The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
M0026418R0012
SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET
SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM
The required response date/time has changed from 30-Apr-2018 01:00 PM to 14-May-2018 12:00 PM.
SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES
CLIN 0005
This CLIN has been renumbered to CLIN 0006.
CLIN 0005 is added as follows:
| ITEM NO |
| SUPPLIES/SERVICES |
| MAX QUANTITY |
| UNIT |
| UNIT PRICE |
| MAX AMOUNT |
Each
Post-production Courseware Updates
FFP
IAW PWS section 4.5 FOB: Destination
MAX
NET AMT
DELIVERIES AND PERFORMANCE
The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0001 has been changed from:
| DELIVERY DATE |
| QUANTITY |
| SHIP TO ADDRESS |
| DODAAC / CAGE |
POP 14-JUN-2018 TO
13-JUN-2023
To:
| DELIVERY DATE |
| QUANTITY |
| SHIP TO ADDRESS |
| DODAAC / CAGE |
POP 30-JUL-2018 TO
29-JUL-2023
The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0002 has been changed from:
| DELIVERY DATE |
| QUANTITY |
| SHIP TO ADDRESS |
| DODAAC / CAGE |
POP 14-JUN-2018 TO
| DELIVERY DATE |
| QUANTITY |
| SHIP TO ADDRESS |
| DODAAC / CAGE |
POP 30-JUL-2018 TO
The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0003 has been changed from:
| DELIVERY DATE |
| QUANTITY |
| SHIP TO ADDRESS |
| DODAAC / CAGE |
POP 14-JUN-2018 TO
| DELIVERY DATE |
| QUANTITY |
| SHIP TO ADDRESS |
| DODAAC / CAGE |
POP 30-JUL-2018 TO
The following Delivery Schedule item for CLIN 0004 has been changed from:
| DELIVERY DATE |
| QUANTITY |
| SHIP TO ADDRESS |
| DODAAC / CAGE |
POP 14-JUN-2018 TO
| DELIVERY DATE |
| QUANTITY |
| SHIP TO ADDRESS |
| DODAAC / CAGE |
POP 30-JUL-2018 TO
The following Delivery Schedule Item has been deleted from CLIN 0005:
| DELIVERY DATE |
| QUANTITY |
| SHIP TO ADDRESS |
| DODAAC / CAGE |
POP 14-JUN-2018 TO
The following Delivery Schedule item has been added to CLIN 0005:
| DELIVERY DATE |
| QUANTITY |
| SHIP TO ADDRESS |
| DODAAC / CAGE |
POP 30-JUL-2018 TO
The following Delivery Schedule for CLIN 0006 has been added:
| DELIVERY DATE |
| QUANTITY |
| SHIP TO ADDRESS |
| DODAAC / CAGE |
POP 30-JUL-2018 TO
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE
The following Acceptance/Inspection Schedule was added for CLIN 0005:
| INSPECT AT |
| INSPECT BY |
| ACCEPT AT |
| ACCEPT BY |
| Destination |
| Government |
| Destination |
| Government |
The following have been added by reference:
252.227-7015
252.227-7016
252.227-7017
252.227-7019
252.227-7025
252.227-7027
252.235-7004
The following have been added by full text:
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
| QUESTION NO. |
| QUESTION |
| ANSWER |
| 1 |
| PWS section 3.3 indicates that work is to be performed primarily at the contractor’s site. Is the incumbent workforce located primarily at the contractor’s site? We were under the impression they all worked at the Government site. |
| Place of performance for this effort is at the contractor's site. No lead contractor is required to be stationed at the USMC premises. Contractor personnel may visit installations during the delivery of product or during inspection and acceptance period for each deliverable provided at the task order basis. |
| 2 |
| Section 2 states that “Offerors shall submit three hard copy versions of the proposal and a compact disc with an electronic copy of the entire proposal.” Section 2.2 includes a table which indicates multiple hard copies of each volume and no electronic copies are required. Please clarify. |
| An electronic version of the proposal as well as the pertaining hard copies are required for this effort. Please adhere to criteria included under section 2 of the 52.212-1 Addendum. Language in Section 2 has been corrected. |
| 3 |
| Section header reads “Volume 1 – Factor 1 - Mandatory Requirements”. Believe this should read “Volume 2 – Factor 1 - Mandatory Requirements”. |
| RFP has been updated via amendment and volume references have been corrected. |
| 4 |
| Section 2.3.1 indicates that the OCI plan (if applicable) is required in both Volumes 1 and 2. Please clarify. |
| OCI Mitigation Plan, if applicable shall be provided under Volume 1. Language in the RFP amendment has been updated. |
| 5 |
| Section refers to “five objectives and the thirty-two tasks referenced under the PWS”. Only 5 tasks and no objectives are referred to in the PWS. Please clarify. |
| The reference to five objectives and 32 tasks was an oversight and has been corrected in the RFP amendment. |
| 6 |
| The section states that a minimum of 3 past performance references are required. It also states later that “Of the five objectives and the thirty-two tasks referenced under the PWS, the Offeror shall submit no more than two references where the Offeror was a Sub-Contractor.” Please clarify that one past performance reference must be for work performed as a prime contractor. If so, will an offeror be ineligible for award if they cannot cite a past performance as a prime contractor? |
| The reference to five objectives and 32 tasks was an oversight and has been corrected in the RFP amendment. The Offeror shall submit no more than two references where the Offeror was a Sub-Contractor. If the Offeror does not have relevant past performance experience within the last three years, then the Offeror must make an affirmative statement to this effect. A contractor is still eligible for contract consideration even if they have no past performance contract references. If no past performance contract references are provided and an affirmative statement to this nature is made in the proposal, an Unknown Rating (Neutral) could be granted. An Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating is granted based on the following criteria: No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance. |
| 7 |
| The section references a Past Performance Questionnaire to be completed. No Past Performance Questionnaire was provided with the solicitation documents. Are offerors to develop their own questionnaires? |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 8 |
| Please clarify: On the “Deliverables Unit Price Matrix”: • Is it accurate to say that the Government desires a price, for example, for FEA for .5 hours of Level 2? o If that is correct, then for 384 hours, as shown in the sample task order sheet, the unit price would be multiplied by 192? • Or does the Government seek a unit price for an FEA for each level of interactivity, regardless of the number of hours of IMI to be developed? |
