HE1AA-P-13-0003_Q A_Amendment_3.pdf

RFP: HE1AA-P-13-0003

Amendment 3 Q&A

# Question Section Answer 1 Because the solicitation does not provide the title or content of COR Certification and elective courses (pages 7-11) P/PM Certification courses (pages 16-20) for base period and same circumstance for option periods, the Government fails to state its minimum need for the acquisition. How can pricing be determined to be reasonable?

Section 2 The content of the course will be provided by the buying agency at the task order level. These offerings should be priced as simply teaching a generic 1-Day class, a generic 2-Day class, a generic 3-Day class, etc.

2 What are the reserve courses on page 21-0050AA-0050AD- 0051AA-

0050AD,0052AA-0052AD?

Section 1 The Reserve Courses on Page 21 are blank CLIN items for the Base Period to reserve those CLIN numbers (50, 51, and 52) for three elective courses which will not be purchased until Option Period One. It is simply to keep the numbering schema for all other CLINS the same from the Base Period through all Option Periods.

3 0057AA-0057AD courses are for the purchase of instructors only for the administration of on-line courses or to teach government -owned material (asynchronous). Which is it--administration of on-line courses or teaching government-owned material? What does administration of on-line courses include? What government-owned material is included?

Administration of on-line courseware (asynchronous) includes performing administrator and online instructor functions in the learning management system (LMS) that hosts the on-line course, and manage student progress and enrollment, excluding the normal assistance provided by the government furnished Help Desk function. This includes, but is not limited to, tracking and advising the student on students' progress; resetting student exam pass/fail status or resetting student enrollment and granting extensions due to failure to complete the course within the time allotted. Instructor tasks include being accessible by telephone or email to answer student inquiries regarding content and coaching students toward comprehension of online content in the course. Workload required is for a notional, government owned, 40 seat hour FAC-PPM entry-level certification DL course; peak enrollment would approximate 4 student sections of 100 students per section, with rolling enrollment. FAI's online courseware is currently delivered by the ATLAS LMS at the Defense Acquisition University. Once notified, students have 60 days to complete online courses. Instructors are to be accessible to students during the instructor's (time zone) normal business hours, 0800 - 1700, M - F. Student inquiries are to be answered within 1 hour of receipt by the online instructor.

4 0058AA-0058AD courses are for train the trainer of government-owned material. What material? How many instructors? How many hours?

Upon receipt of government owned courseware (online or resident) and instructor support package and student material, providers will provide train-the-trainer type instruction to selected government and industry instructors so that they can instruct both online and resident training. For an asynchronous course (DL) workload is typical for a 40 seat hour, FAC-PPM entry-level certification course delivered by the ATLAS LMS at DAU. For a synchronous course (resident) workload is for a 36 contact hour, 30 student section one week resident phase course delivered at either vendor provided or government provided facilities. Example for planning purposes: currently in development and scheduled for fielding in Jan 2014 is a blended course meeting the training requirements for FAC-PPM-entry level certification. The course has two parts; a DL 40 seat hour increment, and a 36 hour (one week) resident increment.

Instructors will need to be trained to administer and instruct both the DL and resident increments. GFI will be provided in the form of an instructor package and a student package for the resident increment. A GFI instructor guide will be provided for the DL increment.

5 0060AA-0060AD is for instructor-led distance learning courses (virtual training) -synchronous.--What courses? How many hours are involved?

See answer to number 3 above. This modality (synchronous - virtual) is not planned for any particular course, but agencies may have agency specific requirements for this type of delivery option for an already existing course. Offerors can assume the course material will be GFI. Delivery location or facility could be government provided or commercially provided.

6 The sample task order asks offerors to price elective courses that it may not propose on. How is this reasonable?

Offerors shall price only the courses that they are proposing for the basic contract.

Offerors will be evaluated only for the CLINs they propose.

7 The first two pricing matrices for the sample task order do not provide enough spaces for the required courses to be priced. Pages 210-212 top.

Please see the Excel Spreadsheet provided for Task Order pricing in Amendment 2.

8 The solicitation does not indicate the relative order of importance for the technical evaluation factors. There is only the descending order.

10.1.1.5 All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Although Price is the least important factor, it becomes increasingly important when offerors receive similar ratings for the non-price factors.

