4.03 Amend 00001 Q&A N0060426Q4020.pdf

No. Question

Q1 CLIN 0001 provides for a "Unit Price" and a "Total Price" but states no quantity and no unit of issue. What is the unit — one course, one training event, one instructional day, or one lot comprising all five courses? If the unit is other than a single lot, please state the quantity.

A1 RFQ has been amended to include quantity 1 and unit of issue group.

Q2 Because award is on a lowest price technically acceptable basis, price is dispositive among acceptable quotes. Without a stated quantity, unit of issue, and course duration, quoters will price different assumptions and the resulting quotes will not be comparable. Will the Government amend the solicitation to state these elements before the closing date?

A2 RFQ has been amended to include quantity, unit of issue, and Statement of Work (SOW) has been updated to include course duration.

Q3 No duration is stated for Absence, Leave Abuse and Medical Issues Week or for Administrative Investigations (Non-Harassment). Please specify the required number of instructional days for each.

A3 SOW has been revised to address course durations.

Q4 The narrative describes Day one through Day five but states no duration. Please confirm five instructional days.

A4 See Answer 3

Q5 No course states daily contact hours. Paragraph 3.2.3 states three days and 3.2.4 states five half-days. Please state the required daily contact hours for each of the five courses.

A5 SOW has been revised to address contact hours.

Q6 The Performance Requirements Summary lists "Course length" for each performance objective and directs the reader to "See table in 3.6.7." The table at

3.6.7 contains no course length. Please amend or identify where course length is stated.

A6 See Answer 3

Q7 Is 40 participants per course a firm quantity, a not-to-exceed maximum, or an estimate? If enrollment exceeds 40, must the contractor accommodate the additional participants at no additional cost?

A7 The agency is responsible for determining the final number of participants, not-to-exceed 40 participants per course. The offeror is not expected to accommodate additional participants.

Q8 Paragraph 1.1 describes approximately 86 civilians. Five courses at 40 participants each represents 200 seats. Does the Government intend a single delivery of each course during the 365-day period, or multiple iterations of one or more courses? Please state deliveries required per course.

A8 The agency requires only a single delivery for each course, provided the offeror can accommodate up to 40 participants in one session.

Q9 If the Government does not schedule one or more of the five courses within the period of performance, how is the contractor compensated? Should the quote assume all five will be delivered?

A9 This is a firm fixed price contract and all courses are expected to be scheduled and the contract to be fulfilled in its entirety.

Q10 Are participant materials priced within CLIN 0001? Is electronic delivery of slides and handouts sufficient, or are printed materials required?

A10 Electronic delivery of slides and handouts are acceptable.

Q11 Wage Determination 2015-5525 Rev. 30 is attached and FAR 52.222-41 is incorporated. Which Service Contract Act labor category or categories does the

Government consider applicable to delivery of this instruction?

A11 The Government does not mandate a specific Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) labor category.

It is the responsibility of the offeror to review the attachments and determine which labor category or categories best apply based on the duties described in the Statement of Work (SOW)

Q12 Does the Government consider the instructional personnel to be exempt bona fide professional employees under 29 CFR Part 541, such that Service

Contract Act wage rates would not apply to instructional labor? A determination on this point materially affects price.

A12 The Government will not make a formal determination regarding the FLSA exempt or non-exempt status of the contractor's personnel.

Under the Service Contract Labor Standards, the responsibility for determining whether specific employees qualify for an exemption under 29 CFR Part

541 (such as the bona fide professional capacity exemption) rests solely with the contractor, in accordance with Department of Labor (DOL) regulations.

Offerors must make their own independent determination based on their compensation structures, employee duties, and federal labor standards, and prepare their quotation accordingly.

Q13 FAR 52.222-42, Statement of Equivalent Rates for Federal Hires, is listed but no fill-in information is provided. Please furnish the equivalent rates, or confirm the clause is included in error.

