FY20_Final_RFP_QA_Amend02.pdf

Attachment L-1 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

Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ): The Government requests all PPQs be forwarded within seven (7) days from the RFP release date. The RFP was released late on 28 June 2019. There is a holiday included within the seven calendar days.

RFP PART B, 1.1 h) Will the Government consider extending the PPQ due date until Tuesday, 09 July 2019 at 5:00 PM EST?

The Government has extended the PPQ forwarding requirement to 14 calendar days after RFP release. Please see FBO posting dated 2 July 2019, and forthcoming RFP amendment.

2 Submission of PPQs RFP, Section L, Part B, paragraph 1.1 (h)

Section L states that “All PPQ’s shall be forwarded within seven (7) calendar days from the RFP release date.”

The RFP was released on June 28 and 7 days later is July 6, a Friday following a national holiday. Given that the mid-week holiday results in considerable contractor and government absences, we respectfully requests the USG consider extending the “(7) calendar days from the RFP release date” to 14 days

The Government has extended the PPQ forwarding requirement to 14 calendar days after RFP release. Please see FBO posting dated 2 July 2019, and forthcoming RFP amendment.

3 PPQs RFP, Section L, Part B, paragraph 1.1 (h), page 93 of 109

The RFP page 93 of 109 sates “All PPQ’s shall be forwarded within seven (7) calendar days from the RFP release date, with a copy forwarded to the Contract Specialist. The Offeror shall include instructions for its government customers to send completed questionnaires within two weeks of the customer’s receipt of the questionnaire to Mr. Austin Brookshire, Contract Specialist, via email at austin.brookshire@navy.mil, and carbon copy to ricardo.l.elias@navy.milmailto:lileana.davila@navy.mil. The Offeror shall NOT complete the PPQ, but submit to its government customer for completion; and then its customer is to return it to Mr.

Austin Brookshire directly via email.” The RFP was released on 28 June which means all PPQs are due this Friday, 5 July. We just received the PWS yesterday evening and the holiday is on Thursday. That only allows us two days to do a complete PWS evaluation to determine the optimum past performance. We have not had time to do a proper evaluation to determine which is the best past performance to use between CTI and our teammates and this week is very short. While we have done a lot of prep work there were some changes from the draft documents. Given the PP is so critical to this evaluation request the Government provide another week to allow for proper analysis before PPQs are due.

The Government has extended the PPQ forwarding requirement to 14 calendar days after RFP release. Please see FBO posting dated 2 July 2019, and forthcoming RFP amendment.

4 PPQs RFP, Section L, Part B, paragraph 1.1 (h), page 93 of 109

The RFP, page 93 of 109, states that PPQs are required for “contract references where the most recent CPARS Report completed by the Assessing Official is dated more than 12 months prior to the RFP’s release date.” We intend to use past performance from a contract that was completed in 2017. The Government provided a close out CPAR for this effort. Given there has been no performance on this contract since the close out CPAR, does the Government still require a PPQ?

The Government has updated the language to state "contract references where the most recent CPARS Report completed by the Assessing Official is dated more than 12 months prior to the RFP's release date and is not the final CPARS Report." Please see Amendment 0001.

Upon RFP release on June 28th , the zip file contained a PDF file entitled “DRAFT_RFP_Q&A_Government_POSTING_28Jun19.

pdf”. This file was not referenced in Section J of the Final RFP however it contains information that could be used when making decisions. One specific example is Q&A Number 30 which states a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) is not required if the program is complete and the CPARS is considered final. This item is not referenced in the Final RFP.

Again this is only one example.

DRAFT_RFP_Q&A_Government_POSTING_28Jun19.pdf

Does the Government intend for the Offeror to consider the questions and answers to the draft RFP when preparing a proposal for the Final RFP? If yes, does the Government intend to include “DRAFT_RFP_Q&A_Government_POSTING_28Jun19.pdf” as a defined Attachment in Section J of the Final

RFP?