9 Is the subject solicitation reference (see below) seeking up to 3 relevant contacts for the contractor or 3 relevant contacts/per course proposed by the contractor?

9.1.17.3 The Government is seeking 3 relevant contacts for the contractor.

10 The individual reference sheets in the past performance section ask the evaluator to complete and return by May 16, while the proposal is currently due on May 2. Is this accurate?

Attachment

This is accurate. Offerors are encouraged to distribute past performance questionnaires as early as possible.

11 Given that the RFP has an allowance of 30 total pages for the three FAC- P/PM offerings, are vendors limited to 10 pages for each of the three certification levels, or can they split those 30 pages amongst the three levels in other ways? For instance, by mandating 10 pages for each individual level, there is no page allocation for information about the vendor’s overall program approach.

9.1.15 Offerors are allowed 10 pages per P/PM certification level; the Offeror may utilize those pages to address the FAC-P/PM requirements at their discretion as long as the maximum is not exceeded.

12 Will the Government add a section or page allocation limit for offerors to explain the contract administration and management services requested in 2.1.8, since these apply to all proposed offerings and not to any single type of course? If not, where would the Government prefer that offerors describe these benefits, which apply to the offerors’ general performance as it relates to all courses being offered?

9.1.15 The Government will not add a section to address the contract administration and management services. Offerors may describe these benefits wherever they feel it is most appropriate.

13 Instructor Resumes (FAI Task Order

Only) – The RFP states that we need to “provide up to 4 instructor resumes per certification course level”. What does the Government define as a “certification course level?” For instance, does the Government expect up to 4 resumes for FPM-101, up to 4 more for FPM-102, etc.? Or does “certification course level” refer to something else?

9.1.17.2.3 Certification Level is Level I, 2, and 3. For example, the Government would expect four (4) resumes for Level I Courses (101, 102, 103, 104, 105 in total), four (4) resumes for Level 2 Courses (201, 202, 203, 204, 205 in total), and four (4) resumes for Level 3 Courses (301, 302, 303, 304, 305 in total).

14 Factor 2: Page Limits – In 9.1.17.2.3, the Government requests up to 4 instructor resumes for each certification course level, but 9.1.15 sets the Volume 2 page limit at 10 pages. Do instructor and key personnel resumes count against the Volume 2 page limits?

9.1.15 Resumes do not count towards the page limit. Resumes shall be no more than 2 pages.

15 General Proposal Instructions: If a vendor’s FAC-P/PM courses have already been verified as aligning with the FAI P/PM competencies, must they still submit proof of validation in Volume 1.7?

Yes, proof of validation is required.

16 FAI Training Order: Will a proposal for an FAI-verified FAC-P/PM program which requires fewer than 5 courses be deemed compliant even if it does not include pricing for all 5 courses specified in the IDIQ and FTO CLINs?

Yes

17 The SBA size standard is shown as $7,000,000; however and according to the latest SBA size standard table it appears NACIS’s code 611430 has changed to $10,000,000.

The amount has been updated from the October 2012 amount of $7m to the January 2013 amount of $10m.

18 I have discovered the following

Course Reference differences.

In the course description for Electives, Performance Based Acquisition it is referred to

FQN PBA3 - PERFORMANCE-

BASED ACQUISITION

On Page 95 PBA is referred to ACQ

PBA.

1.5.3 Electives – The following

Electives are set-aside for small business concerns only:

Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) Name of Course Location Price (per class – 30 Students)

4048AA

ACQ PBA, Performance-Based Acquisition – 3 Days Washington, DC – Contractor Facility

Is this because one reference is in the IQID and the other in the FAI TO?

How should the course Elective PBA referred too?

All references to the Performance Based Acquisition Course should be listed as FQN

PBA3.

19 Will the government consider changing the requirement for a contractor facility to be "inside the beltway" to "within 5 miles of the capital beltway" to accommodate training locations that will be on the Silver line?

2.1.10 No.

20 Since the pricing for each course varies based on whether the course is at a Contractor Facility or a Government Facility and because the FTO states that “Exact location (Contractor or Government facility)” will be “determined at task order award”, it seems that it is not possible to provide a total price for the TTO prior to task order award. For example, although the TTO indicates whether the course is in the DC area or in another city, it does not indicate whether a contractor or a Government facility will be used. Could you please clarify the instruction?