A13 The omission of the fill-in data was an administrative error. The formal, completed clause at FAR 52.222-42 is incorporated into the solicitation via

Amendment 00001

Q14 All performance is virtual and no place of performance is specified. For Service Contract Act purposes, which locality governs — the location of the instructional personnel, the location of PACFLT HRO NW, or the location of the contracting activity? The attached wage determination and the contracting activity appear to be in different localities.

A14 Because performance is entirely virtual and can be executed from any location, the exact place of performance is unknown. In accordance with FAR

22.1009-4 and FAR 52.222-49, which have been incorporated into the solicitation via Amendment 00001, the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) wage rate applicable to each offeror will be based on the physical location where the offeror’s instructional personnel will actually perform the work.

Offerors must identify their intended place of performance (State and County) in their quotation. The Government will obtain and incorporate the appropriate Wage Determination for the successful offeror's identified location prior to award.

Q15 The technical quote is limited to five pages and total quotes over ten pages will not be accepted. Does the ten-page total include the completed FAR 52.212-

3 and its Alternate I?

A15 A completed FAR 52.212-3 and its Alternate I is not required and has been removed by amendment

Q16 Do instructor resumes or qualification summaries count against the five-page technical limit?

A16 Yes

Q17 Paragraph 3.3.1 requires the contractor to provide examples of briefing materials at the post-award meeting. Please confirm that no sample instructional materials are required with the quotation.

A17 No sample instructional materials are required with the quotation

Q18 Please confirm that quotations are to be submitted by electronic mail to jeen.h.chu.civ@us.navy.mil, and identify any file size or file format limitations.

A18 Yes, quotations are to be submitted by electronic mail to jeen.h.chu.civ@us.navy.mil

Q19 The five course titles specified in the Statement of Work — Absence, Leave Abuse and Medical Issues Week; Administrative Investigations (Non-

Harassment); Advanced MSPB Law: Navigating Complex Issues; MSPB Law Week; and Workplace Investigations Week — are the published course names of a single commercial provider, the Federal Employment Law Training Group (FELTG) of Harrisonburg, Virginia (UEI ED38JFBQ5HJ1, CAGE

7AWN3), whose catalog appears at feltg.com/all-training-courses. Is this a brand name requirement, a brand name or equal requirement, or a functional description of the subject matter to be covered?

A19 The Government does not intend to solicit or award this requirement on a brand name basis. While the course names referenced in the SOW correspond to proprietary FELTG titles, the SOW has been formally amended via Amendment 00001 to list the essential functional and technical characteristics required for training delivery. Offerors are fully authorized to propose equivalent training courses under alternative titles and organizing structures, which will be evaluated as technically acceptable if they meet these SOW requirements.

Q20 The day-by-day narrative in 3.2.5, the enumerated credibility factors (plausibility, demeanor, omissions, motive, body language), the reference to OPM’s regulations on investigative leave, and the five Part 1 learning objectives for this course each correspond closely to FELTG’s published description of

Workplace Investigations Week at this page. Is the Government requiring that specific curriculum structure, or is the narrative descriptive of subject matter that may be organized differently? A summary comparison is at Attachment 1.

A20 The day-by-day narrative in paragraph 3.2.5 is illustrative of an acceptable course structure, but it is not a mandatory sequence. Offerors are permitted to organize, sequence, and structure their curriculum and training plans differently, provided that all core topics and learning objectives identified in the SOW are fully addressed.

For technical acceptability under this LPTA evaluation, the Government will evaluate whether the proposed curriculum covers 100% of the SOW learning objectives, regardless of the specific day or order in which they are taught.

Q21 The narrative in 3.2.3, including the three-day duration, the nexus requirement, comparator employees, alternative discipline, and the framing of the course as building on MSPB Law Week, corresponds closely to FELTG’s published description of Advanced MSPB Law: Navigating Complex Issues at this page.

Please confirm whether the Government requires that specific curriculum.

A21 The day-by-day narrative in paragraph 3.2.5 is illustrative of an acceptable course structure, but it is not a mandatory sequence. Offerors are permitted to organize, sequence, and structure their curriculum and training plans differently, provided that all core topics and learning objectives identified in the SOW are fully addressed.

