More_Clarification_QuestionsII_HSBP1014R0002A.pdf

More Clarification Questions II for HSBP1014R0002A

1. The original solicitation issued by the government required an affiliation with a university:

“3.3.1 Affiliation with accredited college and/or university To ensure the Offeror has the infrastructure and on-board bench strength to adapt quickly to the changing needs of CBP and the participants, strong affiliation with an accredited college and/or university is required.

3.3.1.1 With this strong affiliation, the majority of the faculty for the program should be from the accredited college and/or university and have taught at the graduate level in a university setting”

The answers to questions re-defined the relationship – moving it from an affiliation to the need for a University to Prime.

“3. Can you please clarify what constitutes a “strong affiliation with an accredited college and/or university”? Do you require that program faculty currently work with an accredited college and/or university as faculty? Or will extensive experience working as staff and now currently as a leadership program contractor for an accredited college and/or university suffice? (Page 7, Section 3.3.1) The primary contractor must be an accredited college and/or university.”

This change requires a major shift in contractor strategy and shifts a large portion of the anticipated proposal development burden to a University. Due to this change, we respectfully request a two-week extension to the proposal due date.

Reference section 3.3.1 of the SOW: To ensure the Offeror has the infrastructure and on-board bench strength to adapt quickly to the changing needs of CBP and the participants, strong affiliation with an accredited college and/or university is required. The proposal due date will not be extended.

2. The narrow eligibility requirement that only Colleges and Universities can be a prime significantly limits the competition. Does this fall under any of the set-aside type of contracting? Would CBP clarify what is the basis for this acquisition strategy?

No set-aside for this requirement was used. Our Market Research shows Small businesses do not have the infrastructure, resources, or faculty depth to be agile enough to meet our needs.

More Clarification Questions II for HSBP1014R0002A

The pricing schedule asks for the incremental cost per student ranging from 25-40 students. Is this per cohort cost? The RFP asks for the ability to train up to 120 per year. The cost of institute administration to produce three cohorts per year may vary from the cost to produce only one cohort. For instance, to administer three cohorts may require full-time positions, where only on cohort may only require 1/3 FTE. Several variables are dependent not only on the number of students, but the number of cohorts as well. For instance, the cost of instruction for one cohort is the same for 25 students as it is for 40, but only for one cohort. If there are more than one cohort, instructional costs must concomitantly increase. The pricing sheet appears to only asks for a per student rate, per cohort. Should we bid costs in total per cohort per student or does the pricing sheet need to multiply the students by a factor of three?

CBP will not know from year to year how many cohorts will be needed/funded each year until the workforce analysis is complete and budgets for that year are determined. Therefore, pricing should be done per student, per cohort.