9.1.17.5.1 The pricing structure for the FTO reflects the pricing structure of the IDIQ contract. No further clarification will be given.

21 The solicitation instructions require Offerors to propose pricing and approach for the FTO as part of its technical submission. The FTO contains both COR courses and FPM courses. If a small business is only proposing under the restricted effort, is pricing for FPM courses outlined on the FTO required to be provided in order to be deemed responsive? Or, would the SB only be required to propose on the FTO to the extent they are also proposing on the IDIQ restricted portions?

Please see question 6.

22 Regarding, the proposal volume page limits in Section 9.1.15, nowhere else in the RFP is any mention of volumes

1.1 to 1.7 made. Are these page limits in addition to the page limits in Volume 1, or included in the page limits to Volume; similarly, nowhere else in the RFP is any mention of volumes 1.1 to 1.6 made. What are you expecting bidders to write about in these sections?

9.1.15 Volumes 1.1 to 1.7 are a breakdown of, and included in, Volume 1. For example, if an Offeror is not proposing Project Management levels 1, 2, or 3, the page limit for Volume 1 would decrease by 30. The Government expects Offerors to address the appropriate requirements in these sections.

23 In Section 9.1.17.3 the RFP says that offers need to submit 3 past performances. If a small business bid on both the COR courses and the P/PM courses, are they required to bid three references for the entire proposal, or three references for COR courses and three additional references for P/PM courses?

9.1.17.3 The Government is requesting 3 relevant references per offeror.

24 4 instructor resumes are to be included for each course in the FTO.

Since the FTO is the entire COR and PM curricula, does that mean an Offeror is supposed to provide resumes for each course regardless of which ones they are proposing?

9.1.17.2.3 Please see questions 6 and 13. Offerors shall submit resumes only for the courses they are proposing.

25 Regarding, Section 9.1.15, the RFP lists Volume 1.6 as “instructor only.”

If this volume is not supposed to include price information, and Volume 2 is “key personnel/instructor qualifications” – what exactly do you expect offerors to write about in Volume 1.6? How is this information different from what is asked for in Volume 2?

9.1.15 Section 9.1.15 lists page limitations. Offerors shall address all the requirements within these page limits. The page limits for Volume 1.6 allow Offerors an opportunity to address any requirements related to the Instructor Only CLINs and requirements if they wish.

26 Regarding Section 9.1.17.1, in reference to Volume 1, the RFP states “No prices or other cost information shall be included in this volume.” Yet most of what is in the Sample FTO in Attachment 5 are pricing sheets for various courses under various delivery scenarios.

Moreover, in writing a management plan for such an FTO, we would have a number of assumptions related to the prices submitted. Please confirm that in Volume 1, in addressing a technical approach to FAI Task #1, we are to not include prices and assumptions supporting those prices.

9.1.17.1 No prices or other cost information shall be included in Volume 1.

27 Regarding Section 9.1.17.1, the RFP states “The offeror must include a complete solution illustrating its technical approach to satisfying the requirements in…FAI Task #1 – FAI Task Order.” The majority of classes to be scheduled in the FAI Task Order are program/project management courses. If a small business is not bidding on the program/project management component of the RFP, do you still expect their proposal to discuss the program/project management components of the FAI Task Order, or only those elements that they are proposing on?

9.1.17.1 If a small business is not proposing on the program/project management portion of the RFP, they are not expected to discuss the program/project management components of the FAI Task Order. Only the elements they are bidding on. Please see question 6.

28 Regarding Section 9.1.17.1, the RFP states “The offeror must include a complete solution illustrating its technical approach to satisfying the requirements in…FAI Task #1 – FAI Task Order.” Given that all of the courses to be delivered are prescribed in the FTO, and the start dates for each is identified (at least to the month); and given that we are not suppose to include price information in Volume 1: what exactly are you expecting bidders to discuss regarding the FTO?

