Attachment 4 - Questions and Answers.pdf

Solicitation N0018926R3110 Questions and Answers

1.) Question: Please confirm whether a standalone List of Acronyms/Abbreviations is excluded from the Technical and Past Performance page limitations in the same manner as the Table of Contents, List of Tables, and List of Figures.

Answer: In accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, a standalone List of Acronyms/Abbreviations is not excluded from the page limitations. Any submitted List of Acronyms/Abbreviations will count toward the established page limits.

2.) Question: The PWS requires contractor personnel to have a favorably adjudicated T3/T3R before performing services and interacting with students. The local security text also states that required investigation documentation must be provided at least 30 days before an individual start date, while award is anticipated on or about 18 September 2026 and full performance begins 30 September 2026. Please clarify the Government's intended transition process for meeting these requirements within the anticipated award-to-performance period.

Answer: The Government acknowledges the timeline between the anticipated award date and the start of full performance; however, as stated in PWS Section 24.0, "Failure to provide the required documentation at least thirty (30) days prior to the individual's start date may result in delaying the individual's start date." While this disclaimer notes that a start date delay may occur, it is not guaranteed, and the successful Contractor shall commence the T3/T3R investigation process immediately upon award to mitigate any impending delays. The Government is aware of the potential for a temporary gap in performance during this transition and requests that the Contractor communicates in their proposal the exact measures being taken to prevent such an occurrence. Furthermore, regardless of this transition timeline, the Contractor's proposal shall still fully demonstrate the ability to meet the staffing requirements as detailed in the FAR 52.212-1 and 52.212-2 addendums.

3.) Question: May transition/security processing begin immediately after apparent-successful-offeror notification but before the start date of 30 September?

Answer: Yes, please also see the answer to Question 2 above.

4.) Question: Will the incumbent sponsor continued CAC/access for retained incumbent employees until the successor can establish sponsorship?

Answer: Yes.

5.) Question: Will the Government permit incumbent employees to begin performing for the successor immediately on the start date if their Government credentials remain current?

Answer: CACs expire at the end of the contract. Request for new CAC issuances should be submitted to the NSTC Contract Administrator to begin the re-initiation process to obtain a new CAC in accordance with PWS Section 24.0.

6.) Question: PWS 3.3.1.1 requires Government technical and instructional evaluations before an instructor teaches the curriculum for the first time, while Section L requires a fully qualified workforce on the first day of full performance. Please clarify whether all initial Government evaluations must be completed before 30 September 2026; whether evaluations may be conducted during the start-up or a transition period;

the anticipated scheduling and turnaround time for those evaluations; and whether otherwise qualified personnel may perform non-instructional duties while awaiting evaluation.

Answer: PWS 3.3.1.1 states “…. When Contractor personnel are ready to teach the curriculum for the first time, the Government will perform both technical and instructional evaluations. The Contractor personnel will be evaluated on a selected critical core topic or topics by qualified evaluators proficient in the subject matter to ensure accuracy and proper teaching techniques.” This process will occur as initial instruction occurs.

7.) Question: The local security text permits CAC issuance and interim unclassified network access after favorable review of the investigative questionnaire and advance favorable fingerprint results, while PWS

9.0 states that a favorably adjudicated T3/T3R is required prior to performance and student interaction.

Please confirm whether interim eligibility/access satisfies the Day 1 performance requirement for otherwise fully qualified personnel, or whether final T3/T3R adjudication is required before any instructor may perform.

Answer: A final T3/T3R is required to obtain a CAC to be able to access the installation, network or interaction with recruits therefore must be obtained at the time of performance.

8.) Question: PWS 4.0 identifies historical staffing of 1 Site Lead, 2 Curriculum Developers, and 18 Academic Instructors, but states that the historical level does not represent the Government's current need.

For purposes of developing a Firm-Fixed-Price staffing solution, should offerors use the historical 21-FTE model as the expected baseline level of effort, or should offerors independently determine the full-time staffing necessary to meet all workload, student-ratio, DEP virtual instruction, tutoring, study hall, administrative, and individual-support requirements?

Answer: The historical staffing levels provided in PWS Section 4.0 are for informational purposes only. It is incumbent upon the Contractor to analyze all workload and to propose the appropriate staffing mix and quantity of personnel necessary to successfully execute the entire scope of work.

9.) Question: What is the historical average number of new students entering classes each week?

Answer: Historical average number of students entering instruction per week is 60.

10.) Question: What is the historical peak number of students assigned to a single cohort?

Answer: Historical peak number of new students assigned to a single cohort is 135.