| The Government desires a unit price for 0.5 hours of Level 2 interactivity. For the sample task order you would multiply out your unit price for 0.5 hours of Level 2 by the desired amount. For example, a single 5 hour level 2 IMI course would require 10 x 0.5 hour units, multiplied by the vendor unit price to determine the total price for that 5 hour course. |
| 9 |
| Section 4.2 states that “Interactivity Level 2 projects shall be tasked in 0.5-hour increments with a twenty-hour composite learning time maximum for each project.” The sample task order pricing spreadsheet indicates 384 hours of level 2. This would seem to exceed the maximum indicated in 4.2. Please clarify. This is also true for all levels of interactivity hours shown in the sample task order |
| Agreed. |
| 10 |
| The sample task order pricing spreadsheet is not mentioned in section 2.7 along with other guidance for completing the pricing volume and spreadsheets. Please clarify. |
| Reference to the sample task order has been added into the RFP. Sample task order is based on the Sample Task Order PWS requirements. RFP instructions are updated. |
| 11 |
| On rows 12 and 13, column B, it indicates interactivity levels 1 and 2. Should this not be Levels 2 and 3? |
| For the sample task order, only IMI levels 2 (0004B) and 3 (0004C) are required for Task 4 (0004) Development Product pricing purposes. |
| 12 |
| During which ordering period will the sample task order be performed? |
| Ordering Period 1. |
| 13 |
| During which ordering period will the initial task order be performed? |
| Ordering Period 1. |
| 14 |
| “…, one (1) seat on premises, within CDET offices, will be provided for utilization by the lead contractor responsible for government coordination activities.” Is this seat on an as needed basis or is it required to have a FTE on-site? |
| Place of performance for this effort is at contractor site. No lead contractor required to be stationed at the USMC premises. Contractor personnel may visit installations during the delivery of product or during inspection and acceptance period for each deliverable provided at the task order basis. Language in the RFP has been updated. |
| 15 |
| Paragraph 2.6.1 states: “For each relevant task identified, a Past Performance Questionnaire shall be used to collect data from the references. .” There was no PP Questionnaire presented in the PWS. Will you provide a template for consistency in responses or are we to create on? |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 16 |
| Is there an current incumbent providing the functions of this contract? |
| The incumbent under the current contract is KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT INC. |
| 17 |
| Like Task 1 items, there is no due date established for this task…has one been established? |
| Correct, no due has been established. Due date will depend on the task order award date and the completion of a kick-off meeting. The contractor shall deliver the product 20 business day after kick-off meeting. |
| 18 |
| Does this small business set aside require 100% delivery by small business? Or, could large business(es) fulfill less than 50% of the work as sub-contractor(s) provided the prime contractor is a small business and performs greater than 50% of the work? |
| In accordance with Limitation on Subcontracting criteria included in FAR 52.219-14 (c)(1) , "Services (except construction). At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern". The Contractor is required to comply with this criteria in order to be eligible for award. |
| 19 |
| The DD254 for this effort was not included in the RFP. Does the Government intend to issue one for this effort? |
| The DD 254 is not needed for this effort since the classification level is Unclassified. Security clearance language has been updated in the RFP. |
| 20 |
| Pricing for Travel (CLIN 0005) is not requested in the RFP response. Will the Government provide an NTE amount, and will it be reimbursed at cost without fee, but with appropriate burdens (material/handling or G&A)? |
| Travel cost will be required at the task order level. There is no requirement to use a Not to Exceed amounts in the solicitation. Travel will be negotiated and settled as Firm Fixed Price at the task order level. Travel will be evaluated following the FAR 31.205-46. |
| 21 |
| With respect to the data rights restrictions described in 3.8 as it pertains to still photos and other graphics, will the government allow photos and graphics licensed through stock image sources provided the offeror maintains proper licenses for the perpetual, world-wide, unlimited use of such works? Does CDET already have licenses with stock sources in place or access to a repository of royalty free photos and graphics that can be used by the offeror for the enhancement of the courseware? If not, would CDET be willing to procure such access? |
| CDET does not have licenses for stock media. CDET does have access to royalty free photos and videos through .mil sources. The Offeror shall comply with DFARS 252.227-7020. |
| 22 |
| The number of copies for each Volume identified in 2.1 Proposal Delivery Instructions conflicts with the general instruction of "three hard copy versions of the proposal and a compact disc with an electronic copy of the entire proposal" found in 2. Instructions for Submission of Proposals. Can the Government clarify the number of hard and soft copies of each Volume of the Proposal that are required? |
| An electronic version of the proposal as well as the pertaining hard copies are required for this effort. Please adhere to criteria included under section 2 of the 52.212-1 Addendum. Language in Section 2 has been corrected. |
| 23 |
| Can the Government confirm that "2.4 Volume 1 Factor 1 - Mandatory Requirements" should be Volume 2, "2.6. Volume 4 - Factor 4 - Past Performance" should be Volume 5, and "2.7. Volume 5 - Factor 5 – Price" should be Volume 6? |
| RFP has been updated via amendment and volume references have been corrected. |
| 24 |
| Offeror's are instructed to provide the "Past Performance Questionnaire" to the Government Past Performance POC for completion, however, the Questionnaire not provided with RFP. Does the Government intend to provide the Questionnaire? |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 25 |
