1.65a Questions and Responses HRT.pdf

Maritime Expeditionary Security Training and Evaluation Unit (MESTEU-2)

High-Risk Training and Instructor, and Learning Standards Officer Support Services

Solicitation N0018926RL001

Questions and Responses

UNCLASSIFIED

1. Question: Staffing Clarification: Is the On-Site Lead required to be an additional, separate position for a total of eleven (11) FTE, or does the Government intend for the On-Site Lead to be designated from within the nine (9) Instructors/Assessors, resulting in a total of ten (10) FTE inclusive of the Learning Standards

Officer (LSO)

Response: It is the Contractor’s job to propose the appropriate labor mix to complete the PWS tasks and requirements. The Government has provided the historical level of effort.

2. Question: Wage Determination / SCLS Clarification: The solicitation includes FAR 52.222-41, Service

Contract Labor Standards (SCLS), but does not appear to include an attached Wage Determination. FAR

52.222-42 states that Wage Determination No. 2015-4341 Rev. 32 is incorporated into the contract. Should offerors use this Wage Determination for proposal pricing and SCLS compliance?

Response: FAR 52.222-42 includes the appropriate Wage Determination and version for the task order.

3. Question: The solicitation identifies NAICS 541330 under an SDVOSB set-aside and applies the $25.5M size standard. However, given the scope of the MESF High Risk Training requirement—particularly its execution of specialized, mission-aligned training in support of maritime security operations—and the

Government’s prior application of the NAICS 541330 $47M exception on substantially similar

CENSECFOR training efforts, we respectfully request that the Government reconsider the application of the size standard for this procurement. Specifically, we request that the Government amend the solicitation to incorporate the applicable $47M exception under NAICS 541330 to ensure consistency with prior

CENSECFOR requirements and to support full and fair competition among eligible SDVOSB offerors.

Response: The small business size standard for this requirement is $47M under NAICS 541330.

4. Question: Will the Government consider providing applicable solicitation Wage Determination documents?

Response: Please visit sam.gov for the full Wage Determination documents.

5. Question: Because SCLS is incorporated in this solicitation (FAR 52.222-41) and even though FAR 22-

1008 is not incorporated in the solicitation, a clear predecessor workforce exists of current and incumbent personnel. For this workforce, carryover liabilities tied to tenure will exist as contractors propose workforce continuity to provide best value to the Government and accrued vacation obligations may exist as well. Will the Government consider providing adequate incumbent workforce position detail without names, such as hire dates or years of service by position, to enable realistic pricing.

Response: No.

6. Question: Will the Government consider providing PWS Labor category mapping to Wage Determination labor categories?

Response: Please see update FAR 52.222-42. Instructors will fall under the Technical Instructor/Course

Developer (15095) and the LSO will fall under the Educational Technologist (15060).

7. Question: Is there an incumbent currently on this effort? If yes, please identify the incumbent company and provide their contract/task order number. If there is an incumbent, was the incumbent contract awarded with the same FTE count as this requirement?

Response: The requirement is currently supported through task order N0018921F2011 by R3 Strategic

Support Group. There are no differences between the services currently being provided and the instant requirement.

8. Question: In Block 10 of the SF1449, the size standard listed for 541330 is $25.5M. At the end of Section

L (pg. 45) the Size Standard is listed as $47M. Will the Government please deconflict?

Response: The small business size standard for this requirement is $47M under NAICS 541330.

9. Question: Can the Government confirm the following assumption. The 9 instructors all fall under the

Technical Instructor Wage Determination, while the LSO falls under the Technical Instructor/Course

Developer Wage Determination, with the Site Lead as a professional position?

Response: Please see update FAR 52.222-42. Instructors will fall under the Technical Instructor/Course

Developer and the LSO will fall under the Educational Technologist.

10. Question: Will the Government please insert the required CMMC level into this clause?

Response: Please see updated DFARS 252.204-7025.

11. Question Will the Government confirm that the required CMMC level shall be in place upon proposal due date?

Response: Confirmed.

12. Question: Page 39, (3) i), ii), iii), We recommend striking this section. These instructions appear to be specific for the retired SeaPort portal.

Response: Removed from Instructions.

13. Question: Where would the Government like industry to insert the signed certificate in the event that a bona fide employee participated in the creation, formulation, or writing of any portion of our proposal?

Response: Certificate can be a separate attachment.