11.) Question: What percentage of students historically require a second instructional iteration?

Answer: Historical Recycle rate for First attempt is 20%. Historical Recycle rate on second attempt is 7%.

12.) Question: The PWS provides an average class size of 160 and a 30:1 student-to-instructor ratio, but does not identify the physical capacity or normal section size of the classrooms used for instruction. Please provide the typical and maximum physical student/seating capacity of each classroom used for FSPC academic instruction.

Answer: Standard classroom seating capacity is 30. Two larger classrooms are available with a capacity of 80 each.

13.) Question: How many classrooms are available for simultaneous use?

Answer: 10 standard classrooms with capacity of 30 each. Two large classrooms with capacity of 80 each.

14.) Question: Are recycle students placed into the incoming new cohort, separate recycle sections, tutoring/study hall, or another delivery structure?

Answer: Recycle students are placed into the incoming cohort to repeat curriculum.

15.) Question: What is the historical throughput of students by FY? I.e. FY23, FY24, FY25.

Answer: FY23 – Incomplete. New program. FY24: 4,571, FY25: 2,058, FY26: 2,383 thus far.

16.) Question: Is the annual throughput of students expected to be similar to FY23-FY25? Are there any expected increases or decreases?

Answer: Similar to FY26 based on CNRC goals. Anticipate 2,500-2,800.

17.) Question: Are any key personnel required or identified?

Answer: No.

18.) Question: The PWS adds virtual classroom instruction for individuals in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP), but the estimated workload data does not provide anticipated DEP enrollment, number of virtual classes, class size, course frequency, or concurrency with on-site FSPC instruction. Please provide the Government's estimated annual and peak DEP virtual student volume.

Answer: DEP is done virtually and conducted in a lecture format. Student-to-instructor ratio does not apply to virtual instruction.

19.) Question: Must virtual instruction be conducted from Government-provided virtual-classroom facilities at RTC Great Lakes, or may properly credentialed contractor personnel provide virtual instruction remotely?

Answer: Virtual instruction is required to be conducted from government facilities at RTC.

20.) Question: For the virtual classes, will the virtual instruction be supported by the same 18 Academic Instructors identified in the estimated staffing or require separate dedicated personnel?

Answer: Currently, the incumbent utilizes the same instructors. The Contractor may make their own determinations on select personnel to staff the virtual requirement.

21.) Question: Please provide historical and anticipated DEP frequency/duration of virtual instruction.

Answer: Virtual instruction is M-F from 1300-1500; 1 hour for math and 1 hour for verbal.

22.) Question: Does the annual throughput of 8,800 referenced in Section 4.0 include virtual DEP and in-person students?

Answer: DEP participation does not get calculated into student throughput or instructor-to-student ratio.

23.) Question: PWS 3.3.6 permits the Government to increase student loading by up to 20 percent and requires the contractor to maintain the 30:1 student/instructor ratio. Please clarify whether the Firm-Fixed-Price proposal should include sufficient staffing to absorb the full 20 percent increase without a price adjustment, and whether the historical workload figures already include any expected surge capacity.

Answer: The Contractor shall independently assess and determine the staffing levels required to ensure that a qualified instructor is available to teach all scheduled classes to include potential capacity surges to maintain student-to-instructor ratio.

24.) Question: Are Curriculum Developers included when calculating 30:1 compliance? Are they authorized to instruct classes?

Answer: The Contractor shall independently assess and determine the staffing levels required to ensure that a qualified instructor is available to teach all scheduled classes. Determination if Curriculum Developers being certified to instruct is left to the Contractor.

25.) Question: Are students counted only during their first enrollment or are they recounted each time they repeat the class?

Answer: Classes must maintain a minimum of a 30:1 ratio and recycles are part of the class size.

26.) Question: Is the Average Class Size of 160 referenced in Section 4 inclusive of both new and recycled students?

27.) Question: Are virtual classes also capped at 30:1?

Answer: No. Virtual attendance is unlimited.

28.) Question: Can in-person instructors also be virtual instructors?

29.) Question: Are there any classes where in-person and virtual students are combined?

Answer: No. Virtual program is intended for DEP future sailors prior to shipping and program attendance.

30.) Question: Do DEP virtual students retake their ASVAB at MEPS or do they retake their ASVAB upon arriving to RTC?

Answer: Virtual students enter FSPC curriculum like any other. Virtual is intended to increase likelihood of successful first attempt (reduce recycle and separations).

