DRAFT_RFP_Q&A_Government_POSTING_28Jun19.pdf

FY20 Ready Relevant Learning Content Conversion Question Answer Form N61340-19-R-0022

Question # Subject Reference (i.e. RFP, SOW, Attachment, etc.) Specific Question Government Response

1 Safeguarding SOW 3.2.5.1 Will safeguarding classified information be needed at the contractor site

SOW paragraph 3.2.5.1, first sentence states: The Contractor shall safeguard classified information and meet the security requirements identified in the DD Form 254.

Yes, safeguarding classified information is required at the contractor's facility. The RFP file named: Planning DD254 - S2025 - FY20CC - N61340- 19-R-0022.pdf file states in block 1.b that Level of safeguarding for classified information/material required at contractor facility: Secret.

In that same pdf file, block 13 Security Guidance for Block 8.a states:

Actual Performance Location:

1) Naval Station Great Lakes, Chicago, IL

2) Contractor's Facility See Blocks 6.a-c

2 Safeguarding SOW 3.2.5.1 Will contractor site need any closed or restricted areas

Yes, safeguarding classified information is required at the contractor's facility. The RFP file named: Planning DD254 - S2025 - FY20CC - N61340- 19-R-0022.pdf file states in block 1.b that Level of safeguarding for classified information/material required at contractor facility: Secret.

In that same pdf file, block 13 Security Guidance for Block 8.a states:

Actual Performance Location:

1) Naval Station Great Lakes, Chicago, IL

2) Contractor's Facility See Blocks 6.a-c

Defense Security Systems (DSS) approves a Facility Clearances (FCL) for a contractor's facility and DSS should be contacted to determine if any closed or restricted areas are required for an approved and cleared FCL to meet the requirement of the DD254 for this contractor effort.

3 Evaluation Criteria Section L (Page 140) para 1.2: The government states that “The Offeror has the burden to submit a proposal that convincingly demonstrates that the Offeror has an accurate understanding of the requirements and the associated risks; that the Offeror has viable solutions for the requirements and potential risk areas; and that the Offeror is able, willing and competent to devote the resources necessary to meet the requirements.”

How is it possible to satisfy this requirement without providing a Technical or Management volume or background information (not) required to demonstrate this same understanding for Price?

This language has been removed.

4 Evaluation Criteria Section L (Page 141) para 3.0: In the FY 19 Industry day, the government stated that there was no need for a management volume as each prime bidder had successfully solicited and had been awarded a position on the TDPC MAC thus demonstrating their robust capability to perform on that vehicle.

Given this rationale, why is industry required to provide Past Performance? Would it be more logical to further streamline this acquisition and only require a price volume?

The Government believes that there is value in assessing an offeror's past performance record on similar, relevant efforts. Therefore, past performance will be considered.

5 Evaluation Criteria Section L (Page 147) para 2.1 f. 1 Scope: The government states “The Offeror shall compare the scope of the work performed in the Offeror’s past performance contract’s Statement of Work (SOW), Performance Work Statement (PWS), Statement of Objectives (SOO), and/or Specification, CDRLs, and Contract document to the requirements under this solicitation’s Statement of Work regarding activities in the designing, developing and delivering of interactive courseware (ICW) as defined in Appendix C.”

Is the government restricting the SOW paragraphs that are authorized to be used for relevance comparison to Paragraph 3 (Instructional Design Requirements) of the SOW or can Past Performance citations also relate to Paragraphs 1,2,4,5 & 6 of the SOW?

Yes. The Government has provided the specific paragraphs that will be considered when determining the relevance of an offerors' past performance reference in Section L. The Government is not going to compare every paragraph of the Government's SOW to the offerors' past performance reference.

6 Evaluation Criteria Section M (Page 160) para 3.1 Price: “The government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Volume for its proposed total price; price reasonableness; and whether the Offeror’s proposed CLIN prices are balanced. a. Total Price: The total evaluated price will be the sum of all CLINs and Option CLINs”

How will the government evaluate an offerors price? The Government will evaluate it in accordance with Section M of the RFP.

