The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Document/Section
| Paragraph |
| Question/Issue/Concern |
| Answer |
| 1. |
| Solicitation - Section B |
| N/A |
| CLIN 0008 "Transition In - C-IED Instructional Supp" is defined as an Option. This appears to be in error as Transition-In per PWS paragraph 5.1 is mandatory. Will the Government please clarify if CLIN 0008 is an Option? |
| CLIN 0008, Transition-In, is updated and is no longer an option CLIN. |
| 2. |
| Solicitation - Section B |
| N/A |
| CLIN 3007 "Transition Out - C-IED Instructional Sup" has an undefined quantity (i.e., number of months). Although PWS paragraph 5.2 generally mentions 120 days for submission of draft plans, will the Government provide clarification as to the quantity of months required in CLIN 3007? |
| CLIN 3007 will have a 2 month period of performance. The solicitation will be updated to show this. |
| 3. |
| Solicitation - Section B |
| N/A |
| Since there are no specific dates in Section F, it is assumed that CLIN 0008 "Transition In - C-IED Instructional Supp" begins its 2 months prior to the 12-month Base Period (i.e., CLIN 0001). Will the Government clarify if CLIN 0008 starts prior to the 12-month Base Period or is it within the 12-month Base Period thereby making the Period of Performance 10 months vice 12 (2 months for Transition-In and 10 months for full performance = 12-month Base Period)? Another way of asking this question is "Is this contract 48 months or 50 months"? |
| CLIN 0008 will start prior to CLIN 0001. CLIN 0008 will be 2 months, CLIN 0001 will be 12 months. Section F is updated to clarify this. |
| 4. |
| Solicitation - Section B |
| ITEM NO 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002 |
| Does the NTE Travel CLIN account for travel for R2C or will R2C CLIN have a separate Travel Funding Sub CLIN? |
| All approved travel will be reimbursed under CLIN 0002, so the NTE Travel CLIN will include R2C. |
| 5. |
| Solicitation - Section B |
| Section B- CLINS |
| Please confirm that all NTE CLINs are to be proposed at the NTE amounts and the NTE amounts are intended to be inclusive of the offerors indirect expenses. |
| See Solicitation, Sect L.4.B.3. “The Offeror shall submit pricing for every line item in the model contract with the exception of Travel, Other Direct Costs (ODCs) and CDRLs.” Travel shall be billed at cost only. ODCs may be billed at cost + G&A. No profit or fee will be approved for travel or ODCs. |
| 6. |
| Solicitation - Section B |
| Section B- CLINS |
| For overseas Travel, Can the ODC CLIN may be used for the reimbursement of DBA insurance or whether the Government is expecting Offerors to include those costs in their rates? |
| No, contractor may not bill insurance as an ODC. DBA insurance is not applicable to this requirement and FAR Clause 52.228-3 is not included in the solicitation. |
| 7. |
| Solicitation - Section B |
| Item No. X006 |
| The Schedule B includes CLIN ITEM NO X005 and CLIN ITEM NO X007. Is there a CLIN ITEM NO X006 or is this intentionally excluded? |
| CLIN X006 was intentionally deleted. |
| 8. |
| Solicitation - Section B |
| CLIN 0008 |
| CLIN 0008 Transition In is noted as an option CLIN. Should CLIN 0008 be considered a base year CLIN not an option CLIN? |
| See answer to question #1. |
| 9. |
| PWS |
| 1.2 |
| For OCONUS travel will uplifts, additional hours, pre-deployment medical screenings, and DBA insurance be billed as ODCs against the travel CLIN? If not would the Government please provide notional OCONUS training information to allow respondents to quantify potential OCONUS training costs? |
| No, contractor may not bill any of these costs as an ODC. The labor costs should be fully reflected in the other CLINS. See answer to question #6 regarding DBA insurance. See Solicitation Attachment 5 for historical training locations for the previous year. |
| 10. |
| PWS |
| 2.0 |
| Request historical contractor staffing to support all PWS requirements. |
| Solicitation Attachment 4 has a list of historical staffing support. Attachment 5 includes historical training locations for the previous year. |
| 11. |
| PWS |
| 2.1 |
| Will there be a requirement for surge instructional capability in support of CONUS and OCONUS Operations within a 60-day notice from the COR which may require an increase of student throughput capacity of up to 15%? |
| The referenced language from the draft solicitation and PWS was deleted and is now addressed in PWS 1.2. “The contractor shall maintain a flexible staffing plan that is capable of responding to fluctuations in student throughput. Future operational changes may dictate long-term changes in student throughput which shall be considered within scope and shall be addressed by modification to the contract.” |
| 12. |
| PWS |
| 2.1 |
| Can the Government provide historical data on OCONUS training? (How many, where, etc). |
| Solicitation Attachment 5 includes historical training locations for the previous year, including OCONUS training. |
| 13. |
| PWS |
| 2.2 |
| CTC Concept cards provide limited course information, but do not provide enough information to determine instructor requirements. Neither does the historical student throughput. Request the government provide an FY course schedule, including locations so that offerors can properly determine instructor requirements. |
| Courses are scheduled on request and no FY schedule exists. See updated Solicitation Attachment 4 and Attachment 5 for historical class numbers. |
| 2.2 |
| Max student to instructor ratios were provided, but instructor requirements can't be determined based on this alone. Can the government provide maximum CTC class size for all CTCs and other scheduled training? |
| Maximum class size can vary greatly depending on the location/venue at which the CTC is provided. See updated Solicitation Attachment 4 and Attachment 5 for historical class sizes. |
| 15. |
| PWS |
| 2.3 |
| PWS 2.3 references training courses for unit sustainment training. Should offerors plan on additional instructors to support this requirement beyond that required to teach the CTCs? If so, can the government provide data to calculate how many instructors will be required? Course topics to be taught, # of courses per year, student throughput, max class size, S:I ratio, locations? |
| Historically sustainment training has been provided by CTC instructors, such that no additional instructors have been required to support unit sustainment training. |
| 16. |
| PWS |
| 2.4 |
| PWS 2.4, Exercise Evaluation and Assessment Support. Should offerors plan on additional instructors to support this requirement? If so, can the government provide data to calculate how many instructors will be required? Excise type, location, and frequency; number of personnel required per exercise? |
| Current contract provides dedicated instructional staff at 29 Palms to support exercise evaluation (five iterations/year, see attachment 4 for historical staffing). Other evaluations have historically been supported by the CTC instructor staff such that no additional instructors have been required to support exercise evaluation. |
| 17. |
| PWS |
| 2.5 |
| Route Clearance Task (R2C). What is the average number of students per course? |
| Maximum class size will be 30 students. Minimum class size will be 6 students. |
| 18. |
| PWS |
| 2.5 |
| Context: PWS 2.5 References the R2C courses and that the courses are still in DRAFT form. Solicitation requests that industry provides pricing data for this (CLIN 0004). |
Question: How many R2C classes are projected to be performed per year?
