Attachment_7_Amendment__2_Questions_and_Answers.docx

1. Page 1 of 253 box 8. Offer Due Date/Local Time 09:00 AM 08 Sep 2015. Due to the Federal Holiday on Monday 07 Sep 2015 and the need to have proposals shipped using commercial carriers, will the Contracting Officer consider a 24 hour extension due to US Mail and FedEx potential delays caused by holiday schedules in their respective processing of packages? We assume there will not be anyone at the MCRDPI to receive and sign for packages on Saturday, Sunday or Monday. Please confirm.

Answer: The solicitation due date is extended to 5:00 P.M. EST, 08 Sep 2015. This will afford all prospective offerors the entire day to ensure delivery of proposals.

2. Page 1: is the offeror to complete block 17a of SF 1449? Instructions III (1) on page 248 refers only to blocks 30a, 30b and 30c. Please clarify.

Answer: Block 17a needs to be filled out in its entirety

3. Beginning on page 3, there is a base CLIN (0001, 0002, 0003, etc.) for each Course and/or Service identified in the PWS. What pricing should appear in the base CLIN’s? For CLIN’s with Sub-CLIN’s should the total price in the base CLIN be a total of all the Sub-CLIN’s?

Answer: The total price of each base CLIN shall be a total of all its respective Sub-CLIN’s

4. Will all questions from interested vendors and respective answers be posted on the FBO website anonymously?

Answer: Only the questions and answers will be posted. No prospective offeror identifying information will be posted.

5. *C.4.1 Page 222 and 223 “All courses shall be subject to reviews to address course curriculum changes…….All costs associated with the review and revision of a given course, when no more than 20 percent material changes are identified for that course, will be built into the specific course material CLINS as applicable”. There is a base CLIN for each Course and then several Sub-CLIN’s for material for each program offered within a Course. If the price of the Custom development review and revision is expected to be included in the per unit price of the material, then how does the government anticipating accounting for the pricing of the review and revision of the programs that do not have hard-copy materials? Example is found in C.6.13 Executive Officer Course (XOC): (Web-Based) where the only deliverable is a CD-ROM. Other instances include the ETT programs, PAR program and Training Library Modules. If the Sub-CLIN is only for material unit pricing, where do we identify pricing for the custom development review and revision of the program and the associated travel? Should the pricing for this be in a separate Sub-CLIN for each program within a Course?

Answer: The review and revision of courses that do not have hard-copy materials will be conducted using custom development hours, based upon the length of the training being revised, as required via task order.

6. *C.4.1 Page 223 “Changes resulting from the review and revision will be retrofitted and shall be distributed throughout MCRC, including the Headquarters, Regions and Districts.” If the Sub-CLIN is only for material unit pricing, where do we identify pricing for the associated retrofitted material and shipping of the same?

Answer: The Sub-Clin is only for material unit pricing and shall include revisions up to 20% of the course content per PWS C.4 All revisions will be incorporated into the materials and shall be included in future printing orders submitted by task order after the revision is completed. Any “retrofit” materials for distribution (for older, already produced material kits) throughout MCRC shall be electronic files to be distributed by the NTT/COR.

7. Page 240, in C.6.14.1, there is reference to an Attachment 2 providing a color copy of a logo certificate. There is no attachment 2 posted on FBO.

Answer: Color Logo was posted with amendment 0001

8. Page 241, section C.9 refers to an RIC-SFL video being referred to in C.6.2.3.2 however there is no RIC-SFL video information in that section or in the preceding section C.6.2.3.1 which deals with RIC-SFL. Please clarify.

Answer: See OSO supplement Video as attachment (3) to this amendment for a “similar” completed video.

9. Page 241, in C.8.1.1 Development Instruction (by the hour) does not indicate how many hours. Should this state 245 hours as found in C.8.1?

Answer: Yes – Up to 245 hours annually.

10. Page 241, in C.8.1.1 references Recruiter Instructor Course RIC-SFl but the section reference C.6.2.3.2 is for RIC Sales Force Management. Please clarify.

Answer: Should be similar to the development of C.6.2.3.1 RIC Sales force Leadership, key word is “similar”. Actual final course development requirements will not be available until course development requirements are established and ordered via task orders against the Course Development CLIN.