7 Evaluation Criteria Section M (Page 160) para 3.1 Price: “The government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Volume for its proposed total price; price reasonableness; and whether the Offeror’s proposed CLIN prices are balanced. a. Total Price: The total evaluated price will be the sum of all CLINs and Option CLINs”

Will a lower “Reasonable” price be considered superior to a higher bid price?

Not necessarily. In accordance with the solicitation, the selection official will perform a tradeoff between Offerors’ evaluated prices and their assessments under the Past Performance Factor. Price is only one factor in the award decision.

8 Past Performance Section L (Page 141) para 3.0

Section L (Page 141) para 3.0: It was stated in the FY20 Pre-Solicitation Conference that the Government is considering allowing Past Performance citations from Subcontractors to be proportional to their proposed workshare for the FY20 Content Conversion (e.g., if they will have 10% workshare, their PP can be 10% of $118M and be considered relevant). Will the same be true for Prime contractors? In other words, if a Prime will be performing 50% of the workshare, will a PP citation that is 50% of the instant solicitation value be considered relevant?

That was only a discussion point during the Pre-Solicitation conference.

Offerors are advised to see the Past Performance section of the final RFP to see the proposed change with regards to percentage of workshare and relevancy.

9 Past Performance Page 158 para 1.2 Letter c.

The targeted magnitude is listed as $118M dollars. Given the fact that there are various POPs for each CLIN listed on pages 98-106 what is the Period of Performance that is expected to produce the instant solution value of $118M?

The final potential delivery date listed in Section F. As this is not a service procurement, there is no Period of Performance for any of the CLINs.

Please note that the estimated value of the acquisition has been adjusted from the value provided in the initial draft.

10 Classified Past Performance Section L, Part B, 1.1, Page 141 The RFP states, "The Offeror shall NOT submit past performance contracts that are CLASSIFIED." Is the Government's intent to not allow past performance for contracts that have classified work?

That is correct.

11 Past Performance Magnitude RFP, Section L, Part B, 1.7, Page 146 For purposes of the past performance evaluation, the instant solicitation is estimated at a total of $118 million.

Will this magnitude requirement also apply to subcontractors? This may limit large system integrators from maximizing utilization of small businesses.

Offerors are advised to see the Past Performance section of the final RFP to see the proposed change with regards to percentage of workshare and relevancy.

12 possible correction C.2 SOW Description Point of clarification - first para references Sailor 2025 FY19 vice fy20. References to the FY19 acquisition have been removed.

13 possible correction F.3 Table For Option CLINS 2008-2012 the end dates are before the start dates CLINs have been revised. See the final solicitation for changes.

14 Magnitude Criteria for PP 1.0 Past performance. 2.f.2 Will past performance be evaluated in magnitude to an aggregate of all 5 PP submissions to reach the $118M threshold?

No. Past performance references will not be combined by the Government for the assessment of magnitude.

15 Compare Similarities draft RFP Section L.B.2.1.c This paragraph states "* Relevant dollar amount as it relates to scope, magnitude and complexity required in this solicitation under paragraph L.B.2.2.f below." Please clarify if this reference should be to "L.B.2.1.f.

Compare Similarities

Paragraphs have been renumbered. See the final RFP for changes.

16 Demonstrated Performance draft RFP Section L.B.3.a Is it required that the CPARS be completed within a certain period of time? For example, within the last 12 months.

Is it required that the CPARS report be available via PPIRS?

CPARS are typically completed annually by the requiring activity's acquisition team (i.e.. PM, Contracting Officer, Logistician, etc.). If a contract effort is less than 12 months old or if the CPAR hasn't been finalized and available in the system yet, offerors need to send out past performance questionnaires on their own behalf to their customers. It is the offeror's responsibility to provide the Government with a customer's assessment of its performance.