The Government projects six classes per year.
| 19. |
| PWS |
| 2.5 |
| Context: PWS 2.5 References the R2C courses and that the courses are still in DRAFT form. Solicitation requests that industry provides pricing data for this (CLIN 0004). |
Question: What is the projected size of an R2C class?
See answer to question #17.
| 20. |
| PWS |
| 2.6 |
| C-IED Basic Leader (CBL) Course (Optional Task) - We have been asked to price how we would satisfice this requirement. Without knowing the number of classes, their location, the student instructor ratio, etc. It is impossible to price this requirement as written. Will the government either remove the requirement, or provide Course Schedule for the next year (or at least historical data on the number of courses expected and their locations), and concept cards for all courses that make up the current POI? |
| This POI is still in development. MCES expects four courses/year (two on each coast/year) for a total of 106 students/year. S:I ratio is still TBD, but should be very similar to other CTCs. For additional information, see updated Solicitation Attachment 4. |
| 21. |
| PWS |
| 2.6 |
| Context: PWS 2.6 References the CBL course and that the course is still in DRAFT form. Solicitation requests that industry provide pricing data for this (CLIN 0005). |
Question: How many CBL courses are projected to be performed per year?
See answer to question #20.
| 22. |
| PWS |
| 2.6 |
| Context: PWS 2.6 References the CBL course and that the course is still in DRAFT form. Solicitation requests that industry provide pricing data for this (CLIN 0005). |
Question: What is the projected student /instructor ratio for the CBL?
See answer to question #20.
| 23. |
| PWS |
| 2.6 |
| Context: PWS 2.6 References the CBL course and that the course is still in DRAFT form. Solicitation requests that industry provide pricing data for this (CLIN 0005). |
Question: What is the projected size of a CBL class?
See answer to question #20.
| 24. |
| PWS |
| 3.2 |
| The Government provides nine work locations at Camp Lejeune to support these activities. |
Question: What are those nine work locations and how are they staffed?
Should say nine work “stations.” All are located at MCES. PWS is updated.
| 25. |
| PWS |
| 3.2.l |
| The Government states that “the contractor shall develop videos to modernize sections of the CTC presentations using government equipment that will be embedded in classroom media and capable of being uploaded to MarineNet Video Services (MVS) to facilitate student pre-post lesson review and OpFor sustainment.” Does the Government require video production or video development for this task? |
| The government owns limited video equipment and is experimenting with use of video to enhance instruction according to TECOM’s modernization and innovation efforts. The intent of PWS 3.2.l is to produce short (2-5 minute) videos comparable to a YouTube video on completing a technical task that can be embedded in to presentations (powerpoint or other) Videos will be produced using government video equipment and facilities and feature Marines performing the tasks described in the class material. |
| 26. |
| PWS |
| 3.2.l |
| The Government states, "As directed by the COR, the contractor shall develop videos to modernize sections of the CTC presentations using government equipment that will be embedded in classroom media and capable of being uploaded to MarineNet Video Services (MVS) to facilitate student pre-post lesson review and OpFor sustainment. All developed videos will be government property." Will the Government please define the scope of this requirement, as "video development" is not an industry standard term? (According to industry, video production is the process of converting an idea into video, which includes storyboarding, writing the script and dialogue, providing camera personnel and lighting experts, filming, and conducting post-production editing that includes visual effects.) |
| See answers to question #25 and #27. |
| 27. |
| PWS |
| 3.2.l |
| The Government states, "As directed by the COR, the contractor shall develop videos to modernize sections of the CTC presentations using government equipment that will be embedded in classroom media and capable of being uploaded to MarineNet Video Services (MVS) to facilitate student pre-post lesson review and OpFor sustainment. All developed videos will be government property." What is the average amount of videos to develop/produce per month for the life of the contract? |
| MCES has developed/produced five videos over the past year. Video length was from 30 seconds to 5 minutes. |
| 28. |
| PWS |
| 3.2.l |
| The Government states, "As directed by the COR, the contractor shall develop videos to modernize sections of the CTC presentations using government equipment that will be embedded in classroom media and capable of being uploaded to MarineNet Video Services (MVS) to facilitate student pre-post lesson review and OpFor sustainment. All developed videos will be government property." Is this capability related to a specific training course card or all tasks? |
| The requirement to develop videos to modernize sections of the CTC presentations is related to all training courses. |
| 29. |
| PWS |
| 3.4 |
| Are Mock Training Aids funded through the $100,000 ODC CLIN? |
| Yes. |
| 30. |
| PWS |
| 3.4 |
| Is there a standard "kit" for Mock Training Aids |
| No. |
| 31. |
| PWS |
| 3.4 |
| Where are the government's 3d printing capabilities? |
| Camp Lejeune, NC |
| 32. |
| PWS |
| 3.4 |
| The Government states that “the contractor shall provide staff responsible for operating the software and 3D printers.” What type and model of 3D printer is currently in use by the Government and where is the government-owned 3D printer located? |
| The following additive manufacturing capabilities are in use: |
- 3D Systems-Sense 3D Scanner
- Roland SRM-20 CNC Mill
- AST2 Invent3D - 3D Printer
- AST2 InventLF - 3D Printer
- Lulzbot Taz 6 -3D Printer We use a software called Fusion 360 for creating 3 dimensional objects and occasionally AutoCad. We use a software called Cura to "slice" the 3 dimensional objects into printer instructions.
