and exchange testing has been completed with two academic institutions/state systems.

Will the government please remove the scope requirement to include a seal on evaluation formats?

Attachment 1 - PWS, Section 3.0

The government has changed the scope requirement to include a seal and/or a physical emblem that denotes the authenticity of the transcript and supports the accreditation standards of the accepting institution on credentials. The requirement serves as notification that the transcript is verifiable, tamper-proof document that meets the needs of the Higher Education Act, FERPA, and accreditation standards.

Can the Government specify to which systems the schema and relationship tables specified in the PWS Appendix apply?

Attachment 1 - PWS, Section 3.0

This is a sample schema for reference as it relates to planning for future system integration.

Can the Government confirm the data schema and relationship tables included in the Appendix represent all websites/systems required to facilitate the contract?

Attachment 1 - PWS Section 3.0

No. This is a sample schema for reference as it relates to planning for future system integration.

If the data schema and relationship tables included in the Appendix are not inclusive to all websites/systems required to facilitate the contract, please specify additional schema and relationship tables and the websites/systems to which they apply.

Attachment 1 - PWS, Section 3.0

No. This is a sample schema for reference as it relates to planning for future system integration.

For the awardee to facilitate the data transfer, please confirm that the Government will provide a database back-up of the existing system database backend.

Attachment 1 - PWS, Appendix

Yes, the incumbent will provide all deliverables in accordance Section 4.5, Transition of Contract Services.

Section 5.5 and 5.6 of the PWS reference a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. If a small business is serving as the prime contractor, would these elements of the PWS still apply?

Attachment 1 - PWS, Section

5.5 and 5.6

These sections refer to the Small Business Participation Commitment Document which is required by all offerors, including small businesses. The sections correlate to Factor 3: Small Business Participation Plan. Please note that since Section 5.6 contains duplication of Section 5.5, Section 5.6 is deleted.

Will the Government accept completed CPARs as a substitute for preparing and submitting a PPQ?

Attachment 2 -

PPQ

Yes. Offerors need not submit a copy of a CPARS with its past performance submission. The Government can retrieve this information.

There are significant differences in the budgeted travel across CLINs 0010, 1010, 2010, 3010, and 4010. Could the Government provide further clarification on how these variances were determined?

Attachment 3 - Pricing Table

An overall goal of the program is and has been reducing the number of onsite reviews which is reflected in the downward trend of the travel CLIN. The base period is an outlier to this trend due to only being six months of scheduled reviews post transition.

There are also multiple DANTES outreach and training events that the contractor is expected to attend as a program authority. Other factors that influence the travel CLIN ceiling are historical data, seasonality, inflation rates, and the number of reviews in high-cost areas.

Please define post-academic frameworks within the context of this solicitation?

SF 1449,

Volume 2, SF A, Bullet F

Post academic frameworks is defined as structured models, methodologies and systems that guide the validation process and bridge the gap between formal academic learning in a post secondary context.

In order to keep the org chart more representative in nature the offeror recommends the government strike named personnel in the org chart.

SF 1449,

Volume 2, SF B, bullet b.

Subfactor b: Management and Staffing Approach, item b., the second sentence is reworded to state: "The chart must include titles, labor categories, duties, annual productive hours, and reporting structure to ensure transparency and accountability in project staffing."

In Volume II Subfactor B bullet b, the solicitation states, "This includes successfully transitioning key personnel and ensuring they are adequately prepared to assume their roles immediately." Please define the key personnel who will need to be transitioned.

SF 1449,

Volume 2, SF B, bullet b.

Subfactor d. Transition Plan, item b. is reworded to state: "The Offeror must ensure the smooth transition of contract services, including onboarding and training of personnel, with minimal support from the incumbent. This includes ensuring that personnel are adequately prepared to assume their roles immedately."

Can the government clarify what is meant by "All DI&E use cases and analysis - to include any piloted API architecture and academic institution data."

Attachment 1 - PWS, Section 4.5.13

"All DI&E use cases and analysis" refers to the two academic institutions that participated in the pilot, plus work completed to integrate with future DANTES systems, and any other potential items in the pilot regarding future potential use cases. "Include any piloted API architecture and academic institution data" refers to what was developed in the pilot for inbound/outbound API to include academic institution data.

Will the recent Executive Order 13985 have any impact on the requirements of the PWS, (e.g., if the term DI&E in section 4.5.13 is deemed to be related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DE&I)?

Attachment 1 - PWS, Section 4.5.13

Page 13 "DI&E" exclusively refers to "Data Interoperability & Exchange" throughout the PWS.

There are three different areas in the solicitation materials referencing evaluation types and number of reviews per contract year. There are discrepancies among these three tables, can the Government please clarify what metrics should be used for LOE and pricing purposes.

Attachment 1 - PWS, Section 4.3.3;

Attachment 3, Pricing Table;

and SF1449

Pages 3 -

The quantities contained in Section B are correct. Attachment 1 - Performance Work Statement has been updated to reflect the correct quantities.

To allow sufficient time for proposal preparation based on the Q&A responses, will the Government extend the offer due date by 10 days or more after the Q&A is published on SAM?

SF1449, Box 8 Page 1 An extension has been made to the solicitation due date.

Could the Government please incorporate the Q&A responses into a revised/confirmed copy of the solicitation? N/A N/A Yes, a conformed solicitation is provided with the Amendment.

Will the government define "total transition turnover from incumbent contractor to offeror" to ensure offeror will require "minimal" support from the incumbent during the transition. Please provide a list of deliverables included in the "total transition turnover".

SF1449,

Attachment 1 - PWS, Section 4.2

Page 7 Section 4.5 provides the transition plan. Additionally, section 4.5.1.3. provides the list of deliverables that the incumbent shall provide to the offeror.