11. Web-Based Course Content (by the hour) is not listed separately in section C.8, however it is required per the PWS on page 237 for the RSOPS program (scenario based e-learning lessons with branched, menu-driven, and whole-screen active objects) and again on page 239 C.6.13. Executive Officer Course (XOC): (Web-Based). The price to produce this training is different than Development Instruction described in C.8.1.1 and Electronic Course Content described in C.8.1.2. Can you add C.8.1.3 for Web-Based Course Content and identify how many hours may be required annually? If yes, there will need to be a CLIN or Sub-CLIN added for pricing this requirement.

Answer: A separate subsection for Web-Based course content development will not be added, nor will any CLINs or Sub-Clins be added. The estimated annual number of Web Based Course Content Development hours is 25. Section C.8.1 states in part: “…Development may be used for contiguous course content, training library modules, web based courseware or other training structure and materials….” Prospective Offerors are expected to take into account the pricing associated with the course development described, and propose pricing (by the hour) for course development.

12. Page 240 in C.7.1 Facilitation Days. “NOTE: All travel associated prices and costs associated with facilitation services described above shall be incorporated into the proposed price for facilitation days.” Since this is only for the travel associated with Facilitation Services as described in this section, can you amend the statement to read “NOTE: All travel costs associated with facilitation services described above shall be incorporated into the proposed price for facilitation days.”

Answer: Yes. The NOTE cited at C.7 of the PWS will be changed to read as follows:

NOTE: All travel costs associated with facilitation services described above shall be incorporated into the proposed price for facilitation days

13. Should there be a note added to C.8 Custom Development that states “NOTE: All travel costs associated with Custom Course Development described above shall be incorporated into the proposed Unit prices for Developed Instruction, Electronic Course Content and Web-Based Course Content.”

Answer: Yes. The following NOTE will be added to the end of section C.8 of the PWS:

“NOTE: All travel costs associated with Custom Course Development described above shall be incorporated into the proposed Unit prices for Developed Instruction, Electronic Course Content and Web-Based Course Content.

Additionally, The following NOTE will be added to the end of section C.9 of the PWS:

NOTE: All travel costs associated with Video Content Development services described above shall be incorporated into the proposed price (by the minute) for Video Content Development.

14. If all travel costs are to be incorporated into unit prices for Materials, Facilitation Services, Custom Course Development and Video Content Development, how is C.10 Travel Requirements relevant (as opposed to travel being a reimbursable cost element, using the JTR authorization parameters)?

Answer: Section C.10 (Travel Requirements) will be removed from the PWS in its entirety.

15. Page 241 section C.8.8. “Contractor shall be responsible for developing review and reinforcement materials for all materials developed by the contractor.” For clarification, do you mean the contractor shall have the capability to develop review and reinforcement materials? It is our understanding that the contractor will not be required to develop review and reinforcement materials for all materials developed by the contractor unless requested by a task order. Please clarify.

Answer: Correct. The contractor will not be required to develop review and reinforcement materials for all materials developed by the contractor unless requested by a task order.

16. Page 223 C.5 Recruiters School Courses. “Contractor shall provide training and certify Marine Corps instructors in the expertise required to instruct Marine Corps customized courses and training programs developed by the contractor, as required.” Please clarify the certification process and confirm that all aspects of that process are included in C.7 Facilitation Services.

Answer: Page 223 C.5 Recruiters School Courses will be modified to read as follows:

“Contractor shall provide training to Marine Corps instructors in the expertise required to instruct Marine Corps customized courses and training programs developed by the contractor, as required.”

17. Page 228 C.5.6.1. “CPSRC does not currently exist as its own course. However, the programs listed below are fully developed. The training materials for the CPSRC shall be designed to provide Prior Service Career Recruiters with advanced sales force management and training skills.” Can you please clarify if any or all of the existing programs listed (MCP3, MCPS and Ethics for SNCOIC/Command Group) need to be customized specifically for the Prior Service Career Recruiters?

Answer: Not at this time. The courses will be reviewed on an annual basis and revised as needed per PWS C.4.

18. Page 226 C.5.3 Career Retention Specialist Course. Active Duty and Reserve Duty classes are identified separately. Please clarify if the participant material needs to be customized for each group or if they will be using the same MC3&ECS, MCPS and Ethics materials.

Answer: They are the same materials and are identified differently only for the schoolhouse’s tracking. If the annual review of the courses determines that revisions need to be made, they will be made in accordance with PWS C.4.