Offerors should rely on the Final RFP (released on 28 June 2019) and any subsequent amendments for proposing to solicitation N6134019R0022. The Draft RFP Q&A posted with the Final RFP were provided for informational purposes only, and if there is a situation where information in the Draft RFP Q&A conflicts with the Final RFP, then the Final RFP takes precedence. Offerors are allowed and encouraged to submit questions regarding the Final RFP through 5:00pm EDT on 22 July 2019 in accordance with Section L, Part A, Paragraph 4.0.

In regards to the example provided in the subject of this question, the Government has updated the language to state "contract references where the most recent CPARS Report completed by the Assessing Official is dated more than 12 months prior to the RFP's release date and is not the final CPARS Report." Please see Amendment 0001.

6 Period of Performance RFP Section L, Part B, Para 2.0 For pricing purposes, what is the anticipated award date for this requirement? Anticipated award is March 2020.

7 Classified Past Performance

RFP Section L, Part B, Para 1.1a)

Draft_RFP_Q&A_Government_POSTING_28Jun19 - copy.pdf - Q20 Government Response

Please confirm that past performance submissions that may have involved the development of classified courseware are acceptable as long as the proposal response and any supporting reference documents provided with Volume I (e.g., SOW, PWS, DO) are entirely unclassified.

Past Performance contract references may contain the development of classified courseware.

As noted in Section L.A.3.0, all proposals must be unclassified and thus no contents within the past performance volume may include information other than unclassified information. All supporting documentation provided by the contractor for a past performance contract reference, to include contract or subcontract and its contract line items, Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, Specifications, Statement of Objectives, and/or Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs) must be unclassified.

Section L.B.1.1.a will be updated to clarify this.

8 SOW Content Conversion Process RRL FY20CC SOW, Figure 1 (Page 1) The training CDRL numbers depicted in Figure 1: Content Conversion Process, conflict with the training CDRLs described in Appendix D and Exhibit F. Figure 1 appears to reflect the FY19 CC CDRLs. Request clarification or correction.

The Government concurs. Figure 1 within the SOW has been updated to reflect FY20 CC processes . The Content Conversion Process is the same as released with the Final RFP. The only update/change was to remove the CDRL numbers and Gap requirements process from the figure which aligned with FY19 Content Conversion, not FY20 Content Conversion.

Update/change to be reflected in Amendment 0002.

9 Past Performance Recency Impact on Evaluation RFP Section M, Part B 1.1.c (pg 105 of 109) statement: "In general, more recent performance will be considered more relevant than less recent performance."

It is clear from Section M that the determination of past performance Recency will be either "Not Recent" or "Recent," based on criteria documented in Section M, Part B 1.1.c. and that a submission determined as Not Recent will not be evaluated or rated.

However, the referenced statement infers that relative recency of the performance will factor into the past performance's Relevancy rating. But the Relevancy rating, per Section M, part B 1.2.c, will be based only on evaluation of scope and magnitude. How will the relative Recency of past performance be weighted and factored into that performance reference's Relevancy rating, if Recency is considered a go/no-go factor?

As stated in Section M, an initial consideration in determining the relevancy of a past performance contract reference involves Recency. A determination of Not Recent will be assigned to offeror submissions which do not contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, or for which the Past Performance contract reference award date cannot be determined, and the submission will not be evaluated or rated. Only submissions meeting the parameters established in this RFP will be evaluated to receive a Relevance or Past Performance Confidence rating.

As stated in Section M, Part B, 1.2.b, for each past performance contract reference submitted on the Relevancy Information of the Past Performance Contract Reference Worksheet, Attachment L-4, the government will evaluate the past performance contract reference to determine how recent and relevant it is to this solicitation's effort. Section L.B.1.1.f is updated to reflect the recency in consideration of relevancy.

If a proposed past performance contract reference does not contain any performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, or the government can't tell when the contract reference was awarded, then it won't be evaluated or rated any further. If there is some performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, then the reference will be evaluated to further determine relevancy. As stated in Section M.B.1.1.c, in general, more recent performance will be considered more relevant than less recent performance.