17 Compare Similarities draft RFP Section L.B.2.1.F.1

Can offerors cite/combine multiple task orders that were awarded under a MAC IDIQ contract when the task orders involved different courseware development tasking, simultaneously for the same customer? For example, several separate task orders were being executed at the same time, for a combined dollar value exceeding the $10M threshold, thus equating the size and scope expected for this effort.

No. References for delivery or task orders under a MAC will be treated as individual references.

18 Compare Similarities draft RFP Section L.B.2.1.F.1

Can offerors cite/combine multiple task orders that were awarded under a MAC IDIQ contract when the task orders involved different courseware development tasking under follow-on task orders for the same customer? For example, an initial and follow on task orders were issued/awarded to support courseware development tasks and combined meet the relevancy factors for scope, complexity and magnitude.

No. References for delivery or task orders under a MAC will be treated as individual references.

19 Compare Similarities draft RFP Section L.B.2.1.F Will the Government evaluate the five Past Performance reference relevancy factors in aggregate, or is each reference evaluated independently?

No. Past performance references will not be combined by the Government for the assessment of magnitude.

20 Classified Past Performance 1.0 Vol. 1, Para 1.1 Is the prohibition of classified past performance intended? Relevant classified past performance can still be valid past performance for the unclassified environment.

Yes. The Government needs to be able to fully assess an offeror's reference and document the findings in a non-Classified environment.

21 Extension to TPDC Section H.4 teaming arrangements Industry Day Slides The Industry Day slides stated TPDC Section H.4 Teaming arrangements are due on 06 MAY 2019. Will the Government entertain an extension to 20MAY2019

This question has been addressed via separate correspondence with the TDPC MAC holders.

22 Number of Past Performance References from Prime and Sub DRFP Section L Part B, 1.1.a, Page 144, DRFP Section L Part B 1.6 Table, Page 145 DRFP Section M, Part B, 1.1.b, Page 157

Rationale/Discussion:

L.B.1.1.a states: "A minimum of two (2) of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contracts shall be from the Offeror. The other three (3) references may be provided by entities proposed as subcontractors to do a portion of the instant acquisition."

L.B.1.6 Table includes 2 columns for Prime References and 3 columns for Subcontractor References.

M.B.1.1.b states: "Two (2) of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contracts shall be from the Offeror (i.e., the prime); and three (3) shall be from subcontractors."

Question/Comment:

For consistency across contractors, we recommend the Government utilize the language from DRFP M.B.1.1.b stated above.

Offerors are advised to see the Past Performance section of the final RFP to see the proposed change with regards to submission requirements for principal team members.

23 Format DRFP Section L, Part B, 1.6, Page 145

Rationale/Discussion:

L.B.1.6 states: Provide the information identified below in a Microsoft (MS) Word Table for each of the five (5) references identified and provides one table with 6 columns, the first describing the information required and the other 5 representing 2 Prime references and 3 subcontractor references.

Question:

Is it allowable for the offeror to provide 5 separate tables that include the required information for each referenced past performance contract?

Yes. Offerors may separate the table for each reference as long as the information contained in the table is provided.

24 Past Performance DRFP Section L, Part B, 1.6 Footnote 3, Page 146

Rationale/Discussion:

Footnote 3 states that "CAGE and DUNS shall be the same as the company performing the solicitation. . ."

While this ensures the government receives only past performance citations from the immediate business group, it also limits offeror's ability to show their best contracts. Very often highly relevant contracts are not novated to the current CAGE and DUNS and yet reside in the same business unit.

Question:

Would the Government consider adding language allowing for contractors to bid citations with different CAGE & DUNS numbers and inherit the burden of proof that those contracts are relevant. Below is sample language:

"Offeror's may submit contracts with differing CAGE & DUNS numbers, but the burden of proof regarding relevancy is solely on the contractor"

Please see the Final RFP for CAGE and DUNS requirements.