9.1.17.1 The Government expects Offerors to illustrate its technical approach to satisfying the requirements.

29 Regarding Section 9.1.17.1, the RFP states “The offeror must include a complete solution illustrating its technical approach to satisfying the requirements in…FAI Task #1 – FAI Task Order.” FAI Task Order 1 includes an imbedded excel spreadsheet. Are you expecting this spreadsheet, with updated information, to be part of the proposal? If yes, what is the page limit requirements associated with it?

Can it similarly be embedded on a proposal the way it was embedded in the RFP?

9.1.17.1 Yes, the Government is expecting an updated spreadsheet for the Course Schedule embedded in the FTO. As the spreadsheet is already created, the pages will not count towards page limitations and shall not vary from what is provided. The Government would prefer that it not be embedded in the proposal.

30 Regarding Section 9.1.17.1.1, is it correct to assume that offerors are expected to address this verification process discussed in Section

9.1.17.1.1 in Volume 1.7, and it is limited to 45 pages?

9.1.17.1.1 For FPM provider courseware already verified by FAI as aligning to the competencies, these providers need not use the extra page limit to address verification nor "reverify".

The extra page limit should only be for those providers not already verified.

31 Regarding Section 9.1.17.1.1, is it correct to assume that this does not apply to Contracting Officer Representative offerings, or electives?

9.1.17.1.1 Yes.

32 Regarding Section 2.1.2, the RFP states “The resultant IDIQ contract will ensure that FAI, the CFO Act, and SAC agencies have a flexible, comprehensive FAC training course vehicle in which to order COR, P/PM, and elective courses at the best possible quality and price.” However, in Section 9.1.17 the RFP includes the following restrictions: “An offeror shall propose all level one, level two, and level three courses of Program/Project Management together, or not at all. No partial submissions for Program/Project Management will be considered. The restrictions of 9.1.17 seem so severe, that it is unlikely the vehicle will actually offer the “flexibility” or the “best possible quality and price,” as there are only likely to be a very few firms that can provide the entire suite of courses. What advantage is gained by FAI’s customers by restricting P/PM offerings to such a narrow range of vendors?

9.1.17 Due to the P/PM competency model and verification process, it is necessary to have one Offeror with the ability to deliver all levels. Each vendor has their own training approach and instruction design for how they have aligned to the competencies.

Therefore, for all competencies to be covered, it becomes important for a vendor to offer all P/PM courses. This requirement is unchanged.

33 Regarding Section 9.1.17.2.3, calls for up to four resumes of instructors per certification course level for courses in the FAI Task Order. The FAI Task Order also includes four electives. Are you expecting resumes for instructors teaching these electives or not?

Yes, resumes for instructors of elective classes are also required in addition to instructor resumes for the certification courses.

34 Are elective courses limited only to those seven listed in Attachment 3, or are offerors free to propose additional elective courses?

Elective courses are limited to the 7 listed.

35 If a small business bids for both the COR courses and the P/PM courses, is it possible that they will be selected for one, but not for the other? Put another way, are all proposals acted upon as a single proposal for all of the work bid on, or could FAI make partial awards?

Yes. It is possible that partial awards are made.

36 Past performance questionnaire – on Attachment 6, it says that they are due back to the govt on May 16th but in section 9.1.17.3.1, they are required back by the due date of the proposal (May 2)

Attachment Six

See question 10.

37 Could the FAI please provide additional information on “Administration of on-line courses or to teach government-owned material (asynchronous)”

1. Will the government-owned material be configured for on-line instruction?

2. What platform does the FAI contemplate using?

3. What functions would the instructor perform for asynchronous on-line administration?

CLIN

1057AA

et.seq.

See question 3.

38 Since all work ordered under the

ID/IQ contract is performed on a firm fixed price basis, what is the purpose of the last sentence requiring accurate time keeping records?

Would GSA consider removing this sentence since it has no relevance to the type of task orders that will be placed under this ID/IQ contract?

2.1.8.2 This requirement has been revised.

39 Q#56 Answer - For P/PM courses only, the days listed in 2.1.15 are a guide only.

We note that 2.1.15 was not changed in Amendment 1 and indicates “The length of classes will be as follows:”

Will GSA amend the RFP to permit the vendor to provide the length of the courses they are offering? Would consider changing the language to say “The length of classes listed below are a guide only:”

2.1.15 See 2.1.15

40 2.1.19 requires the contractor to give adequate notice to the ordering agency if a student requires reasonable accommodation no later than 30 days prior to the class start date.