| Do the copies of the Performance Work Statement for past performance referenced contacts count against the nine page limitation for the Past Performance volume? |
| The copies of the Performance Work Statement for past performance referenced contacts are considered attachments under the Past Performance Volume and would not impact the nine (9) pages count applicable to the volume. |
| 26 |
| Section 2.6.1 Past Performance references "five objectives and the thirty-two tasks referenced under the PWS." Can the Government clarify which PWS objectives are tasks referenced? |
| The reference to five objectives and 32 tasks was an oversight and has been corrected in the RFP amendment. The Offeror shall submit references related to the deliverables listed in the PWS. |
| 27 |
| Section 2.7.1 refers to "supplemental information" provided as “Bidder’s Library Reference Material” available on the FBO announcement for this RFP. However, no supplemental information has been posted. Does the Government intend to post the supplemental information referenced? |
| This information is provided via this RFP amendment. The documents "MarineNet Content Development Tech Stansard 3.0", MarineNet Software Baseline Requirements" and MIL-HDBK-29612-3a are provided. |
| 28 |
| Can the Government clarify what Column E "Unit Price" refers to? Is it the same as Ordering Period 1 pricing? |
| The template has been modify to simplify this and avoid redundancy. Column E Unit Pricing has been eliminated. Please see revised template attached to this amendment. |
| 29 |
| Unlike Task 3 and 4, Task 2 contains three pricing rows for each Level of Interactivity and Ordering Period. Can the Government confirm that only one unit price is required for each Level for each Ordering Period? |
| A unit price per deliverable, level of interactivity (when applicable) and per ordering period is required. |
| 30 |
| Can the Government clarify what the IMI Hours in Column C "Total Quantities" refers to? If 384 IMI Hours are identified in Column C for an Interactivity Level requiring only 0.25 IMI Hours for each course, does this equate to a of 1,536 courses (384 x 0.25) or 384 (0.25) IMI Hour courses? |
| The Government desires a unit price for 0.5 hours of Level 2 interactivity. For the sample task order you would multiply out your unit price for 0.5 hours of Level 2 by the desired amount. For example, a single 5 hour level 2 IMI course would require 10 x 0.5 hour units, multiplied by the vendor unit price to determine the total price for that 5 hour course. |
| 31 |
| Can the Government confirm that "Unit Price" in Column D should be the same pricing used for Ordering Period 1? |
| Correct, column D on the Sample Task Order tab relates to Ordering Period 1 pricing. |
| 32 |
| Can the Government confirm that "Unit Price" in Column F should be the same pricing used for Ordering Period 1? |
| Correct, column F on the InitialTask Order tab relates to Ordering Period 1 pricing. |
| 33 |
| Is there flexibility in the 4 week deliverable due date of the assessment report for Courseware Topics 1-6? Will the contractor receive all of the instructional materials utilized to conduct the current training for each course and access to appropriate stakeholders for each course on the start date of Task 1? |
| After task order award, a kick-off meeting will be held. All instructional materials needed will be provided no later than the kick-off meeting date. The Contractor shall deliver the product 20 business days after the kick-off meeting is held. If a kick-off meeting is not needed, the 20 days delivery date period will commence once all the instructional material is provided to the contractor. CDET expectation is that the Task 1 is limited in scope and that 20 business days is sufficient to complete Task 1 requirements regardless of the size of the end product. Vendor will have access to all available instructional materials, stakeholders and SMEs. |
| 34 |
| Is there currently courseware in place for each of the 7 courseware topics defined in the PWS, i.e.: M1AI Armament and Ammunition? |
| There is no existing Marine Corps eLearning courseware for any of the courseware topics. Some of the courses will be derived from existing school house materials and SMEs. |
| 35 |
| For each of the 7 Courseware topics defined in the PWS can you quantify how much content exists for each course, including the length of each course, how many learning objectives are identified for each of the 7 courses, the scope of the content, the format of the content including how many volumes or pages of documentation will be provided to the contractor? |
| No, under the scope of services included on contract, it is the contractor's responsibility to deterine and provide this information to the Government as part of Task 1. |
| 36 |
| How many courses does CDET intend to have contractor assess, analyze, design, develop and deploy over the 5-year contract? |
| Number of courses needed are subject to the decision made at the Annual Targeting Board conducted by the Government. An estimation of courses cannot be determined with certainty at this time. An average of 7 courses per year were made under previous contract. Demand may increase based on the training needs of the Marine Corps as indicated in each Annual Targeting Board. |
| 37 |
| What is the deliverable due date for Task 2? |
| The Inial Task Order PWS has been updated to remove task 2 as a deliverable. Task 2 deliverable due dates will be established based on the POAM provided in Task 1 deliverable. |
| 38 |
| It is unclear in the PWS how contractor can perform and deliver a Front End Analysis (FEA) when the contractor is not required to complete Task 1 assessment activities for this course. Does an assessment exist and will it be provided to the contractor upon award? Or will the contractor be required to perform Task 1 assessment for this course first? Will the contractor have access to the stakeholders, USMC sponsor SMEs, CDET project officer and CDET ISS prior to start date of Task 2? |
| The Inial Task Order PWS has been updated to remove task 2 as a deliverable. |
| 39 |
| What are the estimated days of annual travel for contractor? |