25 Past Performance DRFP Section L, Part B, 2.1 f-1, Page 147

Rationale/Discussion:

The DRFP states that the Government is only interested in comparing contract Scope to Appendix C, The ADDIE process, 3.3 Instructional Design Requirements, and 3.4 Systems Engineering requirements. Over the past few years the Government has stressed the importance of having a Large Systems Integrator lead this critical, new effort. As such, we think it’s pertinent that the Government include other program management comparisons to ensure the prime contractor is both proficient in training content development as well as a Large Systems Integrator. This would include SOW sections 3.1 & 3.2 in addition to sections 3.3 & 3.4.

Question:

Would the Government consider adding other comparable factors such as 3.1 General Requirements, and 3.2 Management Requirements, to the past performance evaluation criteria?

The Government took this under consideration. However, we don't anticipate making the recommended changes to the scope requirement.

Please see the final RFP for the scope requirement.

26 Past Performance Contracts RFP L.B.1.1.A and M.B.1.1.b

Section L.B.1.1.A states, "The Offeror shall identify a total of five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contracts for the government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s relevant recent past performance.

A minimum of two (2) of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contracts shall be from the Offeror. The other three (3) references may be provided by entities proposed as subcontractors to do a portion of the instant acquisition."

Section M.B.1.1.b states, "The Government will evaluate a total of five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contracts of the Offeror’s and proposed subcontractor’s relevant recent past performance. Two (2) of the five (5) most relevant government or commercial past performance contracts shall be from the Offeror (i.e., the prime); and three (3) shall be from subcontractors."

Question: Is a prime contractor allowed to submit up to five past performance contracts if they choose not to use any past performance contracts from subcontractors?

Yes.

27 Task order (TO) or delivery orders (DO) awarded under Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

RFP L.B.1.7

Section L.B.1.7 states "Task order (TO) or delivery orders (DO) awarded under Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) (either multiple or single award) contracts will be considered standalone “contracts” for purposes of past performance evaluation. Thus, Offerors may not propose an entire IDIQ (whether single or MAC) as a past performance contract reference. When a TO or DO is proposed, the offeror shall include the Statement of Work (SOW) for the TO or DO and the SOW for the IDIQ."

Question: If the Contractor’s CPARS are issued under the IDIQ Contract Number; however, not further delineated by individual Delivery Orders/Task Orders—for the Offeror to be compliant, should the past performance submitted be at the IDIQ level?

Please see the final RFP for further clarification on this requirement.

28 Media Type RFP Section B In Section B, Government seeks to procure Media types 1 through Media types 10.

Question: Request that the Government defines Media types 1 through 10?

The Government identifies the media types as followed:

Media Type 1 - IFIT ICW1 Hours Media Type 2 - IFIT ICW2 Hours Media Type 3 - IFIT ICW3 Hours Media Type 4 - IFIT ICW4 Hours Media Type 5 - SDIT ICW1 Hours Media Type 6 - SDIT ICW2 Hours Media Type 7 - SDIT ICW3 Hours Media Type 8 - SDIT ICW4 Hours Media Type 9 - PS Electronic Quantity Media Type 10 - SOJT with Mentor Materials Quantity

Please note the CLIN structure has changed. See Section B in the final RFP for updated CLIN structure.

29 Past performance within 5 years DRFP Page 144, Section L, Part B, Section 1.0, 1.1.c & d; Industry Day Slide #28

Section 1.1.c at the reference states "Any submitted past performance contract must contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP release date specified in Block 5 of Standard Form 33 of the RFP."

Further, 1.1.d, at the reference states "It is possible that an older past performance contract with performance that barely crosses into the five-year period (see c above) could be determined not-relevant, depending upon the work that was actually delivered or provided during that period of time."

Finally, a slide at the Industry Day indicated that performance must be at least 12 months inside the 5 year window.

Question: If relevant past performance was within 11 months of which was in the past five years, will that example be considered not relevant?

Offerors should rely on the words in the final RFP with regards to relevancy time periods.