19. C.6.5.3.1. AOPC (TBD – estimate 3 days) indicates “The contractor shall develop the contents of this program as it is not yet developed. The contents of this course will be similar to RIC Sales Force Leadership in size; content and design (refer to Section C.6.2.3.2).” RIC Sales Force Leadership is Section C.6.2.3.1 and is a 5 day course. Section C.6.2.3.2 is Sales Force Management a 4 day course. Please clarify which program offeror is to reference for size, content and design.

Answer: Should be similar to the development of C.6.2.3.1 RIC Sales force Leadership, key word is “similar”. Actual final course development requirements will not be available until course development requirements are established and ordered via task orders against the Course Development CLIN.

20. C.6.6.3.1. HRAC (TBD – estimate 3 day) indicates “The contractor shall develop the contents of this program as it is not yet developed. The contents of this course will be similar to RIC Sales Force Leadership in size; content and design (refer to Section C.6.2.3.2).” RIC Sales Force Leadership is Section C.6.2.3.1 and is a 5 day course. Section C.6.2.3.2 is Sales Force Management a 4 day course. Please clarify which program offeror is to reference for size, content and design.” .

Answer: Should be similar to the development of C.6.2.3.1 RIC Sales force Leadership, key word is “similar”. Actual final course development requirements will not be available until course development requirements are established and ordered via task orders against the Course Development CLIN.

21. C.6.7.3.2 Marketing for Recruiting (MR) (TBD-estimate 4 days) indicates “The contractor shall develop the contents of this program as it is not yet developed. The contents of this course will be similar to RIC Sales Force Leadership in size and content (refer to Section C.6.2.3.2).” RIC Sales Force Leadership is Section C.6.2.3.1 and is a 5 day course. Section C.6.2.3.2 is Sales Force Management a 4 day course. Please clarify which program offeror is to reference for size, content and design.

Answer: Should be similar to the development of C.6.2.3.1 RIC Sales force Leadership, key word is “similar”. Actual final course development requirements will not be available until course development requirements are established and ordered via task orders against the Course Development CLIN.

22. C.6.8.3.2 Liaison Functions (LF) (TBD-estimate 3 days) indicates “The contents of this course will be similar to RIC Sales Force Leadership in size; content and design (refer to Section C.6.2.3.2).” RIC Sales Force Leadership is Section C.6.2.3.1 and is a 5 day course. Section C.6.2.3.2 is Sales Force Management a 4 day course. Please clarify which program offeror is to reference for size, content and design.

Answer: Should be similar to the development of C.6.2.3.1 RIC Sales force Leadership, key word is “similar”. Actual final course development requirements will not be available until course development requirements are established and ordered via task orders against the Course Development CLIN.

23. C.6.10.3.1. Recruiting Station Operations – (RSOPS) (TBD-estimate 4 days) indicates “The contractor shall develop the contents of this program as it is not yet developed. The contents of this course will be similar to RIC Sales Force Leadership in size and content (refer to Section C.6.2.3.2).” RIC Sales Force Leadership is Section C.6.2.3.1 and is a 5 day course. Section C.6.2.3.2 is Sales Force Management a 4 day course. Please clarify which program offeror is to reference for size, content and design.

Answer: Should be similar to the development of C.6.2.3.1 RIC Sales force Leadership, key word is “similar”. Actual final course development requirements will not be available until course development requirements are established and ordered via task orders against the Course Development CLIN.

24. Page 252 VI. Volume IV – Price – since MCRCPI has eliminated the ELIN Spreadsheets from the requirements and it appears that offerors only need to complete Section B pricing blanks on pages 3 through 170, are there revised instructions for preparing and presenting this volume?

Answer: Yes. Section VI, Volume IV – Price will be revised to read as follows:

There is no page limit and the offeror must address at a minimum, all the non-technical aspects of the offer, including Price Proposal corresponding to Contract Line Items Numbers (CLINs) at section B of the RFP. The Price information shall not appear anywhere in any of the other respective Volumes. The requested Price Volume information shall be provided in a separate volume (i.e., 3-ring binder) labeled “Volume IV - Price.”

Price: Comparison of the proposed price is considered in the overall evaluation of “best value” to the Government based on the anticipated level of competition. The Government may accept other than the lowest price proposal, if the perceived benefits of the higher price proposal are deemed to merit the higher price. The price for the base period and all option periods will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options.

Instructions:

Submit all prices to the whole penny.