| Travel will be determined at the task order level. For the Initial and Sample Task Orders included in the RFP, there are no travel requirements. |
| 40 |
| How many courses were assessed, analyzed, designed, developed and deployed by the previous contractor annually over the last 3 years? |
| Average of 7 courses per year were made under previous contract. Demand may increase based on the training needs of the Marine Corps as indicated in each Annual Targeting Board. |
| 41 |
| Section 2.6.1 states that “Individual task orders under an ID/IQ contract are each considered to be one past / present performance effort.” Will the Government allow offerors to submit an entire ID/IQ contract as a single past performance reference? |
| Past Performance references related to task orders under the SAME IDIQ contract are considered to be ONE past performance effort. |
| 42 |
| “The Government provided supplemental information under this solicitation to allow contractors to obtain understanding of CDET’s curriculum development needs. This information is provided as a “Bidder’s Library Reference Material” for the RFP and is available on the FBO announcement for this RFP.” Searching the FBO announcement for the RFP, we were not able to locate this reference library. Does the Government plan on making this reference material available to potential offerors? |
| This information is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 43 |
| There's reference to a Past Performance Questionnaire in the RFP; however, there is no PPQ form/format provided for vendors to send to customers. |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 44 |
| The OCI Mitigation Plan proposed, if applicable, is stated in Volume 1 Offer Letter submission requirements and also OCI Plan in Volume 2 – Factor 1 Mandatory Requirements as Sub-factor 1 - if no conflict exists, is a statement confirming no OCI acceptable (RFP page 63 of 73) and if so how will this be evaluated under the Pass/Fail criteria? |
| The OCI plan will be evaluated under Factor 1. RFP has been updated and OCI is a sub-factor under Factor 1 Mandatory Requirements. If an Offeror determines that an actual or potential OCI does not exist, the Offeror shall include a statement to that effect as part of its proposal, and does not need to submit an OCI Plan. |
| 45 |
| Requirements to deliver 3 hardcopies plus CD stated on RFP page 61 of 73 is not the same compared to the table on RFP page 62 of 73 (2.2 proposal content)? Please clarify hard copy/CD requirements for submission. |
| An electronic version of the proposal as well as the pertaining hard copies are required for this effort. Please adhere to criteria included under section 2 of the 52.212-1 Addendum. Language in Section 2 has been corrected. |
| 46 |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) form is required but was not provided. Will this be provided in an Amendment as a separate attachment? |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 47 |
| The supplemental info with CDET’s curriculum development needs was not supplied as stated on RFP page 67 of 73. Will this be provided? |
| This information is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 48 |
| Five objectives and 32 tasks referenced under the PWS is stated on RFP page 66 of 73 under Factor 4 –Past performance, should this be the 4 specific task area requirements? Is there a specific task list for 32 indicated? |
| The reference to five objectives and 32 tasks was an oversight and has been corrected in the RFP amendment. The Offeror shall submit references related to the deliverables listed in the PWS. |
| 49 |
| PWS 3.7 states the Quality Plan shall be delivered to the COR 30 days after contract award for review; however, in the instructions to Offerors 2.6.1.5 the QCP is to be delivered with the proposal as an attachment. Please clarify. |
| The Quality Plan shall be delivered as an attachment to the proposal. Language in the RFP has been revised. Attachements do not count towards the page limit. |
| 50 |
| Section 2 requires three hard-copy versions of the proposal; however, Section 2.2 provides a table that includes varying numbers of hard copies per volume. Please confirm the number of hard copies per volume offerors are required to submit. |
| An electronic version of the proposal as well as the pertaining hard copies are required for this effort. Please adhere to criteria included under section 2.2 of the 52.212-1 Addendum. Language in Section 2 has been corrected. |
| 51 |
| Section 2.6.1.5 states that the Quality Control Plan is to be submitted as an attachment to the volume. Per 2.6.1, please confirm that the QCP does not count against the 20-page limit. |
| The Quality Plan shall be delivered as an attachment to the proposal. Language in the RFP has been revised. Attachements do not count towards the page limit. |
| 52 |
| Please confirm the number of contracts the prime and subcontractors can submit. Is it up to 6 total for the prime and up to 3 total for each sub? Or is the requirement for 6 contracts total inclusive of both prime and subs? |
| A maximum of six (6) past performance contracts references can be provided in the proposal. This maximum total includes prime and subcontractor contract references. Information on up to three recent contracts performed by an offeror’s significant teaming partners / subcontractors and significant subcontractors considered most relevant in demonstrating their ability to perform the proposed effort may be submitted. The Offeror shall submit no more than two contract references where the they functioned as a Sub-Contractor in the provided contract reference. |
| 53 |
| A Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) was not provided with solicitation. Will the government provide a PPQ for offerors to use? |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 54 |
| The solicitation states, “For each relevant task identified, a PPQ shall be used …” We assume this requirement means that a PPQ should be used for each relevant contract (not task) – is this assumption correct? |
| Correct. The Past Performance Questionnaire applies to the contract references proposed. |
| 55 |
| Are the requirements provided in bullet point required to be included as part of the PPQ or submitted within the proposal submission? |