14. Question: Given the requirement that all personnel be fully qualified and ready to perform on 16 July

2026, can the Government confirm the anticipated award date or provide an estimated award window to ensure instructors can complete CUIT/ICQP, Government evaluations, and onboarding requirements prior to Day 1 performance?

Response: The Government anticipates awarding no later than 16 June 2026.

15. Question: Can the Government please confirm whether a recent CPARS evaluation for a referenced contract may be used in lieu of a completed Past Performance Report Form, or if the PPRF is required even when CPARS records already exist for that same effort?

Response: Please refer to the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and

Commercial Services for proposal content.

16. Question: Please confirm that contractor instructors will teach PB courses but will not be expected to operate Government watercraft as coxswains (i.e., instructors provide classroom/field training on tactics and safety, while Government provides qualified boat crews and platforms).

Response: Confirmed. Contractor personnel are required to provide instruction on the podium and underway during Patrol Boat (PB) courses. The Government will provide qualified boat crews and platforms.

17. Question: Please confirm any NAVFAC/NECC licensing or training (e.g., EVOC) needed and whether the

Government will provide base driver/vehicle certifications for instructors.

Response: Per PWS Section 12.2, it is the contractor's responsibility to certify that their personnel possess a valid driver’s license and are fully qualified to operate required vehicles. The Government will not provide this training or certification.

18. Question: The PWS references a 16 July 2026 performance start date with no explicit mobilization or transition period. Will the Government confirm whether a pre-performance transition period will be provided prior to 16 July 2026 for ICQP/CUIT certification, command orientation, CAC issuance, and security in-processing — or does the Government expect full instructor performance to begin on Day 1?

Response: It is expected that contractors be performance ready on Day 1.

19. Question: During the ICQP certification period, are instructors who have not yet received Government certification permitted to perform any supporting duties (e.g., classroom observation, administrative support, equipment setup) while awaiting their Government evaluation, or must all contractor personnel remain completely non-productive until certified?

Response: Personnel awaiting final Government certification (qualification) may NOT perform supporting duties that involve podium instruction, practical application or assuming range responsibilities. Must be fully qualified to be able to execute podium instruction, practical application and range responsibilities.

20. Question: Will the Government confirm the expected timeline between contract award and the formal contract orientation briefing with MESTEU-2? Specifically, will the orientation briefing occur within the first 5 business days of award?

Response: The Government anticipates awarding no later than 16 June 2026. Orientation briefing can be scheduled any day after award.

21. Question: Question: The PWS estimates 9 FTEs for Instructors and Assessors (6 Maritime Security, 3

Ground Security). Will the Government confirm whether this is a firm minimum staffing requirement or an estimated level of effort, and whether offerors who propose a different labor mix to achieve equivalent or superior performance will be evaluated favorably provided they justify the deviation?

Response: Please see Sub-Factor I - Staffing Approach within Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to

Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

22. Question: The PWS requires instructors to have 'recent (within three years) weapons qualifications' for the

M9/M18, M4/M16, and M500. Will the Government confirm whether qualifications held at time of proposal submission are sufficient, or whether all personnel must achieve these qualifications within three years of the contract performance start date (16 July 2026)?

Response: The qualifications should be held at time of proposal submission, not achieved within (after) three (3) years of performance start date.

23. Question: The PWS states instructors must have experience in 'USN Naval Coastal Warfare, Maritime

Expeditionary Security, Riverine, Coast Riverine, or Special Operations.' Will the Government confirm whether substantively equivalent experience in a directly related Naval Expeditionary Combat Command

(NECC) community (e.g., Expeditionary Combat Readiness, Security Forces, or Naval Coastal Warfare predecessors) satisfies this requirement?

Response: Offerors should demonstrate how their proposed personnel's experience aligns with the requirements specified in PWS Section 5.2.1. The Government will evaluate the relevancy of the proposed experience. Experience from predecessor commands to those listed will be considered.

24. Question: For the Learning Standards Officer position, will the Government confirm whether a civilian

Master Training Specialist equivalent — specifically, personnel who have completed an accredited civilian

Instructional Systems Design (ISD) or Master Instructor certification program recognized under JIT/NITC equivalency standards — fully satisfies the MTS requirement, or whether a Navy-issued MTS certification is strongly preferred?

Response: PWS Section 5.3.1 allows for a "civilian industry standard equivalent" to the Navy Master

Training Specialist (MTS) certification. The Government will evaluate proposed civilian certifications for equivalency on a case-by-case basis.