| 33. |
| PWS |
| 3.5 |
| Can the Government identify the number of AMTI IED Training kits that are currently available? |
| MCES does not generally use the AMTI kit in the CTC courses. These kits are available on request and are controlled and maintained by the RTISS warehouses. |
| 34. |
| PWS |
| 3.5a |
| Will the Government provide an ODC line for annual fees for a property management system to be put into place? |
| No. |
| 35. |
| PWS |
| 3.5 a. |
| Is there a pre-existing Property Management System in place? |
| Yes. |
| 36. |
| PWS |
| 3.5 b. |
| Are repair costs and parts considered ODC costs? |
| Yes for repair parts. The “cost” of contractor labor (including, for example, personnel performing maintenance and repairs) is not considered an ODC. |
| 37. |
| PWS |
| 3.5.b |
| Are the costs associated with shipping and transferring of equipment reimbursable under the contract ODC CLINs? |
| Yes. |
| 38. |
| PWS |
| 3.5.c |
| Are the costs associated with maintenance and repair of all materials related to and utilized for training reimbursable under the contract ODC CLINs? |
| See answer to question #36. |
| 39. |
| PWS |
| PWS 3.5 (c)/ Equipment List |
| Context: Government provided equipment and maintenance. |
Question: To what level is the contractor responsible for maintenance and repair of GFE?
Mission capable.
| 40. |
| PWS |
| 4.1 |
| The contractor shall provide a Training Operational Team Lead that will be located primarily at MCES. |
Question: To which billet on the DtD Branch Organization Chart (DtD Branch SOP Page 1-2) does the title “Training Operational Team Lead” apply? Request clarification.
“Operations.”
| 41. |
| PWS |
| 4.2 |
| If the new successful offeror hires incumbent instructors who have been certified under the current effort will they need to be recertified under the new contract? |
| No. |
| 42. |
| PWS |
| 4.2/2000.1 of DtD SOP |
| PWS line 5 of Para 4.2 states; “Each new instructor will be given a copy of the courseware for CTC 1 and 5” |
This contradicts Para 2000.1 lines 9-10: “Each new instructor will be given a copy of the courseware for CTC-1.”.
Question: Which statement is correct?
They can have both. All instructors will certify on CTC-1 first. CTC-5 is closely related and is generally the next CTC.
| 43. |
| PWS |
| 4.4 |
| Can the Government provide a timeline for when the Project Management Plan needs to be completed (i.e. 30 days post award)? |
| Within 10 business days after award. |
| 44. |
| PWS |
| 5.0/5.1 |
| Transition-in is currently an Option. To facilitate successful transition-in this will be a required CLIN. Will the Government consider removing this as an Option and making it a standard CLIN that will be ordered upon contract award? |
| See answer to question #1. |
| 45. |
| PWS |
| 5.1 |
| Recognizing that the Transition In costs for an incumbent contractor participating as an offeror or subcontractor to a offeror submitting a response to the solicitation may be in a position to propose $0 transition in costs as a result of covering staff on the transition out CLIN of the existing incumbent contract and, therefore, having an unfair competitive advantage in terms of price, will the Government consider either (A) removing the Transition in CLIN from the evaluated price or (B) provide an NTE amount to be proposed by all offerors in order to create a fair price competition? |
| No. |
| 46. |
| PWS |
| 5.1 |
| How many days is the Government allowing for transition-in? |
| See CLIN 0008. 2 Months. |
| 47. |
| PWS |
| 5.1 |
| How many days is the Government allowing for transition-out? |
| See answer to question #2. |
| 48. |
| PWS |
| 5.1 |
| Would the Government please provide the relevant elements of the current incumbent transition-out plan so we may align our proposed transition-in plan accordingly? |
| The transition-out plan is not currently available. Relevant portions of the transition-out plan will be provided as soon as possible. |
| 49. |
| PWS |
| 5.1 |
| Does the current transition-out plan for the incumbent contractor include time where the new and incumbent contractor operations will overlap? |
| Yes, the entire Transition In CLIN will overlap with the outgoing contractor. |
| 50. |
| PWS |
| 5.1 |
| What is the expiration date of the current incumbent contract, including potential options? |
| End date of the incumbent contract will be adjusted based on award of follow-on contract. |
| 51. |
| PWS |
| 5.2 |
| CLIN 0008 indicates that the Transition In period will be 2 months. What is the length of the intended Transition Out period at the end of the contract? |
| See answer to question #2. |
| 52. |
| PWS |
| 5.2 |
| Will the awardee be provided the incumbent’s phase out plan upon award? |
| See answer to question #48. |
| 53. |
| PWS |
| 5.2 |
| What is the period of performance for transition-out in months? |
| See answer to question #2. |
| 54. |
| PWS |
| 5.2 |
| Will transition-out commence upon the completion of the Contract Year when exercised, or is it intended to be within the contract year? In other words, will the Transition-out period follow the completion of the last option year provided all options are exercised? |
| Transition-Out will be concurrent with the final two months of CLIN X001. |
| 55. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| PWS 6.2 Vehicles says that contractors must provide their own transportation to support training. What type(s) of transportation is required? |