10 CDRLs List RFP Section F, pages 34-48, tables denoting CDRL applicability by CLIN

CDRL F006, Instructional Media Package, is specifically bolded with an asterisk. What is the asterisk referring to?

CDRL F006, Instructional Media Package, is the final CDRL deliverable. It was originally bolded with an asterisk and footnote to stand out; however, the footnote was not transferred to the RFP. This formatting and asterisk will be removed from the RFP via Amendment 0002.

11 CDRL F00B for T3 and Pilot RFP Section F CDRLs tables (Pages 34-48)

CDRL F00B, TPSD (CDRL Page 11)

CDRL F00B states that the second/final submission is due 2 months before the end of the CLIN. However, RFP Section F CDRLs tables show that F00B applies to the 4-month T3 and 4-month Pilot.

Can the revised F00B from T3 and Pilot comments be submitted per the Govt-approved IMS instead of 2-months before the end of those CLINs?

The Government concurs. CDRL F00B, Training Course Control Document, item #4 in Block 16 has been updated to read "BLK: 13: The final submission shall be delivered IAW the Government-Accepted Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and shall be updated based on feedback received during Train-The-Trainer and Course Pilot".

The RFP Section F CDRL Tables will stay in tact with CDRL F00B applying to the Content Conversion CLIN, T3 CLIN, and Course Pilot CLIN as this CDRL document will need to be updated during the T3 and Course Pilot.

CDRL F00G has also been updated with this language based on KTR question.

Changes will be reflected in Amendment 0002.

12 F00C for T3 and Pilot RFP Section F CDRLs tables (Pages 34-48)

CDRL F00C, TSSD (CDRL Page 12)

F00C states that the second/final submission is due 2 months before the end of the CLIN. However, RFP Section F CDRLs tables show that F00C applies to the 4-month T3 and 4-month Pilot.

Can the revised F00C from T3 and Pilot comments be submitted per the Govt-approved IMS instead of 2-months before the end of those CLINs?

The Government concurs. CDRL F00C, Training Course Control Document, item #4 in Block 16 has been updated to read "BLK: 13: The final submission shall be delivered IAW the Government-Accepted Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and shall be updated based on feedback received during Train-The-Trainer and Course Pilot".

The RFP Section F CDRL Tables will stay in tact with CDRL F00C applying to the Content Conversion CLIN, T3 CLIN, and Course Pilot CLIN as this CDRL document will need to be updated during the T3 and Course Pilot.

CDRL F00G has also been updated with this language based on KTR question.

Changes will be reflected in Amendment 0002.

13 Number of Courses Appendix A; Appendix F

Appendix A lists 66 courses for GSE ("Consolidated Requirements" tab Cell 8B and "GSE Data Set" tab, Column A) But Appendix F (Cell 55D and Cell 61D) lists 15.

Request clarification on number of GSE rating courses.

Appendix A has been revised to remove Courses and Modules from the rating data sets. In removing Courses and Modules, the courses have also been removed from Appendix F. This removal is reflected in Amendment 0002.

"Hardware deliverable" vs. "Service contract" vs.

"ICW delivery contract"

Section L; B 1.1 L (Table on RFP Page 94 of 109) vs.

Section L; B 1.2 f.1 (RFP Page 96 of 109)

Section L; B 1.1 L Table Line Item 6b asks to state whether the Past Performance reference is a "Hardware deliverable or Service contract."

Section L; B 1.2 f.1 states "Please identify whether the Past Performance contract reference requires the delivery of ICW or is a service effort."

With no definition of these terms, there is uncertainty in how to respond. If the past performance reference required the delivery of ICW, is the correct response to Section L, B1.1.L Table item 6b "N/A" or "Service contract"?