2.1.17 indicates that the contractor will not receive the preliminary attendance roster until 30 calendar days prior to the start date with a final roster 10 calendar days before the start date.

1. Will the preliminary roster indicate students that require reasonable accommodation? If not, how will we be notified if a student requires reasonable accommodation?

2. How can we notify the student’s ordering agency if we don’t receive the roster until the due date of that notification?

3. If a student requiring reasonable accommodation withdraws from the course prior to start, will FAITAS or FAI notify the contractor? Does this notification also go to the student’s organization so that arrangements can be cancelled?

2.1.17 & 2.1.19

Rosters will indicate students requiring reasonable accommodations. The students’ agencies will alert the vendor as to the nature of the accommodation. The student’s employing agency is responsible for providing accommodations not related to courseware (assistive technology, sign language interpreters, special chair, etc.) The contractor is responsible for providing the student large print or Braille material and providing the materials at least 5 business days prior to the class. The contractor shall ensure they use a facility that accommodates the students’ reasonable accommodation. The buying agency is responsible for alerting the training vendor if/when the student(s) requiring accommodation withdraw from the class.

41 Are walk-ins or substitutions allowed?

What instructions should the contractor provide to its instructors in this case?

2.1.17 Any other registration policy for other ordering agencies will be detailed in the resultant task orders.

42 Will the FAI consider allowing courses in Washington, DC to be held within one-quarter mile walking distance via Metro Rail of any Metro Rail station, rather than restricting it to inside the Washington D.C. Beltway? This regards the soon to be opened Silver Line and existing Metro stations outside the Beltway.

2.1.10 See question 19.

43 Many Agencies do not have adequate space to store course materials but for a minimum time. Will FAI amend this portion to permit the TO to establish the shipping instructions?

2.1.22 This requirement may be modified at the Task Order level as required.

44 The last bullet requires the contractor to submit an examination report within 5 working days after completion of the course. We machine grade our exams and perform a quality check of the results and the grading of those assignments that are graded using rubrics. Five working days does not provide sufficient time for instructors to return all required documents from the training site, accomplish this work and submit the annotated roster showing grades earned. Existing contracts with FAI currently have a 10 working day standard. Would GSA revise the standard to 10 working days?

2.1.24 The 5 working day requirement remains unchanged.

45 Is the “4 out of 5” minimum score an average of the survey questions under the Instructor portion of Attachment 2 or does it require that all questions receive a student score of 4 out of 5?

2.1.27 This will be an average score on the Instructor section of the survey.

46 Survey question # 11 concerns the physical environment being conducive to learning. Shouldn’t this be in another category such as Facilities?

The instructor has no real influence on the facility chosen for a session, particularly if the session is held in a government space.

2.1.27 Agreed. This question will be moved to the Learning Effectiveness section of the survey.

47 Section 2.1.28 requires the contractor to send “Student Attendance Rosters, Student Grade Report, and an invoice” to “FAI or the ordering agency”. How will the contractor be notified to whom these reports should be sent?

Current FAI contracts permit 10 working days for similar reports.

When reimbursable travel is performed, it will take longer than 5 days to receive and audit instructor travel claims. In other instances, grading and reviewing the exam results are performed at a central location, not at the delivery site by the instructor. Would GSA change this to 10 working days after course completion?

2.1.28 The 5 working day requirement remains unchanged.

48 Will FAI permit the ordering agency to specify its own criteria for successful completion of the class in a task order?

2.1.29 No.

49 In referring to contractor Key Personnel, 2.1.13.1 uses the term “contractor project manager” while

7.1.14 uses “Program Manager”.

Which is the correct term the contractor should use?

2.1.30.1 & 7.1.14

Project Manager.

50 This section only identifies the contractor project manager as Key Personnel. Section 7.14 indicates that the “Program Manager is the only key personnel required under the basic contract.” Section 9.1.17.2.1 refers to “Project Team Resumes” and asks for a description of each of the “key personnel” on the contractors proposed project team. Section 10.1.3 indicates that the “project team resumes will be evaluated.”