| Most vehicles currently used have 4-wheel drive capability to enable access to the ranges. Vehicles should be able to transport and secure training aids. |
| 56. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| Is the government supplying leased vehicles? |
| No. |
| 57. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| What is the type and quantity of vehicles needed? |
| The contractor shall determine this. See Solicitation Attachment 4 for historical vehicle information. |
| 58. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| Where are the vehicles located? |
| The contractor shall determine this. |
| 59. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| Can Privately Owned Vehicles be used? |
| No. However contractor owned/leased vehicles (registered or leased in the company’s name) can be approved for use on ranges. |
| 60. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| What location(s) does this requirement apply to? |
| MTC locations listed in PWS 2.1. |
| 61. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| Only Lejeune? Elsewhere? |
| See answer to question #60. |
| 62. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| What capabilities does the transportation need to have? 4 wheel drive? Cargo carrying capacity? |
| See answer to question #55. |
| 63. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| PWS 6.2 Vehicles says “This may include the training, processing, and deployment of unarmed cadre to locations that require extensive pre-deployment training and screening processes in accordance with (IAW) Combatant Command (CCMD) directives.” As written, this requirement for transportation is very vague. Request clarification on the following questions. Does “unarmed cadre” refer to contractor personnel? Can the government clarify who is to be transported? |
| PWS 6.2 is updated, and now states that “Contractor is responsible for transportation within the 50 mile local travel radius of MTC locations stated in PWS 2.1.” |
| 64. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| What does this sentence have to do with contractor transportation? |
| See answer to question #63. |
| 65. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| Will the Government please confirm that the vehicles are to be procured/leased/maintained and operated under the ODCs CLIN X003? This will ensure that the pricing proposed by all offerors for labor is able to be compared on an apples-to-apples basis without giving an advantage to the incumbent contractor participating in the acquisition as a subcontractor who may already have the vehicles. |
| Contractor is responsible for providing transportation IAW PWS 6.2. Local transportation costs shall not be billed under the ODC or Travel CLIN. Currently used vehicles are leased under a GSA contract and will not be available to the follow-on contractor. |
| 66. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| Context: Vehicles |
Question: Are the 12 vehicles listed within the historical data priced within the ODC Plug?
No.
| 67. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| Will the Government provide fuel, or, reimburse the contractor for fuel? |
| No. |
| 68. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| Is maintenance of vehicles reimbursable under the ODC CLIN? |
| Only costs to repair Govt owned vehicles (Gators) listed in the GFP attachment will be reimbursable under the ODC CLIN. |
| 69. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| Is the cost of the vehicles reimbursable under the ODC CLIN? |
| No. |
| 70. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| Are there existing vehicles? |
| No. |
| 71. |
| PWS |
| 6.2 |
| The PWS states that the contractor shall provide its own transportation to support training. Will the costs for this transportation, and other transportation to support training, be reimbursable under the contract travel CLINs? |
| Only travel outside of the local area that is pre-approved by the COR IAW PWS 6.3 shall be reimbursed under the Travel CLIN. |
| 72. |
| PWS |
| 6.3 |
| Does it mean transportation to and from training areas where POVs are not allowed? |
| Yes. See answer to question #59. |
| 73. |
| PWS |
| 6.4 |
| In cases where the contractor will be required to provide computer, network, and telephone access; are these costs reimbursable? |
| No. |
| 74. |
| PWS |
| 6.4 |
| Does it mean other, off-base areas? And can the government specify the locations that are referenced? |
| Government provided communication and computer equipment is only available at MTC school house locations. |
| 75. |
| PWS |
| 6.4 |
| Section 6.4 indicates that Information Technology (IT) equipment to include computers, network access, telephones, etc. will not be government furnished at some locations to include the HSTL. Can the government provide an example of the IT package required to assist in developing the cost volume? |
| Individual laptops for employees, laptop peripherals, routers, network access. |
| 76. |
| PWS |
| 6.4 |
| In the event the contractor has to provide computers, networks, and telephone access, will this be reimbursable under the ODC CLIN? |
| See answer to question #73. |
| 77. |
| PWS |
| 6.7 |
| Section 6.7 states “….will require certain contractors to obtain and maintain classified access eligibility.” |
Question: Can the government provide which billets historically require classified access eligibility?