| Requirements shall be included in the proposal. |
| 56 |
| Other than the matrix identified in Section 2.6.1 under Volume 5 instructions, and the Past Performance Questionnaires, which we are to be sent directly to the customer, what are offerors required to submit in the Volume 5? |
| For volume 5, Offerors shall submitt a price narrative for the Deliverable unit price matrix, sample and initial task order pricing. |
| 57 |
| This section states: “The Government will assess written task orders proposals using the evaluation factors described in the solicitation. The Governments evaluation of the Offeror’s Initial and sample Task Orders proposals is included in the Technical Capability and Price Factors.” Should offerors address the Task Order PWS (provided with the solicitation) in addition to the requirements of the main PWS, in their response to Volume 3 – Factor 2 – Technical Capability? |
| Correct, this criteria applies to the sample and initial task orders. A technical narrative is required for the task orders. This narrative shall be provided as part of the task order. RFP language has been modified to address this. |
| 58 |
| 2.1 Proposal /Format - this paragraph states that there will be no photographs. Do screen captures fall into the “photograph” category? |
| Graphs, drawings and “Screen Shots” of pictures depicting an element of the proposed approach must be clear and legible. RFP language has been updated in this amendment. |
| 59 |
| Paragraph 2 states: “Offerors shall submit three hard copy versions of the proposal and a compact disc with an electronic copy of the entire proposal” This is inconsistent with the copy count required by paragraph 2.2. Will the government please clarify the requirements for copy count and compact disc delivery for this opportunity? |
| An electronic version of the proposal as well as the pertaining hard copies are required for this effort. Please adhere to criteria included under section 2 of the 52.212-1 Addendum. Language in Section 2 has been corrected. |
| 60 |
| Paragraph 2 specifies a compact disc with an electronic copy of the entire proposal and paragraph 2.1 provide “print” structure for the electronic version. Does the government have specific marking instructions for the compact disc and does the government have a specific volume they wish the disc to be bound with (it will have pricing information if the entire proposal is on a single disk)? |
| An electronic version of the proposal as well as the pertaining hard copies are required for this effort. Please adhere to criteria included under section 2 of the 52.212-1 Addendum. Language in Section 2 has been corrected. Please identify the proposal by volumes and its respective sections. CD can be seperate or included in Volume 1. |
| 61 |
| Does the government wish all volumes bound separately? |
| Yes please, each volume shall be bound separately. |
| 62 |
| Paragraph 2.6 requires the Volume 4 to be no more than nine pages. This page count is inadequate to provide the information requested by the government in adequate detail for evaluation of 6 past performances (including the PWS of reference contracts). Request the government consider a page count related to the individual PPI (such as a one-page overview, 3 pages per PPI and the PWS is not counted in page count) OR increase overall page count for the Past Performance Volume to 19 pages with the PWS considered an exhibit? |
| The copies of the Performance Work Statement for past performance referenced contacts are considered attachments under the Past Performance Volume and would not impact the nine (9) pages count applicable to the volume. |
| 63 |
| There is a requirement for the offeror to forward Past Performance questionnaires to their customers, but no PPQ format was provided in the RFP. Would the government provide the PPQ for the Offerors? |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 64 |
| Customers often require at a minimum lead time to provide PPQ. Request the government consider an extension to provide our customers adequate time to submit the PPQ is one is not provided by April 18, 2018. |
| An extention for the proposal due date is incorporated in this RFP amendment. |
| 65 |
| Paragraph 2.43 states: Offeror shall comply with FAR 52.219-14(c)(1) criteria, which requires at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel (i.e., labor) shall be expended for employees of the prime contractor. In order to evaluate compliance, the offer will provide a breakdown of small business participation.” Will the KO implement the recent changes to SBA’s limitations on subcontracting rules (e.g., 13 C.F.R. § 125.6) and incorporated them into a current contract? The rule now states “any work done by a similarly situated entity not to constitute “subcontracting” for purposes of determining compliance with the applicable limitation on subcontracting. A similarly situated entity is a small business subcontractor that is a participant of the same small business program that the prime contractor is a certified participant and which qualifies the prime contractor to receive the award. Subcontracts between a small business prime contractor and a similarly situated entity subcontractor are excluded from the limitations on subcontracting calculation because it does not further the goals of SBA’s government contracting and business development programs to penalize small business prime contract recipients that benefit the same small business program participants through subcontract awards..” |
| The language included in the FAR prevails for this effort. In accordance with Limitation on Subcontracting criteria included in FAR 52.219-14 (c)(1) , "Services (except construction). At least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel shall be expended for employees of the concern". The Contractor is required to comply with this criteria in order to be eligible for award. |
| 66 |
| Subparagraph 2 states “hardware/software baseline and deliverable via the Marine Corps Enterprise Network (MCEN)”. Question: Can a published technical description of the MCEN baseline be obtained? |
| Yes, each volume shall be provided separately (for example, a binder for each volume). |
| 67 |
| Confirm the Volume 1 – Factor 1 – Mandatory Requirements should read: Volume 2 – Factor 1 – Mandatory Requirements |