All Pricing submitted shall be valid for 120 days from the date of the submission. Contract periods are Base year, 1st Option Year, and 2nd Option Year.

25. Page 243, section C.12.2, second paragraph, implies that the USMC will not generally accept any pre-existing, copyrighted training materials unless approved by the AKO “prior to the commencement of the work.” Does this last phrase pertain to “prior to contract award,” prior to each task order, or “prior to each course presentation”? The decision whether or not to propose such pre-existing copyrighted material may have an impact on some offeror’s pricing.

Answer: “Prior to commencement of work” as used in this context refers to “prior to submitting any deliverables associated with any task order”.

26. Page 247 item B. Last sentence says “Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in three (3) separate volumes as set forth below.” The table lists four (4) volumes, one having four (4) parts. Please clarify how many separate volumes are required and if Volume II Part A through Volume II Part D are to be in the same binder or separate binders.

Answer: The requirement is to submit four (4) volumes. This will be corrected on the next amendment.

27. Page 248, item b. requires consecutive page numbering within a “section.” However, the word “section” was not used previously, only Volume and Part. Please clarify, especially with respect to Volume II: is each Part of Volume II to be numbered in separate sequence, or a single numbering sequence for the entire Volume II.

Answer: Each Part within Volume II should be numbered in separate sequence.

28. Page 248, item g. establishes file format for electronic versions of the proposal. Will .docx and .xlsx be acceptable as well as the listed older .doc and .xls formats?

Answer: Yes, .docx and .xlsx are acceptable.

29. Page 253, last section, deals with Contractor Manpower Reporting. However, there is a reference to this being a contract for MCRDPT Alteration Service. Neither this acronym or title is used elsewhere in the RFP; thus, this reporting requirement appears not to pertain to this contract, but to another USMC contract. Please clarify.

Answer: The reference to “MCRDPT Alteration Service” in this section will be replaced with “Marine Corps Recruiting Command Sale Force Training”. The Contractor Manpower Reporting Requirements apply to this contract.

30. On page 248, instructions for Volume I, Completed Requested for Proposals (RFP), offerors are instructed to provide contained required fill-in information, and other confirmation statements cited on page 249. Is the entire 253 page RFP document to be returned in Volume I, or only those excerpted pages that have fill-in spaces to be completed? For example, if an offeror has entered its Reps and Certs on www.sam.gov and only needs to complete paragraph (b) of the relevant clause that continues from page 197 to 210, is only page 200 where paragraph (b) appears to be returned to fulfill this specific need?

Answer: No. The entire 253 page RFP is not required to be returned in Volume 1 only those excerpted pages that have fill-in spaces need be completed and returned, and any additional information cited at paragraph (1) of section III, on page 248 of the RFP.

31. Page 249 requires offerors to submit offers with prices that are valid for 120 days; however, page 253 indicates that all pricing submitted shall be valid for 90 days. Please clarify which is correct.

Answer: Prices must be valid for 120 days.

32. Page 249 In the instructions for Volume I (1) Completed and Signed RFP, the last bullet requires offerors to submit “Signed Offer with proposed prices for one (1) 12-month Base Period and (2) 12-month Option Periods provided.” however on page 252 in the instructions for Volume IV “The Price information shall not appear anywhere in any of the other respective Volumes.” Please clarify what is required in Volume 1 if the price information is not to be included.

Answer: Page 249 in the instructions for Volume I (1) Completed and Signed RFP, the last bullet will be revised to read as follows:

Completed and Signed Offer -- Page one of the RFP, Blocks 17, 30a, 30b, and 30c.

33. Best practices of Marine Recruiting are mentioned throughout the PWS. Will the data be provided or is the Contractor expected to conduct a Best Practice Assessment?

Answer: “Best practices” in the PWS is in reference to how a course was developed, and how courses shall be updated and new courses built. The best practice data will be provided by the NTT where applicable. Best practices will also be examined during data gathering and other appropriate stages throughout course development.

34. Marine Instructor Certification--Please identify the requirements, if any, for the Contractor to certify Marine Instructors in new content and updated content. Please identify the requirements, if any, for the Contractor to Master Certify Marine Instructors. Master Trainers are defined as Marine Instructors certified to train other Marine Instructors. Having a cadre of Marine Master Instructors reduces the reliance on the Contractor for Marine Instructor Certifications.

Answer: There are no requirements to certify Marine Instructors. There is not a requirement for a “Master Trainer” certification listed in the PWS.