All contractor employees directly supporting this requirement are required to have classified access eligibility. PWS 6.7 is updated.
| 78. |
| PWS |
| 7.0 |
| PWS 7.0 Deliverables identifies multiple CDRLs, but these CDRLs are not provided in any of the documentation. Will the Government be providing any additional information on the CDRLs? In order to properly price this requirement, the offeror needs this information to identify frequency of delivery, level of detail in the CDRL as defined in the DID, etc.). |
| CDRLs were inadvertently omitted and have been posted to FBO. |
| 79. |
| PWS |
| 8.0 |
| The PWS has a list of nine (9) enclosures, which are also referenced throughout the document. Normally enclosures are provided as additional documents along with the base document (PWS). In this case, there are several enclosures that are only obtainable by the incumbent. Does the Government intend to provide the enclosures listed in the PWS? |
| All enclosures are available to qualified offerors. There are no enclosures that are obtainable only by the incumbent. Instructions to receive PWS Enclosures were provided in the 25 Jul FBO Solicitation announcement. |
| 80. |
| Solicitation - Section F |
| N/A |
| In section F, the RFP establishes the Valid Date of Period of Performance 1 as the date of contract award. In order to provide the most accurate Pricing data, will the government provide an estimated Award Date? |
| The Govt expects the award date to be 17 April 2019. |
| 81. |
| Solicitation - Section F |
| N/A |
| Will the base period CLINs commence upon completion of the 2 month transition-in? |
| Yes. |
| 82. |
| Solicitation - Section F |
| N/A |
| If base period CLINs do not commence upon completion of 2 month transition-in, how does the transition in period relate to the base year CLINs in terms of period of performance? |
| See answer to question #81. |
| 83. |
| Solicitation - Section F |
| N/A |
| What is the anticipated award date of this contract? |
| See answer to question #80. |
| 84. |
| Solicitation - Section F |
| N/A |
| Will the Government clarify the anticipated Periods of Performance with actual dates? Currently, Section F just states Contract Award plus 12 months, plus 24 months, etc. This information helps an offeror determine what indirect rates to use for the pricing proposal (O/H, G&A, etc.). |
| Specific dates will be added when the award date is confirmed. |
| 85. |
| Solicitation - Section F |
| N/A |
| It appears each option year overlaps the succeeding option year. (e.g., Option Year 1 ends 26 AUG 2020 and Option Year 2 begins 27 JUN 2020 (a 2-month overlap)). Please clarify/correct the period of performance start and end dates for each contract year. |
| Solicitation Section F only listed PoP in terms of ‘after contract award date’. These dates do not appear in the solicitation. |
| 86. |
| Solicitation – Section I |
| CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT / X (ii) 52.204-20, Predecessor of Offeror |
(v) 52.222-52 Exemption from Application of the Service Contract Labor Standards to Contracts for Certain Services--Certification
| Can the Government please provide the applicable wage determination for each location? |
| Per the clause, the contracting officer has determined that this requirement is exempt from Service Contracts Labor Standards. |
| 87. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
L.1 General Instructions, Sub Para - B
| The requirement for a facility clearance is fully understood. The requirement to ‘have an active Secret Clearance as of the date of proposal submission to be eligible for award’ restricts many small businesses under $11M to compete for this work and therefore will limit the Government’s access to qualified companies, thus reducing competition. To overcome this constraint can small business offerors utilize the active Secret Facility Clearance of a team partner at proposal submission and on award, and issuance of DD254, apply for its own facility clearance? |
| IAW Solicitation L.1.B, the prime offeror must have an active Secret Facility Clearance as of the date of proposal submission to be eligible for award. DoDM 5220.22 Vol 2 (NISPOM) requires the prime contractor to have a valid facility clearance at the highest level of classified information allowed. |
| 88. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.1.H |
| Would the Gov’t please verify that hand carry proposals should be taken to 2201A Willis Street, Quantico, VA 22134-6050 and that there will be someone there to receive them and provide a receipt of delivery? |
| Yes, during the hours of 0700-1600 Eastern, Mon-Fri, excluding Federal Holidays. |
| 89. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.1.H |
| Would the Gov’t please verify that hand carry proposals delivered to 2201A Willis Street, Quantico, VA 22134-6050 will be accepted up to the due date and time and that delivery to that address meets the submission requirements? |
| Yes. |
| 90. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.1.H |
| Would the Gov’t please verify that US Citizens with a valid VA driver’s license but no CAC card will be afforded access on to MCB Quantico and 2201A Willis Street, Quantico, VA 22134-6050 to hand carry proposals? |
| Yes. |
| 91. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| Factor 2 - Past Performance |
| Can the offeror use Past Performances from proposed subcontractors? |
| Yes, however IAW Solicitation Section L.4.A.Factor 2, Offerors must submit at least one past performance entry where the offeror/prime contractor performed as a prime contractor as part of its proposal. |
| 92. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| 2.1 |
| Question: is section 2.1 actually evaluated? Section L (pg 38 of 46) specifically states the no separate entry should be identified for PWS sections 2.1...however, Section M (pg 43 of 46) states that the government will evaluate requirements outlined in sections 2.1... |
| Yes, PWS Section PWS 2.1 will be evaluated. Solicitation Sect L.4.A. Factor 1 has been updated to clarify proposal submission requirements. |
| 93. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.3 |
| If 11x17 foldouts are used in the Technical Volume, how will many pages will they be counted as? |
| Foldouts will not be evaluated. IAW Solicitation Section L.3, “Proposals shall be prepared using “Times New Roman” 12 point font style on 8½ x 11 inch white paper.” |
| 94. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.3 |
| Factor 2- Past Performance shows a page limit of 3 pages. Would the Government consider extending this to allow for up to 2 pages per citation (or up to 6 pages if 3 are used)? One page for a complete past performance citation limits the ability to show relevancy in any detail. |
| No. |
| 95. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.3 & L.4(B)(3) |