1. Whom does the government consider to be key personnel, the contractor project manager/Program Manager or the entire team that will be actively supporting an awarded contract?

2. Does the government require resumes or descriptions for these personnel?

2.1.30.1, 7.14,9.1.17 .2.1, and 10.1.3

The Project Manager is the only key personnel. The Government requires resumes and a description. Please see changes to 9.1.17.2, 10.1.1.2, and 10.1.3.

51 The deliverable “Pre-Classroom Assignments” in the table refers to

2.1.20 which addresses Welcome Letters, not assignments. We believe this should be section 2.1.22.

The due date in 2.1.22 is “within two weeks of a course start date” not “NLT 7 days of the course start date” specified in the table. This appears to conflict with a second deliverable in

2.1.31 that requires “current materials and/or directions for pre-course assignments “within 5 business days after receipt of attendance roster from FAI”. Which is the correct due date?

2.1.31 Pre-classroom assignments in 2.1.31 should reference section 2.1.22. Section 2.1.22 will be modified to show pre-classroom assignments should be provided to students no later than 7 days prior to the class start date. The 10th deliverable was deleted due to a duplication of deliverable 3 in section 2.1.31.

52 Does the phrase “proposed courses” include just the FAC-PPM FPM courses or the electives as well?

9.1.17.2.2 The phrase "proposed courses" includes all courses that an offeror is proposing.

53 1. Neither Section 2 nor 9.1.17.1 does not contain any instructions for the content for Volume 1 sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, or 1.6 contained in

9.1.15. In addition, these sub-

sections listed at 9.1.15 do not appear to correlate to the Statement of Work.

What content does the government require in these subsections?

2. The Proposal Volume Page Limits in 9.1.15 shows 130 Total pages for Volume 1. The sum of the allocations for 1.1 through 1.7 is 95 pages. 1.4 and 1.5 allows 5 pages for each COR and Elective course.

Since there are only 2 electives for PPM, that would be 10 total pages bringing the total pages allowed up for

1.1 through 1.7 to 100 (95+5 for the second elective). This would mean there are only 30 pages remaining to “address the requirements in Section 2 and the FAI Task Order.”

Is the above rationale a correct interpretation of the 130 page limit for Volume 1 for vendors submitting a bid for the unrestricted courses in the

RFP?

9.1.15 & 9.1.17.1

1. 9.1.15 seeks the Technical/Management approach to the proposed course offerings. Subsections in the table delineate the content.

2.

The Government calculated the maximum page limit for Volume 1 in the following way:

1.1 – 10 pages

1.2 – 10 pages

1.3 – 10 pages

1.4 – 10 pages (5pg * 2 courses)

1.5 – 35 pages (5pg * 7 courses)

1.6 – 10 pages

1.7 – 45 pages Total:130 pages

The maximum limit will fluctuate depending on the courses proposed by each offeror.

54 The amended RFP added language to 9.1.17.2.1 that excluded resumes for the Project Team from the page count limitation for volume 2. Are the resumes for the instructors in this section also excluded?

9.1.17.2.3 Yes.

55 Is this section referring to the Contract Level (IDIQ) project team or the FAI Task Order project plan?

9.1.17.2.1 This section is referring to the Contract Level (IDIQ) project team. See question 50.

56 How can the contractor be sure that their revenue total from an awarded contract will exceed the $650,000 threshold and thereby require an individual subcontracting plan? Can the subcontracting plan be presented when/if revenue exceeds this threshold?

9.1.17.4 Based on the expected dollar value of the contract, all Large Business concerns must submit a Subcontracting Plan with its proposal. This requirement remains unchanged.

57 Under this section there is a paragraph numbered “M.1.1.1 Sample Task Order #1 – FAI Task Order” with no further text.

Is the text missing or is this paragraph not intended to be included?

10.1.1.1 This text has been removed.

58 9.1.17.4 indicates the Subcontracting Plan is “…subject to negotiation by the CO”. 10.1.5 indicates that if the Plan “…receives an unacceptable rating, the Offeror may no longer be considered for award”.

Under what circumstances would the CO negotiate the Subcontracting Plan with the contractor?

10.1.5 & 9.1.17.4

This is at the discretion of the Contracting Officer.