31.) Question: On Page 43 of 56, under “For Submission of Proposals” (2) it states that “Offerors are permitted to submit no more than one page for each of the following, which will not be included in the page count: a cover sheet…” On Page 44 of 56, under “Proposal Content” the cover page should include: Title, Volume Number (I or II), Proposal Category (Factor/Sub-Factor)… The latter suggests that each volume will need a cover page. Can you clarify if having a cover page to separate each Factor will count towards the page limit for that Factor section.

Answer: In accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, “Offerors are permitted to submit no more than one page for each of the following, which will not be included in the page count: a cover sheet, list of tables, list of figures, tabs, and dividers. Tables of contents and any compliance matrices may exceed one page, which will not be included in the page count.”

32.) Question: Past Performance states that contracts must reflect one (1) year of completed performance by the issuance date of the solicitation. If a past performance example had a maximum of duration of nine (9) months, would that be acceptable for evaluation?

Answer: In accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Factor II (Past Performance), contract references must demonstrate at least one (1) year of completed performance by the issuance date of the solicitation to be considered for evaluation.

33.) Question: PWS 4.0 identifies Curriculum Developers in the historical staffing model, but PWS 5.0-5.2.7 does not provide separate qualification requirements. Please identify the required education, experience, instructor training, citizenship, and security qualifications for Curriculum Developers and for the designated alternate Contractor Supervisor.

Answer: Curriculum Development is a skillset of an instructor and meets the same qualifications as an instructor. Alternate Contract Supervisor must meet the same qualifications as a Contract Supervisor.

34.) Question: PWS 12.0 permits mutually agreed schedule adjustments at no additional expense to the Government. Please identify the historical frequency and duration of work outside 0800–1630 and clarify whether such hours are offset within the employee’s eight-hour workday or must be absorbed in the Firm- Fixed-Price effort without an offset.

Answer: Courses have kept the same schedule from 0800-1630 for the duration of the current contract, no work outside these hours is anticipated.

35.) Question: Please confirm whether current incumbent-developed and Government-approved materials, revision histories, test banks, and student guides will be transferred to the successor contractor.

Answer: Material produced by the incumbent is owned by the Government and will be provided for use.

36.) Question: PWS 3.3.12 requires contractor personnel to administer and grade tests, while PWS 3.1.7 requires reporting of baseline, mock, homework, and ASVAB scores. Please clarify whether contractor personnel will administer any official ASVAB testing or only course, mock, practice, and diagnostic assessments. How and when will official score information be made available to the contractor?

Answer: Contractors will not administer ASVABs. Only mock and practice. Government administers the ASVAB. The COR shall provide the Contractor Site Manager the official scores after each grading.

37.) Question: Section L identifies one address for questions and proposal submission (lisa.m.morton21@us.navy.mil) and a different address for Past Performance Report Forms (lisa.m.morton21.civ@us.navy.mil). Please confirm the correct email address or addresses for: Solicitation questions; Proposal submission; and Customer-submitted Past Performance Report Forms.

Answer: The correct e-mail is lisa.m.morton21.civ@us.navy.mil and is provided under solicitation Amendment 0001.

38.) Question: Page 43 of the RFP says that “Pages shall be consecutively numbered.”. May pages in Volume I be consecutively numbered within factor/subfactor sections to exhibit page count compliance? (10 pages for Sub-Factor I: Staffing Approach, 10 pages for Sub-Factor II: Performance and Management Approach and 12 pages for Past Performance.)

39.) Question: May we submit files in Adobe .pdf format?

Answer: Yes, however in accordance with Section L of the RFP all electronic files and versions of proposals must be compatible with the current release of Microsoft Office Suite version 2016.

40.) Question: Does the government have a preference for file naming convention?

Answer: Offerors shall follow the proposal submission instructions set forth in RFP Section L, Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters. The solicitation does not mandate a specific file naming convention.

41.) Question: Should subcontractors submit proprietary pricing directly to you via email?

Answer: In accordance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Paragraph (3), subcontractors are permitted to submit past performance and pricing support documentation not submitted by prime contractors. All submissions shall be submitted electronically via e-mail to lisa.m.morton21.civ@us.navy.mil no later than the due date and time of the solicitation.

42.) Question: Is there any information that should be submitted via PIEE, or should all be emailed directly to the government?

mailto:lisa.m.morton21.civ@us.navy.mil

Answer: All information should be e-mailed directly to the Government to lisa.m.morton21.civ@us.navy.mil.

43.) Question: What is considered “sufficient” in terms of pricing detail? (Ref. RFP pg. 47, “The offeror is responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate its price proposal.”)

Answer: The determination of what constitutes "sufficient" information ultimately rests with the offeror to ensure the Government can perform a complete price evaluation.