| RFP paragraph L.4(B)(3) states "The Offeror shall submit pricing for every line item in the model contract…", which is essentially populating Section B. However, RFP paragraph L.3 states "The price files on the CD-ROM price volume shall include MS Excel spreadsheets with formulas intact". As a Firm Fixed Price contract, what formulas or level of detail beyond just populating Section B does the Government require in MS Excel Spreadsheets to satisfy the proposal requirement in L.4(B)(3)? |
| The excel spreadsheet needs to show unit price, quantity and total price for each CLIN. Any formulas used shall be unlocked and visible. |
| 96. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4.A, Factor 1 |
| The RFP Section L requires offerors to address our approach in detail to PWS Paragraphs 4.1 and 5.1; later in the same paragraph we are instructed not to identify specific individuals in our proposed staffing plan. Is it permissible for offerors to identify the contractor Program Manager and Training Operational Team Lead, since those positions are specifically identified? |
| No. IAW Solicitation Section L.4.A. Factor 1, the Government does not want Offerors to identify specific individuals. Resumes are inappropriate and WILL NOT be reviewed. |
| 97. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| 5.1 and L.4.A./Factor 1 |
| The Transition-in Support is labeled as an optional task, however the Proposal directs us to "detail our approach to accomplish the transition and staffing requirements." Please clarify if transition in is an optional task and if so should we assume that this optional task is activated when writing our transition and staffing approach in the Technical Volume. |
| See answer to question #1. |
| 98. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4(A) Factor 1 - Technical Approach & PWS paragraph 5.1 |
| Section L.4(A) Factor 1 - Technical Approach states "The Offeror must specifically address in detail their approach to accomplish the transition and staff requirements outlined in PWS sections 4.1 and 5.1". However, PWS paragraph 5.1 states "The contractor shall prepare a Transition-In Plan and Time Phased Labor Mix (TPLM) for Government approval within seven calendar days after contract award." Specifically regarding the Transition-In Plan and TPLM, it appears Section L and PWS 5.1 conflict. Does the Government require a Transition Plan (i.e., detailed approach) in the Offeror's Technical volume or is it due seven calendar days after contract award as outlined in PWS 5.1? |
| As part of the proposal, the offeror is not required to submit a formal transition-in plan or labor mix to satisfy Section L.4(A) Factor 1. However, the offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate their understanding of the transition-in process. An offeror may choose to submit a draft plan. |
| 99. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4(A) Factor 1 - Technical Approach |
| Section L defines the specific PWS paragraphs to be addressed in the Technical volume. These include 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2(d) and 3.2(l). Paragraph 2.3 is obviously omitted--is this an oversight? |
| No. The contractor is responsible for performing all requirements identified in the PWS, but only designation sections will be evaluated during source selection. |
| 100. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4(A) Factor 1 - Technical Approach |
| Section L defines the specific PWS paragraphs to be addressed in the Technical volume. These include 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2(d) and 3.2(l). Later in the same paragraph it states "No separate entry should be identified for PWS section 2.1…" This appears to indicate that 2.1 is generic and does not require further elaboration. This appears to be in contradiction to the previous requirement to provide a response to 2.1. Will the Government please clarify the requirement? |
| See answer to question #92. |
| 101. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4.A Technical Proposal; Factor 1 - Technical Approach |
| Factor 1 - Technical Approach states “Offeror must specifically address in detail in their approach to accomplish the technical requirements outlined in PWS sections 2.1 . . .” However, later in the paragraph it states “No separate entry should be identified for PWS sections 2.1” |
Question: Can the Government please clarify if we should address section 2.1 or not?
See answer to question #92.
| 102. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4.A Technical Proposal; Factor 1 - Technical Approach |
| In Factor 1 - Technical Approach the Government does not identify PWS Section 2.3 and whether they would like the offeror to address their approach for this section or not. |
Question: Can the Government please clarify their intent for PWS section 2.3?
See answer to question #99.
| 103. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4.A, Factor 2 |
| The RFP Section L states that past performance data from sources such as PPIRS will be evaluated. For contracts where no current CPAR has been submitted, will the Government consider providing a Past Performance Questionnaire that our contractual POCs can fill out and provide in order to aid in the evaluation? |
| No. PPQs will not be used. Past Performance summaries may be submitted in the absence of CPARS entries. |
| 104. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4.A/Factor 2 |
| Section L.4.A (6) which asks for the CAGE/DUNS for the Past Performance includes the statement "(e.g., it is a proposed subcontractor)". We interpret this statement to mean that we can include past performance from our teammate/subcontractor in the Proposal. Request that the government clarify that this is the case. |
| See answer to question #91. |
| 105. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4(A) Factor 2 - Past Performance |
| Section L.4(A) Factor 2 - Past Performance states "The Offeror must provide past performance information that adequately supports their stated capabilities to accomplish the work defined in the solicitation by annotating past performance accomplishments. For up to three (3) contracts performed within the last five (5) years a summary of each contract of similar previous work performed shall be provided." Does the limitation of three (3) contracts apply to the entire team or each team member individually (e.g., If the offeror had one subcontractor would the team be afforded six (6) total past performance references -- 3 for the prime contractor and 3 for the subcontractor)? |
| The limitation of three contracts applies to the entire team. Factor 2 is limited to 3 pages and should include no more than 3 past performance summaries. |
| 106. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4.A Factor 2 |
| Are subcontractors able to submit one of the three past performances if they are allocated 25% work share or more? |
| Subcontractors may not submit past performance directly to the government. |
With respect to offeror submission of subcontractor past performance, see answer to question #91.