59 9.1.13 refers to Volume 4 as the “Subcontracting Plan” but 9.1.17 refers to it as the “Small Business Subcontracting Plan”.

How should we title this volume for the proposal?

9.1.13 & 9.1.17

Subcontracting Plan.

60 The answer to Q# 17 in the Pre- Proposal Conference Meeting Minutes indicated that the amendment would include a correction that the mix of restricted and unrestricted course titles in the FTO “may result in only a partial solution.” No change in the language in 9.1.17.1 was made. Will this be amended?

9.1.17.1 Yes.

61 Is FQN PBA3 in Section 4 of the FTO the same course as ACQ PBA listed in 1.1.1 and 1.1.3 and throughout the Price Schedule?

1.1.3 and

FTO

Yes.

62 This section refers to a “project staffing plan” that is not identified in section 2.1.31 as a deliverable or in the FTO. Is this referring to the instructor matrix in section 9.1.17.2.2, the project team resumes in 9.1.17.2.1, or the instructor resumes in 9.1.17.2.3? Or all three?

10.1.1.2 Please see changes to 10.1.1.2.

63 Does FAI have government owned material for any of the listed courses?

If yes, please identify those courses.

If no, please identify those course you anticipate developing.

For FPM110, "Fundamentals of Acquisition project management" scheduled for fielding in Jan 2014, GFI will be provided in the form of digital files for instructor and student guides and related texts. Providers will have to make their own copies of instructor materials and student materials to instruct the course. For the DL phase of FPM110, only an instructor guide will be provided GFI; no student materials.

64 The Price Schedule does not allow for any labor categories which might be used to tailor/reconfigure existing COTS courses to meet specific ordering agency requirements for the unspecified P/PM Certificate Courses, the P/PM Elective Courses or ramp up of instructors for administering or teaching government-owned material, all of which could be a part of a normal FFP bid. Will GSA amend the solicitation to include labor categories for this specific purpose?

No.

65 For deliveries outside the Washington, DC area the schedule allows only a single price for this location. Will GSA amend the solicitation to permit the contractor to provide regional and international pricing?

Attachment Three

No.

66 The answer to question # 42 indicated that the thresholds have been changed in the RFP. This wording in this section was not changed in the Amended RFP. What are these new thresholds for discount tiers?

9.1.17.5 Changes are reflected in 9.1.17.5.

67 The answer to question # 14 indicated that the tasks for the Administration of on-line courses would be “similar to that of a DAU course administrator”.

What are these tasks?

Section 1 Price Schedule

Please see question 3.

68 The Amendment added a new second paragraph relating to courses for which a vendor has been given a “courseware requirements package.”

It later refers to a “complete courseware support package.”

1. Are these the same thing?

2. Would GSA please describe what these packages contain and how they might relate to requirements at the Task Order level?

3. Do these packages and instructions refer to FPM courses, PPM Certification courses, PPM Elective courses, or Elective courses?

Please see question 63.

69 The pricing spreadsheet provided did not have a worksheet for the FAI Task Order #1 pricing. Will a revised pricing spreadsheet be provided or should the contractor add an appropriate worksheet of its own?

The spreadsheet is provided in Amendment 2.

70 Given the importance of answers to these questions in providing a compliant and complete response to the RFP, will GSA extend the due date of the RFP by NLT two weeks from the date answers are provided?

2.1.26 No.

71 The Government’s response to question #42 in the Q&A mentions that the RFP’s discounting thresholds have been changed, and references section 9.1.17.5. Section

9.1.17.5 appears to be unchanged in Amendment 1 of the RFP; could the Government please specify whether it expects to see discounts at each increment of $500,000, up to $40,000,000, or is it stating that volume discounts can only be offered at increments of $500,000?

9.1.17.5 Please see changes in 9.1.17.5.

72 When providing pricing for the FAC- P/PM CLINs, is it acceptable for FAI-verified FAC-P/PM programs requiring fewer than 5 courses to only include pricing for the CLINs that refer to the number of courses in the offeror’s programs, and to not include pricing for those CLINs that refer to courses that are not in the offeror’s FAI-verified programs?

Section 1, Price Schedule

Yes. See question 16.