| Language regarding volume references has been updated in the RFP amendment. This was an oversight and has been corrected and updated . Volume 1 Factor 1 Mandatory Requirements, Volume 2 is Factor 2 Technical Capabilities, Volume 3 is Factor 3 Management Approach, Volume 4 is Factor 4 Past Performance and Volume 5 is Factor 5 Price. |
| 68 |
| Confirm the Volume 4 – Factor 4 – Past Performance should read: Volume 5 – Factor 4 – Past Performance |
| RFP has been updated via amendment and volume references have been corrected. |
| 69 |
| Confirm the Volume 5 – Factor 5 – Price should read: Volume 6 – Factor 5 - Price |
| RFP has been updated via amendment and volume references have been corrected. |
| 70 |
| Is there an implied requirement that the contractor will maintain a permanent presence (e.g., lead contractor, quality control) at CDET during normal working hours or is contractor physical presence conditionally driven? |
| The place of performance for this effort is at contractor site. No explicit or implicit requirement exist regarding the contractor performing permanently at government premises. Language in the RFP has been updated. |
| 71 |
| Given that the Government will provide quarterly PWS-level performance ratings, is there an assumption that there will be Government sponsored meetings convened to discuss the findings? If so, is the contractor required to provide meeting notes/minutes for the event? |
| Yes. The performance level rating meetings does not require contractor to provide meeting minutes. |
| 72 |
| Given the requirement to submit for approval to the KO releases or permits authorizing the use of private content, will the Government provide the blank forms for this task or is it the contractor’s responsibility to create a blank release/permit form? If the latter, who approves the form’s format? |
| Since a permit/license will be associated with the item being delivered, (e.g., image release, location release, audio release, etc.) the contractor will create the form and provide to the contracting officer for review and approval prior to use. The contracting officer will provide the form, if an assignment of a deliverable is required. |
| 73 |
| What is the official beginning of the “start work” timeline for a TO’s deliverables? Will there be a formal “kick-off” meeting or event or is it upon receipt of an approved TO document? How are project delays beyond the control of the contractor recorded and managed? Additionally, will the Government phase TO deliveries based on discussions with the contractor considering their capacity to complete tasks under current and projected production capabilities? |
| For Task 1 requirements, commencement of work will begins at the conclusion of the formal kick-off meeting. A formal kick-off meeting will be held for all TO involving Task 1 requirements. This kick-off meeting will be in Quantico, VA in CDET spaces. |
The Governement will work to mitigate instances that will create project delays. Delays resulting from Gov action or inaction will not negatively impact the contractors performance rating and timelines will be adjusted accordingly.
TO1 deliveries will not be phased over the overarching contract period. TO deliveries will be expected per deadlines agreed to within the TO. Contracting production capabilities are expected to adjust per the requirements of the Government.
| 74 |
| Under Table 2, it states, "Stakeholders for collaboration will include a Subject Matter Expert provided ... and a Government ISS from CDET ... the outset of the FEA effort." Is the referenced ISS here the designated COTR, or could it be any GS 1750 assigned to CDET? |
| CDET will assign Government personnel from within the Department for each project. |
| 75 |
| The Deliverable: paragraph two states, "…Contractor shall deliver the FEA reports per the time conditions agreed upon within the Task Order.” This statement suggest that the timeline for FEA reports are contained within the project's TO and presumably as part of a negotiated agreement with CDET DCE and the contractor before the TO delivery; however, in paragraph 4.1 there is a reference to the POA&M as part of the IPA. Is the FEA delivery timeline established in the TO as a collaborative effort between CDET and the contractor, or is the FEA delivery schedule determined in the IPA and stated as a milestone in the POA&M? Additionally, could there be an initial delivery estimate in the TO and refined estimates as determined during the IPA and FEA stages through project management progressive elaboration processes – “rolling wave planning”? |
| CDET will work with the vendor to establish a start work date and completion date upon each TO award. The Governement will work to mitigate instances that will create project delays. Delays resulting from Gov action or inaction will not negatively impact the contractors performance rating and timelines will be adjusted accordingly. |
| 76 |
| The Deliverable: paragraph three states, "…Interactivity Level 2 projects shall be tasked in 0.5-hour increments with a twenty-hour composite learning time maximum for each project." Is the 20-hour time a hard limit? For example, if during the IPA and FEA it is determined that the optimal project solution calls for 24-hours of Level 2 IMI will the contractor have to re-scope the project design, so it falls at or under 20-hours? Additionally, what if the vetted and approved project is a maintenance effort for an existing course that has 30-hours of Level 2 IMI - how is this addressed given the limitations? The same applies to Level 3 IMI with a maximum four-hour limit per project. Will there be a process or mechanism clause/process provided in TOs to deal with these situations or are there absolute hard ceilings for learning time increments for IMI levels 2-4 projects? |
| For a single course, the 20 hours is a hard limit, but not for a curriculum of multiple courses. The Contractor is not responsible to re-scope the project design below 20 hours, this will be a joint effort between all stakeholders and agreed to prior to issue of Task 2. This joint effort will be a result of Task 1 deliverable. |
| 77 |