25. Question: The PWS requires contractor personnel to pass a physical and psychological examination, with

DD Form 2808 documentation provided one week prior to beginning the ICQP process. Will the

Government confirm whether a current DD Form 2808 from within the past 12 months, completed for another CENSECFOR or Navy instructor contract, satisfies this requirement — or must a new examination be conducted specifically for this contract?

Response: A current DD Form 2808, completed within 12 months of the start of the ICQP process, is acceptable provided it covers all physical and psychological requirements for high-risk instructor duties under this PWS.

26. Question: The PWS describes convening frequencies for core courses as 'approximately' a given number per year. Will the Government confirm whether these are Government planning estimates subject to change based on operational demand, or whether offerors should treat them as firm annual minimums for pricing and staffing purposes?

Response: The convening frequencies listed in PWS Section 4.2 are planning estimates and are subject to change based on operational demand. They do not represent firm minimums.

27. Question: For the two on-demand courses (MESF EDM and MESF UAS Operator), the PWS states curriculum and training materials are Government-Furnished Information (GFI). Will the Government confirm whether this GFI is fully developed and available at contract award, or whether curriculum development support from the contractor may be required prior to first delivery?

Response: The curriculum for the optional on-demand courses is GFI and is considered pre-developed. The

Government does not anticipate requiring new curriculum development for these courses.

28. Question: The PWS references concurrent course delivery as a logistical consideration. Will the

Government confirm the maximum number of courses that may be required to run simultaneously at any given time, and whether all concurrent courses could involve travel to different CONUS locations in the same week?

Response: The Government cannot commit to a maximum number of concurrent courses. Offerors must propose a staffing approach that is flexible and robust enough to meet the training requirements as described in the PWS, which may include multiple concurrent courses in different locations.

29. Question: For OCONUS travel to Bahrain, will the Government sponsor contractor personnel for NSA

Bahrain base access, or is the contractor solely responsible for coordinating base access through the applicable Visit Request process? Additionally, will the Government provide any support for the Bahrain commercial registration and licensing requirements referenced in the PWS?

Response: Per PWS Section 7.2, the Government will not sponsor contractors for visas, commercial registration, or licensing in Bahrain; these are the contractor's responsibility. For base access, contractor personnel shall coordinate with the COR to process the required visit requests.

30. Question: The PWS states that Bahrain-based insurance requirements have 'no mandatory requirements.'

Will the Government confirm whether contractor personnel operating in Bahrain under this contract are covered under Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance, which is required under FAR 52.228-3 included in this solicitation, or whether DBA applicability is limited to CONUS performance?

Response: The note in PWS Section 7.2 refers to host-nation-specific insurance requirements. The contractor must comply with all clauses incorporated in the solicitation, including any requirements for

Defense Base Act (DBA) insurance. Offerors should consult FAR 52.228-3 to determine applicability.

31. Question: The CMMC clause (DFARS 252.204-7021) included in this solicitation contains a blank field for the required CMMC level. Will the Government confirm the specific CMMC level required for this contract — Level 1 (Self), Level 2 (Self), Level 2 (C3PAO), or Level 3 (DIBCAC)?

Response: Please see response for question #10.

32. Question: For past performance relevancy evaluation, will the Government confirm whether CENSECFOR high-risk instructor support contracts (e.g., AT/NSF Instructor, MAA 'A' or 'C' School, SD/T Instructor

Development) will be rated as 'Very Relevant' given that they involve essentially the same high-risk training environment, Navy instructor qualification standards (CUIT, ICQP, RSO), and customer

(CENSECFOR) — even though the specific MESF course titles differ from the MESTEU-2 curriculum?

Response: Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation.

33. Question: The solicitation states that the Program Manager's biography and qualifications may be addressed in the proposal. Will the Government confirm whether a named Program Manager who previously served in a senior Government civilian or military position directly overseeing the requiring activity (i.e., CENSECFOR or Fleet Forces Navy Security Force policy) constitutes a 'strength' or

'significant strength' under the Technical Approach evaluation criteria?

Response: Offerors’ Staffing Approach will be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation.

34. Question: The solicitation establishes a 10-page limit for each sub-factor within Factor II. Will the

Government confirm whether the organizational chart/diagram and any supporting tables (e.g., qualification tracking matrix, staffing retention data) count against the 10-page limit, or whether they may be included as clearly labeled supporting exhibits separate from the narrative page count?

Response: Please refer to #2 under Submission of Proposals within the Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services.