For technical acceptability under this LPTA evaluation, the Government will evaluate whether the proposed curriculum covers 100% of the SOW learning objectives, regardless of the specific day or order in which they are taught.

mailto:jeen.h.chu.civ@us.navy.mil https://feltg.com/all-training-courses/ https://feltg.com/all-training-courses/ https://feltg.com/all-training-courses/ https://feltg.com/all-training-courses/ https://feltg.com/all-training-courses/ https://feltg.com/all-training-courses/ https://feltg.com/all-training-courses/ https://feltg.com/event/workplace-investigations-week-august-10-14-2026/ https://feltg.com/event/workplace-investigations-week-august-10-14-2026/ https://feltg.com/event/workplace-investigations-week-august-10-14-2026/ https://feltg.com/event/workplace-investigations-week-august-10-14-2026/ https://feltg.com/event/workplace-investigations-week-august-10-14-2026/ https://feltg.com/event/workplace-investigations-week-august-10-14-2026/ https://feltg.com/event/advanced-mspb-law-navigating-complex-issues-july-14-16-2026/ https://feltg.com/event/advanced-mspb-law-navigating-complex-issues-july-14-16-2026/ https://feltg.com/event/advanced-mspb-law-navigating-complex-issues-july-14-16-2026/ https://feltg.com/event/advanced-mspb-law-navigating-complex-issues-july-14-16-2026/

Q22 Because award is on a lowest price technically acceptable basis, technical acceptability is the only gate. Will the Government confirm that a quotation offering a curriculum that addresses every training objective stated in Part 1, under different course titles and a different organizing structure, will be evaluated as technically acceptable? If not, please state what aspect of the specific titles and structure is essential to the Government’s minimum needs.

A22 The day-by-day narrative in paragraph 3.2.5 is illustrative of an acceptable course structure, but it is not a mandatory sequence. Offerors are permitted to organize, sequence, and structure their curriculum and training plans differently, provided that all core topics and learning objectives identified in the SOW are fully addressed.

For technical acceptability under this LPTA evaluation, the Government will evaluate whether the proposed curriculum covers 100% of the SOW learning objectives, regardless of the specific day or order in which they are taught.

Q23 If a brand name requirement is intended, will the Government make available the supporting justification and documentation? If a brand name or equal requirement is intended, will the Government identify the salient characteristics an equal offering must possess?

A23 The Government does not intend to solicit or award this requirement on a brand name basis. While the course names referenced in the SOW correspond to proprietary FELTG titles, the SOW has been formally amended via Amendment 00001 to list the essential functional and technical characteristics required for training delivery. Offerors are fully authorized to propose equivalent training courses under alternative titles and organizing structures, which will be evaluated as technically acceptable if they meet these SOW requirements.

Q24 Paragraph 3.2.3 states that the training "will not only meet all those needs but help you reach the top of your game." This is second-person promotional language addressed to a prospective purchaser rather than requirements language. Please confirm it imposes no separately evaluated requirement.

A24 This does not impose a separate evaluation requirement.

Q25 Has PACFLT HRO NW previously procured any of these five courses from FELTG or another provider? If so, please identify the contract or order number and the vehicle used.

A25 Yes, Gilbert Training Group, N0040625PS482.

Q26 Was market research conducted for this requirement, and did the Government determine that these services are available from more than one responsible small business source?

A26 Yes, market research was conducted for this requirement in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 10.

Based on the results of this market research, the Government determined that a reasonable expectation exists of receiving offers from two or more responsible small business concerns. As a result, this procurement has been formally designated as a 100% Small Business Set-Aside. The Small

Business Office concurs with this decision.

Q27 Paragraph 3.5.2 requires "verifiable and positive references from OPM and DoD services." Is the requirement conjunctive, such that references from both the Office of Personnel Management and one or more DoD components are mandatory, or is either sufficient?

A27 SOW has been revised to state either OPM or DoD Services.

Q28 How many references are required from each source, and what recency standard applies? Will a quotation lacking a reference from one of these two organizations be found technically unacceptable?

