PIC101_Q&A_-_Amendment_0002.pdf

RFP HSCG23-17-R-PIC101

Amendment 0002

July 14, 2017

This amendment is issued to:

(a) Answer and/or clarify additional questions received after issuance of Amendment 0001

Q&A’s and;

(b) Makes various changes to the RFP as reflected in the Amended RFP (See RFP HSCG23-17-

17-R-PIC101/Amendment 0001).

(c) Publish RFP HSCG23-17-17-R-PIC101/Amendment 0001 which replaces the RFP originally published in its entirety.

Note: The due date for receipt of proposals remains unchanged. No further extension to the due date for receipt of proposals as a result of the changes in the synopsis/solicitation as amended herein is anticipated.

Question: Reference RFP Section I The Offeror shall provide the following in its Volume Two in order to be considered complete: (1) In addition to the requirements listed in FAR Part 52.212-1 (b) (10), Offerors shall submit a total of three references utilizing the Past Performance Evaluation Document attached. Offerors shall complete SECTION A of the Past Performance Evaluation Document. SECTION B shall be completed by the Government during offer evaluations.

Can the Government please clarify – Should Volume Two contain three Past Performance Evaluation Documents with Section A completed? Are we to submit Past Performance Evaluation Documents to our references and request that they complete Section B and submit the completed forms directly to the Government? If so by what date and to whom should they be submitted? Or is USCG going to submit to clients for completion?

RESPONSE: Past Performance Evaluation Documents should be submitted with Section A only completed as stated in RFP. See Amendment 0001 to the synopsis/solicitation which makes various changes to the evaluation criteria and proposal submission requirements.

RFP Change: See RFP HSCG23-17-17-R-PIC101/Amendment 0001 as amended. This amended synopsis/solicitation incorporates responses to Offerors questions as appropriate and makes other edits or changes as shown therein, and replaces the original synopsis/solicitation published on June 29, 2017 in its entirety.

Question: Reference Past Performance Evaluation Document Can the Government please clarify what should be provided in the “Customer Activity:” field on the referenced form?

RESPONSE: Customer Activity relates to the customers primary business area.

Question: Given the extensive and stringent position requirements for all staff, would the government consider identifying some of the requirements as desirable vice required in order to expand the pool of highly qualified instructors and support staff?

RESPONSE: No. The minimum labor qualification requirements are as stated in the PWS and remain unchanged.

Question: Please confirm that the cover pages, TOCs and draft project plan as well as the full contents of Volumes 1, 2, 3 excluding resumes and FAR 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications-Commercial Items cannot exceed 50 pages.

RESPONSE: Offers technical proposal submission shall be limited to 50 pages all inclusive with page numbers in sequential order as stated in the RFP, excluding resumes. However, please see Amendment 0001 to the synopsis/solicitation which makes various changes to the evaluation criteria and corresponding proposal submission requirements.

RFP Change: See RFP HSCG23-17-17-R-PIC101/Amendment 0001 as amended. This amended synopsis/solicitation incorporates responses to Offerors questions as appropriate

Question: Reference Section I Evaluation: SUB-FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH TO INSTRUCTIONAL SERVICES: The Government will evaluate each offeror’s Technical Approach to determine their capacity to perform the instructional requirements outlined in the

PWS. SUB-FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH TO EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT

SERVICES: The Government will evaluate each offeror’s Technical Approach to determine their capacity to perform the educational support requirements outlined in the PWS Can the Government please clarify which PWS tasks align to Instructional Services and which tasks align to Educational Support Services, since the only occurrence of these terms is in Section I of the RFP?

RESPONSE: The Technical evaluation criteria as specified in FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items and FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items has been revised as specified in the amended combined synopsis/solicitation.

RFP Change: See RFP HSCG23-17-17-R-PIC101/Amendment 0001 as amended. This amended synopsis/solicitation incorporates responses to Offerors questions as appropriate and makes other edits or changes as shown therein, and replaces the original synopsis/solicitation published on June 29, 2017 in its entirety.

Question: Reference Section I Evaluation: “The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Technical and Management Approach to determine their capacity to perform all the requirements outlined in the PWS, which will include, but will not be limited to, an evaluation of the following: the Offeror’s proposed mix of labor categories and level of effort proposed for the solicited services…” Can the Government please clarify where and how we should provide labor categories and level of effort in the Technical Approach and Management Volume?

RESPONSE: Labor categories are instructors and the level of effort is not applicable to a fixed price contract based upon establishment of individual fixed prices for each class (i.e.

CLIN).

RFP Change: See RFP HSCG23-17-17-R-PIC101/Amendment 0001 as amended. This amended synopsis/solicitation incorporates responses to Offerors questions as appropriate