| The Deliverable: paragraph one states, "…A prototype of the development product is not required in all instances, but is recommended and may be required within the Task Order. The delivery format is not dictated but must be appropriate for formal evaluation by the government utilizing the current MCEN hardware and software capabilities. Examples of appropriate delivery formats are Microsoft Word or PowerPoint document formats." The first sentence implies that the prototype is likely an IMI product, but the last sentence suggests that the prototype could be an MS Office file. Is the last sentence simply misplaced and should instead follow the first sentence in the paragraph referencing design products? Please clarify. |
| The statement regarding appropriate delivery formats is refering to standard design documents NOT prototypes. |
| 78 |
| The last paragraph in Deliverables: states, "...Delivery schedules for the Design product shall be in accordance with the agreed upon timeline within the Task Order." Similar to the "Determining FEA Report Time Conditions" topic above, is the Design product delivery timeline established in the TO as a collaborative effort between CDET and the contractor, or is the Design delivery to be determined in the IPA and stated as a milestone in the POA&M with further refinement during the FEA process? |
| The Task 3 TO will include a POAM derived from the FEA that will be the basis for subsequent TO deliverables. |
| 79 |
| Does the Government anticipate the contractor’s support in designing and developing outreach (marketing) support materials as part of the project’s deployment? If so, will this support be articulated as a specific item in the TO? |
| No. |
| 80 |
| The current CLIN structure does not provide for a “Troubleshooting” CLIN that the Government could use to provide funding to do maintenance/upgrades/modifications to existing courses that may be required from time to time. We recommend that an Optional CLIN be added to provide the ability for the Government to award tasks/funding for these types of efforts. |
| CDET is not requesting troubleshooting support under this contract. |
| 81 |
| Under paragraph 2. “Instructions for Submission of Proposals”, the first sentence of that paragraph reads “Offerors shall submit three hard copy version of the proposal and a compact disc with an electronic copy of the entire proposal”. However, paragraph 2.2 on page 62 has a chart indicating different quantities of hard copies to be provided with no mention of an electronic copy. Please confirm which proposal content/submission instructions are valid. |
| An electronic version of the proposal as well as the pertaining hard copies are required for this effort. The electronic version of proposal shall be provided under a Compact Disc. All volumes shall be saved under the Compact Disc. |
| 82 |
| The proposal content chart on Page 62 provides a list of required documents (see previous question) and assigns Volume and Factor numbers to each. In the subsequent paragraphs, the volume/factor numbers do not match the chart on page 62 (mislabeled/misnumbered); i.e. Para 2.4 says Volume I, Factor I – chart shows Volume 2; Para 2.6 says Volume 4, Factor 4 – chart shows Volume 5; and Para 2.7 says Volume 5, Factor 5 – chart shows Volume 6. Please advise/revise. |
| RFP has been updated via amendment and volume references have been corrected. |
| 83 |
| This paragraph references a “teaming approach,” yet the type of contract referenced in 3.2 on page 6 specifies a “single award” IDIQ. Are teaming or joint venture arrangements authorized, or is this paragraph out of scope or an erroneous entry for this RFP? |
| Contractors are encourage to use the best business structured for this effort. There are no limitations for joint ventures and prime/subcontractor business relationships. For prime contractors, they must comply with FAR 52.219-14 Limitation on Subcontracting. |
| 84 |
| This paragraph references the requirement to have past performance references complete a PPQ and submit to contracting; however, no PPQ was provided with the RFP. Please provide the required PPQ or advise. |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 85 |
| This paragraph refers to key personnel; however, the RFP does not indicate/provide any specific requirements for key personnel positions. Please advise. |
| There are no key personnel required for this effort. Language in the RFP has been updated. |
| 86 |
| This paragraph states: “Provide a copy of the Performance Work Statement” of the referenced contracts. As the Past Performance volume has a 9-page limit, the inclusion of PWS’s from the contracts referenced for past performance would greatly exceed the page limit. Request clarification whether the entire PWS is required or just a synopsis/summary of the PWS; and/or if the PWS’s can be included as an Appendix/Attachment outside of the 9-page count limit? |
| The copies of the Performance Work Statement for past performance referenced contacts are considered attachments under the Past Performance Volume and would not impact the nine (9) page count applicable to the volume. |
| 87 |
| The first paragraph on page 66 says: “Of the five objectives and the thirty-two tasks referenced under the PWS.” This statement does not appear valid as it does not align to the PWS in this solicitation. This appears to be a remnant leftover from another solicitation document that should have been deleted. Please advise. |
| The reference to five objectives and 32 tasks was an oversight and has been corrected in the RFP amendment. The Offeror shall submit contract references related to the deliverables listed in the PWS. |
| 88 |
| On the 1st tab “Deliverables Unit Price Matrix”; Column E appears to be an unnecessary/invalid column. A single Unit Price entry is not appropriate and columns F through J already provide the cells necessary for unit price entries that cover the 5-year ordering period. Recommend removing Column E. Please advise. |
| The template has been modify to simplify this and avoid redundancy. Column E Unit Pricing has been eliminated. Please see revised template attached to this amendment. |
| 89 |
| There is no reference to the completion of this tab “Sample Task Order Pricing” in the RFP instructions. Are the Unit Price entries for this tab to be taken from Ordering Period 1 prices on the “Deliverables Unit Price Matrix” tab; are the total quantities provided by the government in the tab not to be changed (to ensure level competition). Please address instructions and the purpose of this tab and how it fits into the evaluation plan. |