35. Security Requirements---Please identify security clearances that will be required for Contractor’s Instructors and Staff going on base, i.e. Secret, Trust, other.

Answer: A driver’s license, vehicle compliance with local and state regulations (i.e. vehicle registration), and an active contract are sufficient for base access.

36. Editing/approval process---What is the expectation for number of edits for the technical reviews to be conducted by Marine Corps Recruiting SMEs for newly developed and updated (less than 20%) program content?

Answer: For updates of less than 20% course content there will be one technical review conducted by MCRC SMEs and one “proof”, incorporating the edits, before acceptance.

37. Printing---Given the extensive printing requirements, please confirm Contract will be provided electronic copies of all materials to be printed and shipped, that are not 100% developed by Contractor.

Answer: Confirmed, awarded vendor will be provided electronic copies of all materials not 100% developed.

38. PWS C.2 Familiarization --- Is the Incumbent’s material copyrighted? If so, what arrangements will be made for the new Contractor to assume control of copyrighted materials?

Answer: Incumbent does not hold copyright for any materials. The copyright is held by the US Marine Corps.

39. PWS C.4 Course Materials and Maintenance of Course Materials --- PWS C.4.1 - Specify Course material CLINs - How will the Contractor know which courses require no more than 20 percent material changes and which courses require more than 20 percent materials changes and therefore deemed a new course?

Answer: PWS C.4.1 stipulates that each course shall be reviewed by the vendor and NTT on an annual basis as scheduled with the COR. The results of the reviews will determine the percentage of material change and therefore what is deemed a new course. If mutual agreement between the NTT and the awardee cannot be reached, the Contracting Officer will make the final decision as to what percentage the updates or revisions represent.

40. PWS C.5 Recruiters School Courses

· Please confirm Contractor is responsible for printing and shipping all recruiter school courses.

· We were not able to identify a CLIN for printing costs?

· PWS C.5.1 – How many Instructors facilitate classes of 250 students? Are you expecting the Contractor to make a best practice recommendation on Instructor to student ratios?

Answer: 1. Awardee will be responsible for printing and shipping recruiter school materials listed in the PWS as required via task order.

CLINS 0001-0018 and CLIN 0022 and their respective Sub-CLINS are printing/shipping CLINS as stipulated in PWS C.4 The reference to 250 students per class is for material reference only, in the event that materials are ordered via task order by the class. C.5.1 does not address facilitation. No, the vendor is not expected to make a recommendation on student to instructor ratios under this section of the PWS.

41. PWS C.6.8 MEPS ---- PWS C.6.8.2 – The MEPS material are not identified as existing. Therefore, is the Contractor responsible for updating the current course materials oriented toward communication skills, processing procedures, and to develop participant’s ability to facilitate the enlistment and shipping of Marine Corp applications?

Answer: 1. A portion of the MEPS materials are developed. (C.6.8.3.1) the materials listed in C.6.8.3.2 are expected to be developed and shall be oriented as described in C.6.8.2.

42. PWS C.6.8.3.1 – MEPS-Comm 1.5 days – Please clarify if this program is already developed, requires the Contractor to develop or requires the Contractor to update the current content?

Answer: Yes, this program is developed. It shall be reviewed and updated in accordance with the guidance in PWS section C.4.1

43. PWS C.6.14 MCRC LOGO Certificates --- PWS C.6.14.2.1 – Is Contractor responsible for printing and shipping up to 10,000 logo certificates annually?

Answer: Yes, To clarify: The certificates are a printed template as displayed in an RFP attachment. The certificate “blanks” will be shipped to up to 8 locations in quantities of 1000 or more. The vendor is not responsible for completing the certificates with course and participant information unless the vendor is facilitating the course.

44. PWS C.7.1 FACILITATION SERVICES --- PWS C.7.1 – NOTE: “All travel associated….shall be incorporated into the proposed price for facilitation days.” This statement is inconsistent with C.10 Travel Requirements – “…shall be compensated at/within Federal per diem rates. Please clarify.

Answer: See answer to question #14.

45. PWS C.8 Custom Course Development--- PWS C.8.1 – Is the reference to the development of 245 hours of new developed instruction per year the maximum hours of new custom course development?

Answer: 1. Yes, up to 245 hours of developed instruction is anticipated. Custom development will be ordered, by the hour, via task order as required.