| 107. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4.A Factor 2 Past Performance |
| Per L.4.A. Factor 2, “The Offeror must provide past performance information that adequately supports their stated capabilities to accomplish the work defined in the solicitation by annotating past performance accomplishments. For up to three (3) contracts performed within the last five (5) years a summary of each contract of similar previous work performed shall be provided. Offerors must submit at least one past performance entry where it performed as a prime contractor as part of its proposal.” |
Question: Will the Government consider accepting at least one of the three past performance citations from major subcontractors (those expected to perform at least 20% of the work) to more fully capture the experience and capabilities of the bidding team during its past performance evaluation?
See answer to question #91.
| 108. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
L.4.B Price Proposal
3. Pricing Per l.4.B Price Proposal, 3. Pricing, “The Offeror shall submit pricing for every line item in the model contract with the exception of Travel, Other Direct Costs (ODCs) and CDRLs.”
Question: Will the government provide a pricing template or sample pricing template for this solicitation?
No template will be provided. Pricing shall be submitted for every line item in the model contract, in other words, Section B.
| 109. |
| Solicitation - Section L.4; Solicitation - Section B, Items 0004, 1004, 2004, and 3004; PWS Paragraph 2.5; and Solicitation Attachment 4, Historical Data, Paragraph 4 |
| Paragraph L.4.B.3 |
PWS Paragraph 2.5 Reference Paragraph 4, Historical Data Enclosure, Historical Staffing Data. Staffing Table lists six R2C instructors (East), which have no background color; all other positions listed are colored blue.
Question: Are the R2C Instructor positions associated with the optional R2C MTT task, reference Paragraph 2.5 of the Performance Work Statement to be priced under CLINs 0004, 1004, 2004, and 3004 (Solicitation Section B and Section L)? If yes, is the government’s intent for those six positions to be proposed/priced as full time equivalents? If no, will the government provide additional information as to what is the correct the level of effort for R2C Instructors, i.e. course iterations and course locations required to effectively execute.
Yes, the government intends that offerors price the R2C instructor positions under the applicable CLINs as full time equivalents.
See answers to questions #17 & #18 for expected class size, locations and frequency.
| 110. |
| Solicitation – Section L; Solicitation Section B |
| Solicitation L.4.B and |
PWS 2.1
Defense Base Act insurance (a statutory requirement). The solicitation provides cost-reimbursable CLINs for Travel and Other Direct Costs. PWS paragraph 2.1 lists Okinawa Japan as a common training location, and states “The contractor shall have the ability to rapidly deploy instructor and support personnel to provide training at CONUS and OCONUS training venues. Short notice requests to support deploying operating force units may require the contractor to execute travel with less than 30 days’ notice…” The cost of Defense Base Act insurance varies widely based on the insurer’s minimum earned premiums, payroll exposure, and geopolitical and operational risk at the time of overseas work. For Government planning estimates, the cost of insurance for an employee teaching C-IED in Okinawa Japan could be $10,000 while the same employee going to Afghanistan could be well over $50,000.
Question: Will the Government reimburse costs of Defense Base Act insurance as travel or ODC, or should offerors include these costs in their labor rates? If the latter, how many persons will be deployed to what overseas locations and for what durations?
See answer to questions #6 and #9.
| 111. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4.B.1 |
| Executive Summary/Cover Letter. Does the Government want this to appear before the title page, table of contents, acronym list, and requirements matrix, or should it just be the first section of the proposal? |
| The executive summary/cover letter shall appear before the model contract in the price proposal. |
| 112. |
| Solicitation – Section L |
| L.4.B.1 |
| In Section L.4.B.1, the Government states, "The letter should include the offer validity period and acknowledge the number of amendments issued." Is this the section in which we should include the signed Standard Form 33? |
| No. Submit the signed SF33 with the model contract section. |
| 113. |
| Solicitation – Section M |
| M.3.2 Factor 2 - Past Performance |
| It appears the Past Performance evaluation criteria is more suited to an LPTA rather than Best Value Tradeoff Analysis Source Selection (as indicated in the DoD Source Selection Procedures -- Appendix C -- paragraph C.2). Will the Government consider revising the Section M evaluation criteria to allow a more in-depth evaluation of each offeror's past performance in order to demonstrate relevance, recency, quality of services and performance confidence assessment (per DoD Source Selection Procedures -- paragraph 3.1.3.1)? |
| No. |
| 114. |
| Quality Control Plan |
Please confirm that in addition to the Title page/covers, tables of contents and an acronym list, the QCP also does NOT count in the 25 page limit for Volume I - Technical Submission.