A28 Offerors are not limited to a number or recency; however, references will be considered part of the technical submission. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant references, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) reference. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Q29 Will references from other Federal agencies, from Federal-sector employment law practice, or from Federal-sector professional or bar associations satisfy this requirement?

A29 See SOW section 3.5.2

Q30 May the contractor propose a team of instructors, each with expertise in one or more of the five topic areas, or must a single individual deliver all five courses?

A30 A single individual is not required to deliver all five courses. The contractor may propose a team of instructors, and the use of specialized subject matter experts is preferred.

If a team is proposed, the quote must clearly identify which instructor(s) will deliver each of the five training topics. To be evaluated as technically acceptable under Factor 1: Technical, each proposed instructor must meet the mandatory qualifications, experience, and reference requirements outlined in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the SOW for their assigned topic areas.

Q31 Is a Juris Doctor, active bar membership, or prior practice before the Merit Systems Protection Board or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission required of the proposed instructor or instructors?

A31 See SOW Sections 3.5 and 3.6

Q32 Paragraph 3.5.1 refers to "the HR topics listed in paragraphs 3.2.1 through 3.2.20 above." The Statement of Work contains only 3.2.1 through 3.2.5. Please confirm and amend.

A32 SOW revised to correct typographical error.

Q33 The course title is rendered "Advanced MPSB Law," transposing the acronym for the Merit Systems Protection Board. The identical transposition appears on FELTG’s published page at this page. Please confirm MSPB is intended and amend.

https://feltg.com/event/advanced-mspb-law-navigating-complex-issues-july-14-16-2026/ https://feltg.com/event/advanced-mspb-law-navigating-complex-issues-july-14-16-2026/

A33 SOW revised to correct typographical error.

Q34 The Labor Management Relations Program is cited as SECNAVINST 127211.2. Please confirm the correct instruction number.

A34 SECNAVEINST 12711.2, Labor Relations Program.

Q35 The definitions section defines "EDUTAINMENT," a term appearing nowhere else in the Statement of Work. Is edutainment content a requirement? If so, please specify where and to what extent.

A35 No it is not required. It is offered as an option based on the offerors delivery platform.

Q36 In the event of conflict between the Part 1 training objectives and the narrative requirements at 3.2.1 through 3.2.5, which governs? By way of example, the

Part 1 objectives for Advanced MSPB Law address probationary periods, performance standards, and up-and-down performance, while 3.2.3 addresses nexus, comparator employees, and alternative discipline.

A36 The entirety of the SOW should be considered. Part 1 provides training objectives and Part 3 provides in-depth details on each course.

Q37 Training times are stated as 0600 to 1800 PST. The contracting activity and the solicitation deadlines are stated in HST. Please confirm training delivery times are Pacific time, and confirm whether Pacific Daylight Time applies during the period of performance.

A37 Expected delivery timeframes are PST. Pacific Daylight Time applies during the period of performance.

Q38 Will the Government provide the virtual delivery platform, for example Microsoft Teams or Defense Collaboration Services, or must the contractor provide it? If contractor-provided, please identify any platforms that Navy network security policy prevents participants from accessing on Government workstations, including whether Zoom is permitted.

A38 The offeror is expected to provide the virtual delivery platform. Teams or Zoom are compatible with the agencies IT systems.

Q39 Materials are to be provided "to the registrant" at least three days prior. Should materials go to the Government Representative for distribution or directly to individual participants? If the latter, will the Government furnish a roster with email addresses?

A39 Materials are to be provided to the Government representative to ensure each participant has received the materials as required.

Q40 What rights in the training materials does the Government require? Is a limited license for participant use sufficient, or does the Government require the right to record sessions, retain recordings, or reuse materials for future internal training? Some commercial providers in this market prohibit link sharing, group viewing on a single registration, and reuse of materials.

A40 The agency requires limited license for participant use.

Q41 May the contractor use its own electronic feedback instrument, or is a Government-provided form required?

A41 The contractor may use its own electronic feedback instrument as long as an unedited copy is provided to the government representative for course evaluation. This does not prevent the Government from using its own feedback instrument for independent evaluation.