46. PWS C.8 Custom Course Development---Is there a list of what courses will be requiring new content for CLIN pricing?

Answer: Courses requiring new content/materials that are already identified are listed throughout the PWS and are identified by having and “estimated” length. Examples of this include: C.6.3.3.5, C.6.4.3.1, C.6.5.3.1, C.6.6.3.1, C.6.7.3.2, C.6.8.3.2, C.6.10.3.1, C.6.11.3, and C.6.13.1. Courses are not limited to these sections as unknown needs of MCRC may arise and course development may be required as a result, and will be developed under C.8.

47. PWS C.9 Video Content Development----Is the Contractor responsible for determining the distribution of the new 170 minutes across programs

Answer: The vendor will not be the sole responsible party determining the distribution. The vendor will collaborate with the NTT during course development and will provide recommendations. Upon discussions and the NTT decision, video content minutes will be ordered via task order as required.

48. PWS C.12 Allocation of Intellectual Property----ABL is very familiar with Government Purpose Rights and have provided ABL’s Intellectual Property (IP) to the US Navy. Standard practice for the transfer of Contactor-owned IP to the Government is routinely managed as a one-time license fee paid by the Government to the Contractor. What is the expectation for providing a one-time license fee for Contractor’s Intellectual Property? There is no CLIN for this step in the process.

Answer: As stated in PWS C.12-1, “…All Contract developed databases, analyses, studies, software, applications, training courses and training materials, web products, information and other items, and all associated intellectual property, (hereinafter referred to either singularly or collectively as “Items”), completed or in progress under the contract shall be solely and fully owned by the Government. The Contractor shall turnover all Contract developed Items including transfer of all associated intellectual property, completed or in progress, to the Government, if not already delivered, upon contract completion…” However, should the Government choose to take advantage of an awardees offer of IP in support of an issued task order, any one time license fees or any other fees associated, will be negotiated and satisfied via a separate contract.

49. Volume IV – PRICE----Please clarify the instructions which reference three ELIN Spreadsheets provided as attachment (2) of the RFP. We were unable to locate an attachment (2) and the CLINS are provided in Attachment A SF1449 notated as Continuation Sheets.

Answer: See answer to question #24.

50. Please clarify the instructions – The total for each spreadsheet shall be cited at the corresponding CLIM at section B of the RFP. We were unable to locate a section B.

Answer: See answer to question #24. Section B refers to the CLINs and SubClins. The contractor will price the CLINs and SubCLINs. There is no spreadsheet to be completed. ELINS are not being used for this contract.

51. Page 246, VOL II – Part A lists page limit as 15. IV. VOLUME II page 248 states “Volume II Part A shall be limited to 20 pages.” Please confirm which is correct.

Answer: VOL II Part A is limited to 15 Pages. Page 248 will be corrected to read “15 pages”

52. Part D; Sample Course Material --- Recruiter Instructor Course has already been developed but was not a part of the RFP package. Was the Recruiter Instructor Course mistakenly left out of the RFP? If not, does this not give the incumbent an unfair advantage as they only have to submit what has already been developed and all other potential vendors do not have the same course material?

Answer: See attachments 3 through 6 of this amendment for all content associated with the Recruiters Instructor Course.

53. Can sample course work be modified to develop something not already in inventory? This puts all offerors on an even playing field?

Answer: Yes. However, the sample shall be similar to the content associated with the Recruiter Instructor Course and shall illustrate/highlight all the requirements discussed at Part D of the PWS on page 251 of the solicitation. See attachments 3 through 6 of this amendment for all content associated with the Recruiters Instructor Course.

54. The bridge contract states we would have 30 days to submit RFP. Once the decision was made to produce sample course material was there any consideration given to changing submission due date of 8 September?

Answer: The Government determined that a closing date of 08 September would afford any prospective offerors sufficient time to respond to the solicitation. However, as a result of industry requests, the proposal submission was extended 8 hours to allow for submission of proposals via common carriers.

55. If changes will not be considered, the incumbent has a competitive advantage on graphic design elements because they already have approval on layout and design from the National Training Team, Was this considered?

Answer: The Government determined that a closing date of 08 September does not provide a competitive advantage to any prospective offerors.

56. In the first PWS C.6 NTT Training Tracking Website: was going to be for the purpose of the training library, videos and reference documents. The training library requirement is not in the current PWS. Is it no longer a requirement?

Answer: The NTT Tracking Library cited in the sources sought notice is no longer a requirement.