There is no mention of QCP in the solicitation L/M. Factor 1 page limit is 30 pages.
| 115. |
| Attachment 4 |
| Historical Staffing Data |
| Would the Government please provide the current effort’s OASIS Task Order Request to include the current PWS/SOW and other associated files? Only a small set of large business contractors have access to those files. |
| GSQ0016AJ0029. Offerors may request it via email from contract specialist. |
| 116. |
| Attachment 4 |
| Historical Staffing Data: Capabilities Analyst: (NOVA) |
| Does the Government have intend for any personnel supporting this contract to be located in the Northern Virginia area? If so, what is that location? |
| There is currently one member in Northern Virginia supporting Training Command with C-IED institutionalization efforts. However it is not a requirement to maintain a FTE in Northern Virginia. |
| 117. |
| Attachment 4 |
| Historical Staffing Data |
| What is the current strength of Military Instructors and is this number expected to increase or decrease over the length of the contract? |
| There are no military instructors. |
| 118. |
| Attachment 4 |
| Historical Staffing Data |
| If the number of Military Instructor’s decreases significantly, is the government prepared to augment the contractor instructor force with additional seats with a surge modification? |
| See answer to question #117. |
| 119. |
| Attachment 4 |
| Paragraph 4 |
| Attachment 4 identifies 58 positions between Site Leads, Instructors, and Analysts that suggest a requirement for them to be filled by EOD SMEs, which has not been a historical requirement and would disqualify dozens of incumbent employees from continuing to support the program. |
Question: Is it the government’s intent for EOD professionals to fill each of those billets?
No. Attachment 4 references current labor categories under the JIDO/GSA contract.
| 120. |
| Attachment 4 |
| Paragraph 4 |
| Attachment 4 does not identify education and experience requirements - nor any other indication of grade - for any of the billets. Hence, one offeror might propose instructors with 20 years of experience and EOD certifications at a higher price; while another might propose first-term veterans with under 4 years of experience and Page 12 entries at a much lower price. |
Question: Will the government identify the education and experience requirements for each billet so that all offerors can provide the most appropriate labor categories and be evaluated on equal terms? If not, how will the government evaluate disparities in grade between various offerors?
This is a PWS, and the government will not specify minimum education and experience requirements. Offerors are expected to propose labor categories with requirements, which may include education and experience minimums, that demonstrate to the government that, in combination with the proposed number of hours, they are likely to result in successful performance.
| 121. |
| Attachment 4 |
| Historical Data |
| How many personnel are currently working on the program and at which locations? |
| See Solicitation Attachment 4. |
| 122. |
| Attachment 4 |
| Historical Data |
| The CIED threat brief was described in detail in the draft PWS (number of courses, course duration, instructor requirements, etc.) and is still listed on the historical data throughput chart. Is this still a requirement? If so, can the government provide requirement specifics so offerors can determine instructor requirements? |
| Page 1-8 of the DtD SOP provides detail on the threat briefs. These are still required per PP&O MSG DTD R201846Z NOV 15/REGIONALIZED THEATER SPECIFIC C-IED |
REQUIREMENTS and
MC0/3502.9.
| The DD254 identifies this is not a follow-on contract, but there is abundant historical data. Who is currently doing the work within the scope of this contract and is there a contract number? |
| DD254 provided is still in draft. Incumbent information was provided in the FBO announcement. |
| 124. |
| Solicitation - General |
| What is the estimated contract start date? |
| See answer to question #80. |
| 125. |
| Solicitation - General |
| Is the scope of this contract to augment another contractor? |
| No. |
| 126. |
| Solicitation - General |
| If the scope of this contract is to augment another contractor, who and what is the associated contract number? |
| See answer to question #125. |
| 127. |
| Solicitation - General |
| Does the SCA wage determination apply to this contract, if so, will the Government add the information? |
| See answer to question #86. |
| 128. |
| Solicitation - General |
| DRFP Enclosures 1-8 |
RFP sections 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.2, 8, 9.
The Draft Request for Proposal included eight (8) enclosures (1) NAVMC 1553.1A; (2) MCO 1553.2C; (3) C-IED Trng Course Concept Cards; (4) DtD SOP w Annexes; (5) Route Clearance Opns POI; (6) MCES Academic SOP; (7) IED Mock Trng Aid Examples; and (8) C-IED Equipment Description. These documents are still referenced in the PWS (example, section 2.5 which references enclosures 5 and 6) but are no longer included in the RFP package. Paragraph 8 (Enclosures) includes them in the table of enclosures. Are these enclosures still valid, and if so, can the government release them as enclosures to the final RFP?
See answer to question #79.
| 129. |
| Solicitation - Section B - Supplies and Services, Section F – Deliveries and Performance, and Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award |
| Solicitation - Pages 3 of 46, 13 of 46, and 43 of 46 |
Section M - Total Evaluated Price: Factor 3 - Price Section F (Delivery Table) contains a series of CLINs to be delivered over the life of the contract. However there are no specific supplies or services listed for CLINs 0006 - 3006 in Section B.
Question: What services / deliveries / or products are associated with CLINs 0006 - 3006? Can the Government please provide some clarity on these CLIN requirements so offerors can include them in their overall Total Evaluated Price?
CLINs X006 were deleted. Section F is updated accordingly.
| 130. |
| GFE Report (Encl 5) |
| Encl 5 |
| Context: Robots listed within the GFE report as awaiting disposition at DRMO. |
Question: Is the government planning on any follow-on purchases of robots? Is the contractor responsible for their maintenance and repair?
Contractor is not responsible for maintenance of equipment not listed in the GFE Report. Any additional equipment requirements will be added via a future contract modification.
Technical Exhibit 2 reflects 2,080 hours as the Estimated Workload Data for each of the 4 types of Key Personnel listed. Are the 2,080 hours reflective of (a) full-time equivalents (annual hours of 2,080 less paid time off and holidays to yield 1,880 productive hours per key person offered by the contractor) or (b) of 2,080 productive hours per key person offered by the contractor?
The Government is unable to locate Technical Exhibit 2 containing the referenced information.
United States Marine Corps