Line 6b, Contract Type, in the table in Section L, Part B, 1.1.l is asking whether or not the past performance contract reference was for delivery of a product deliverable (end item) or if the contract was for the execution of services with no end item deliverable (PSC Code should identify the classification of the contract/CLIN). This could include ICW, if ICW was the end item deliverable. In Section L, Part B, 1.2.f.1 (Scope), the government is asking whether the past performance contract reference requires the delivery (end item) of ICW, or is the contract reference for a service type effort. Offerors should be able to respond to Line 6b on whether or not the past performance contract reference was for a product end item deliverable or services, and then in response to Section L, Part B, 1.2.f.1, state whether the past performance contract reference was specifically for the delivery of ICW or if the contract reference was for services.

Section L.B.1.1.l(6b) is updated to reflect Product vice Hardware in amendment 0002.

15 Discrepancies in course hours RFP Atch (1)_APPENDIX A - Rating Requirements, and RFP Atch (1)_APPENDIX F - Conference Schedule

There appears to be discrepancies between the Course Hours listed in RFP Atch (1)_APPENDIX A and RFP Atch (1)_APPENDIX F for T3 and Course Pilot CLINs. Will the Government please reconcile these differences?

Appendix A and Appendix F have been updated. However, in reviewing requirements for T3 and Pilot, the T3 and Pilot may have different course hour requirements. As provided within the SOW Section 3.3.3.4 "Train the Trainer (T3):

"The T3 materials shall focus on content that address updates to the previous training curriculum". T3 Course Hours are based on the hours of content that will be updated. Course Pilot hours are based on all of the content within a given course. In some cases, this represents the same number. In other cases, the total hours of content to be developed (T3) differs from the total hours of content (Pilot). Formulas calculated with RFP Atch (1)_APPENDIX F support this SOW statement.

Frequency of T3 is based on the total hours of content to be developed (Column E of T3 within Appendix F). Duration (Total Trips, column G within Appendix F) of a T3 event is based on 60% of total hours of content to be developed and divided by 8 hours to arrive at a total number of days for all T3 events.

Frequency of Course Pilot is based the total hours of content (Column E of Pilot within Appendix F). Duration of a Course Pilot event is based on the total hours of content within a given course and divided by 8 hours to arrive at a total number of days for all Course Pilot events.

16 Discrepancy in number of courses RFP Atch (1)_APPENDIX A - Rating Requirements, and RFP Atch (1)_APPENDIX F - Conference Schedule

There appears to be discrepancies between the number of courses listed in RFP Atch (1)_APPENDIX A and RFP Atch (1)_APPENDIX F for CLIN 0013. Will the Government please reconcile these differences?

The Government acknowledges a discrepancy between the number of courses listed in RFP Atch (1)_Appendix A and RFP Atch(1)_APPENDIX F for CLIN 0011. Number of courses have been removed for all ratings from Atch (1)_Appendix A and RFP Atch(1)_Appendix F. The update will be reflected in Amendment 0002.

17 Status of Statement of Work Atch (1)_S2025 RRL FY20CC SOW File was part of Section J Attachment to Original RFP. Title / Cover page is stamped DRAFT. Would you please clarify if this is draft or final SOW?

The Government concurs. Draft watermark has been removed, which will be reflected in Amendment 0002.

18 The Government has flowed down contract clauses under the Basic TDPC ID/IQ contract

RFP Section A Terms and Conditions Note.

Are there Labor Categories and Labor Rates in the ID/IQ MAC that the Offerors should use as a basis for the Delivery Order Proposal?

There are no Labor Categories and/or Labor Rates established in the basic TDPC MACs that the offerors should use as a basis for the delivery order proposal.

19 Supporting Documentation L.1.2(g)

L.1.2(g) requires offerors to submit "one copy of the contract or subcontract and its contract line items, Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, Specifications, Statement of Objectives, and/or Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs)." In addition, "Offerors are required to cite specific paragraphs and Contract CLIN(s)". CLIN-level pricing is highly sensitive proprietary information, and will often reveal little information on the relevance of the effort due to grouping of relevant and irrelevant tasks under a single CLIN. Is CLIN-level pricing a required submission for each past performance reference? Would the Government accept the contract's listing of CLINs and their descriptions with pricing redacted? If CLIN-level pricing is required, may subcontractors submit this information in a sealed envelope?