73 According to the RFP, page 6, Notes for Offerors “offerors are required to propose additional tiered volume discounts based on Government determined aggregated dollar purchase thresholds…” Where and how are offerors to propose these discounts if the pricing spreadsheets have individual CLINs and summary pages that cannot be changed, according to the notes contained within?

Please see changes in 9.1.17.5.

74 According to the RFP, page 193,

9.1.17 “An Offeror shall propose all level one, level two, level three courses of Program/Project Management together, or not at all.

No partial submissions for Program/Project Management will be considered.” Does this mean that a vendor has to respond to all five courses per level for Program/Project Management or can they respond to less than all five courses? What happens if a vendor responds with the less than the five total courses in the FAC P/PM CLINs? Can you please define FAI’s definition of “partial submission”?

Please see question 72. A partial submission would be a proposal that meets some, but not all of the competencies of level one, level two, and level three for FAC-P/PM.

75 Does the government anticipate that the requirement for COTS COR certification will be expanded beyond 60 hours as currently suggested on page 13 of the RFP, by the requirement for 7, 8, 9 and 10 day courses?

These CLINs are to accommodate potential future changes in courses/competencies required for COR certification.

76 If an Offeror does not receive an award for any of the mandatory “Additional CLINs,” can that Offeror still receive an award for other CLINs

– for example, FAC-COR, or Electives, or FAC-P/PM CLINs? Or is award of the mandatory CLINs a prerequisite for award of any other CLINs as well?

Mandatory CLINs

The award of the mandatory CLINs (CLINS x057AA-x060AD) is a prerequisite for award of any other CLIN.

77 The RFP states that “Offerors shall complete FAR clause 52.212-4.” Is there a specific form or other document that needs to be completed for this clause? If not, what is the Government requesting be completed for this clause?

9.1.17 Please see changes to 52.212-3.

78 9.1.5 states that “The Offeror shall fill in all blocks as required and sign the SF 1449.” SF-1449 states that “Offerors to complete blocks 12, 17, 23, 24, & 30.” Blocks 23 and 24 serve to list Unit Price and Amount for all Items being offered in the proposal. Given that there are hundreds of Items (CLINs) being requested in the RFP, does the Government want Offerors to fill out the SF-1449 with every Item or CLIN being offered? (This would seem to require significant additional work, and introduce the possibility of clerical errors and other inconsistencies between the required pricing spreadsheet and the SF-1449.) If not, what would the Government like for Offerors to submit in blocks 23 and 24?

a. Box 12 – Discount Terms:

Given that the Government is asking for many discounts over the life of the contract, and that the size of Box 12 is very small, can Offerors reference their proposals for this information?

b. Is Box 17a asking for the Offeror’s name and address?

c. In Box 17a, what is meant by “Code” and “Facility Code?”

9.1.5 Blocks 23 and 24 will be satisfied by referencing the schedule in block 20. Block 12 may reference the proposal. Box 17 is asking for the Offeror's name and address associated with the DUNS Number used for the proposal. Box 17a allows the contractor to specify a specific code and facility code, if applicable to the proposal.

Box 30 is for signature, name, and date of a company official authorized to bind the company in contracts.

79 The Government has requested that

Offerors provide pricing via the provided Excel spreadsheet. Does the Government also want Offerors to fill out the Word-based pricing structure given in the RFP?

a. Given that the Government wants Offerors to submit the pricing spreadsheet electronically, can Offerors simply refer to it in their Word-based Pricing Volume 5, or does the Government also want Offerors to copy/paste the values from the spreadsheet into their Word-based pricing volume?

b. Printing all pages in the provided Excel workbook results in 189 printed pages. Printing the entire Word-based pricing structure in the required Arial 12 font results in 207 printed pages. Both of these exceed the stated 110-page limit for the Pricing Volume. Will the Government revise its price limit to 189 pages so that Offerors can simply submit the relevant Excel spreadsheet? If not, is there another process that the Government would prefer that Offerors follow?

c. If Offerors are not proposing certain courses, should they remove those worksheets from the pricing workbook before submitting?

9.1.17.5 No, Offerors are not required to fill out the Word-based pricing structure in addition to the Excel Spreadsheets. Please see 9.1.17.5 and 9.1.15 for changes regarding page restrictions.