| RFP instructions were updated to include sample task order princing instructions. |
| 90 |
| Paragraph 2.6.1 – sub-paragraph 3 states “Of the five objectives and the thirty-two tasks referenced under the PWS, the Offeror shall submit no more than two references where the Offeror was a Sub-Contractor. For each relevant task identified, a Past Performance Questionnaire shall be used to collect data from the references.” Question: We only see four (4) tasks identified in the PWS, we are to have references that can support the 4 tasks identified? |
| The reference to five objectives and 32 tasks was an oversight and has been corrected in the RFP amendment. The Offeror shall submit contract references related to the deliverables listed in the PWS. |
| 91 |
| Question: Are you initiating a past performance questionnaire or are we to use the criteria of (1) Customer Satisfaction, (2) Timeliness, (3) Technical Success, (4) Quality, and (5) Cost Control and create our own? |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 92 |
| Paragraph 2.6.1, subparagraph 4 – item (4) states “Provide copy of the Performance Work Statement of the referenced contracts.” Question: Are the entire PWS from past performances required to be inserted into Volume 4-Factor 4 or can we have the PWS’s as attachments to this volume? |
| The copies of the Performance Work Statement for past performance referenced contacts are considered attachments under the Past Performance Volume and would not impact the nine (9) page count applicable to the volume. |
| 93 |
| “Provide copy of the Performance Work Statement of the referenced contracts.” Including the Performance Work Statement for referenced contracts in the Past Performance is not possible within the current page count, request to have the PWS included but omitted from page count? |
| The copies of the Performance Work Statement for past performance referenced contacts are considered attachments under the Past Performance Volume and would not impact the nine (9) page count applicable to the volume. |
| 94 |
| “A current point of contact for each past performance effort shall be provided by completing the Past Performance Questionnaire. Referenced points of contact other than those identified by the Offeror may be contacted by the Government, and the information received from those other references may be used in the past performance evaluation.” Is the Past Performance Questionnaire provided or generated by bidders? |
| The Past Performance Questionnaire is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 95 |
| “A current point of contact for each past performance effort shall be provided by completing the Past Performance Questionnaire. Referenced points of contact other than those identified by the Offeror may be contacted by the Government, and the information received from those other references may be used in the past performance evaluation.” Does this statement mean that references offered by our identified points of contact may be contacted and their information could be used? |
| Yes. |
| 96 |
| “Of the five objectives and the thirty-two tasks referenced under the PWS, the Offeror shall submit no more than two references where the Offeror was a Sub-Contractor.” In TASK ORDER 1 Performance Work Statement document it shows six items as Task 1 and one that is Task 2, however we do not see where it refences five objectives and thirty-two tasks? |
| The reference to five objectives and 32 tasks was an oversight and has been corrected in the RFP amendment. The Offeror shall submit contract references related to the deliverables listed in the PWS. |
| 97 |
| The Government provided supplemental information under this solicitation to allow contractors to obtain understanding of CDET’s curriculum development needs. This information is provided as a “Bidder’s Library Reference Material” for the RFP and is available on the FBO announcement for this RFP. We have not been able to locate a Bidder's Library on FBO |
| This information is provided via this RFP amendment. |
| 98 |
| Are images such as screen captures of computer based training sections, designs and screens permitted in the proposal response? |
| Graphs, drawings and “Screen Shots” of pictures depicting an element of the proposed approach must be clear and legible. RFP language has been updated in this amendment. |
| 99 |
| Should the IMI Hours for Task 0003B in Column B be 0.5 instead of 0.25? |
| Correct. IMI Level II equates to 0.5 IMI hours. |
| 100 |
| Should the Interactivity Levels for Task 0004B and 0004C in Column B be Level 2 and Level 3 to match the levels identified in Column A? |
| The pricing template has been updated. |
| 101 |
| The RFP states on page 8, "Contractor shall provide their Quality Plan to the COR within thirty (30) days after contract award for review, comment, and acceptance." However, on page 65 the RFP states, "the QCP is to be delivered with the Offeror's proposal as an attachment under this volume." Could the Government please clarify whether the QCP should be submitted as part of the proposal or 30 days after contract award? |
| The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan shall be delivered with the proposal. Language in the PWS has been revised. |
| 102 |
| It is our understanding that clause 52.222-17, Non-displacement of Qualified Workers under Service Contracts - Executive Order 13495 applies to SCA contracts only. Will the Government please confirm that this contract is non-SCA contract, and 52.222-17 does not apply? |
| FAR 52.222-17 does not apply. The "X" under the FAR 52.212-5(c)(1) clause has been removed from the solicitation. |
| 103 |
| How does the Government define "Learning Increments"? How are "Learning Increments" differentiated from "Learning Time?" |
| Please see PWS, secton 4.2, paragraph 5, sentence 2. "For the purposes of this PWS, a coursware learning increment is …" |
| 104 |
| Based on historical performance, and anticipated courseware to be developed under this solicitation, can the Government provide the average expected learning time for each of the interactivity levels? |
| No. This information is project specific and projects are selected annually. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
United States Marine Corps