30 CPARS and PPQs DRFP Page 144, Section L, Part B, Section 1.0, para. 1.2 RFP states that if the CPARS is more than 12 months old, a PPQ is required. If the program is complete, and the CPARS is the final CPARS, and that CPARS is older than 12 months, is a PPQ still required?

No.

31 Relevant Work DRFP page 145, Table, Item # 11

There is a large deviation for this proposal from the Past Performance requirements of the FY19 RFP. The FY19 RFP stressed Lead Integration experience, and the prime's ability to "manage" efforts as opposed to actually doing the work. In the requirement sited (#11 in the table) the statement requires "Relevant Dollar Value of Effort Performed by the Contractor or Subcontractor". In this case, is the contractor proposing expected to have actually done the relevant work (i.e. developed ICW 2) or managed someone else doing that work?

The Lead Integrator language from FY19 CC has been removed for FY20 CC. Please see the relevancy paragraph 1.2.g.1 in Section L of the final RFP that speaks to what will be evaluated.

32 Single Award IDIQs DRFP page 146, Item 1.7

The RFP states "Offerors may not propose an entire IDIQ (whether single or MAC) as a past performance contract reference." We understand why a MAC should only be considered on a Task Order by Task Order basis. We ask that you re-consider single award IDIQ contracts. The structure of many is almost identical to the planned structure for this contract. Would you re-consider a single award IDIQ with FFP CLINS similar to the structure proposed in this RFP?

Please see the final RFP for further clarification on this requirement.

33 Magnitude DRFP page 158, Section 1.2, item c.

The RFP states "Each of the five (5) Past Performance Contract References submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated independently and not as an aggregate of the five (5)." If a prime proposes with three subs, this implies that each Task Order reported by each company must have relevant work of $118M - per contractor.

It also implies that the prime should have two task orders that are each $118M of relevant content to be considered a viable example. We understand the prime cannot simply add up five task orders to reach the $118M. But if there are four separate companies, and the combined relevant work done by the four combined is near the $118M, is that a viable approach? This makes sense since the four companies would be splitting the work.

It is simply not feasible that each company would have a single Task Order of that magnitude.

Please see the final RFP for further clarification on this requirement.

34 Courseware hours DRFP page 159, first bullet The RFP states "The government estimates 2,700 courseware hours (inclusive of options) for the solicitation."

We believe this is a draft #, and should be changed based on the completion of the CLIN quantities in Section B. We only bring this to your attention as you finalize the RFP.

Yes. It will be updated to reflect final requirements.

35 Courseware hours Attachment L-4, page 5, f.3 - Complexity This attachment quotes the same 2,700 courseware hours that are quoted in the RFP (Page 159). We believe this is a draft #, and should be changed based on the completion of the CLIN quantities in Section B. We only bring this to your attention as you finalize the RFP.

Yes. It will be updated to reflect final requirements.

36 Teaming Partners Industry Day Slide 19

The slide indicated that Teaming Agreements should be submitted by May 6, 2019. This is unrealistic for numerous reasons: 1) Award of FY19 CC will not have been made, and may determine bid strategy. 2) Answers to questions will not have been posted. 3) Waivers cannot be finalized due to Items 1 & 2. For clarification - Is May 6, 2019 a hard date? Will the Final RFP reflect a hard date (other than with proposal submission)?

This question has been addressed via separate correspondence with the TDPC MAC holders.

37 TDPC Functional Areas General Are Task Orders under TDPC Functional Areas 1 and 3 considered relevant?

The question is too broad and can not be answered with certainty. It depends on the specific requirements of those specific delivery orders.

38 TSFD SOW Appendix A

In looking at the Sailor FY20 Appendix A, I was wondering if you can shed any light on what the expectations are of the TSFD Column(s). The notes tie it to ICW4 and/or VirSim work. But then what would that mean to CLIN 2002 which is for the DC rating and has no ICW4? Any additional insight into customer expectations for

TSFD?

FY20 Content Conversion no longer requires a TSFD of the customer.

Sheet1