For past performance purposes, the Government will need to understand where in a particular past performance contract reference relevant effort was conducted, especially if the scope of the past performance contract reference was for something other then ICW. Depending on the scope of the contract, the Government might need to see actual CLIN(s) price to determine what the amount of total relevant dollar amount is (ICW specific work). Therefore, a contract (which includes CLIN pricing) would be expected to be provided in support of a past performance contract reference. If needed, subcontractors may submit this information in a manner desired that doesn't conflict with Section L.A.5.0

20 Supporting Documentation L.1.2(g)

L.1.2(g) requests various attachments as "fully searchable files." The types of attachments requested are usually lengthy and intended to be read in a computerized format. Does the Government require that all attachments be included in each offeror's paper submissions, or would CD-ROM only submission of attachments be preferable?

Section L, Part A, 3.0 (Proposal Volumes) will be updated in Amendment 0002 to include 3.5, which will state that submission of past performance supporting documentation (in accordance with Section L, Part B, 1.2.g) in electronic format only as part of the CD-ROM submission for the Past Performance Volume is acceptable. Past performance supporting documentation shall be submitted electronically via the required CD-ROM submissions, and in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation. The requirement for paper copies is NOT being removed for any other portion of an offeror's proposal.

21 Completed Section K RFP, Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.5 The referenced paragraph of the RFP requires the offeror to return with the Price Volume the completed Section K. Please provide the full text of clauses 52.209.7, 52.209-13, 52.222-22, 52.222-25, 52.222-38, 252.204-7007 and 252.209.7002, so we can complete the required fills-in.

The full text clauses for the referenced FAR and DFARs clauses maybe found at the following links:

FAR: https://www.acquisition.gov/ DFARS: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfarspgi/current/

22 Attachment L-2 Part L.B 1.1 a) and L.B.1.2.a.

In L.B.1.1.a) statement reads "a) ... The Offeror shall provide a “Past Performance Contract Reference Worksheet,” Attachment L-2." In L.B.1.2.a. it states "The government will evaluate the Offeror’s “Past Performance Contract Reference Worksheet,” Attachment L-2, to determine the information is complete and accurate in accordance with Section L.B.1.2." There are no specific instructions for how Attachment L-2 is to be used. Since Attachment L-2 states "For Single-Award Indefifinte Delivery Contract Section" please confirm that this form would not be applicable to an award not issued as a task order under an IDIQ contract.

Section L.B.1.1(a) is updated to remove that reference. While Attachment L-2 is requested for contracts that are for a Single-Award IDIQ contract, this information is now identified in Section L.B.1.1(o) in Amendment 0002.

While the question cites Section L.B.1.2.a, the reference you provided is identified in Section M.B.1.2.a. Section M.B.1.2.a is updated to reflect Attachment L-4 instead of L-2 as that was an inadvertent reference in Amendment 0002.

23 System Specification Would the Government provide a system's specification of the student work stations that will be accessing the courseware?

System specifications are referenced in section 3.4.7.1 Design Requirements for Systems Engineering and 3.4.7.2 Mobile requirements as well in the sections' associated SOW Appendices. Additionally, the virtual desktops are currently running Microsoft Windows 10 64 bit, 1709, DISA Secure Host Baseline (SHB) with 2 CPUs and 4 GB RAM, approx. 100GGB Thin Provisioned hard drive. The NETC VDI infrastructure is configured to use "Absolute" mouse.

24 Test and Evaluation Atch (1)_S2025 RRL FY20CC SOW In Section 3.5 "Test and Evaluation" refers to the training content being validated under Section 3.3.7 of the SOW. Section 3.3.7 is not included in the final SOW.

The Government concurs. The reference to 3.3.7 is an error. Section 3.5 has been updated to remove the sentence referencing section 3.3.7 as the sentence referenced outdated information. This update will be reflected in Amendment 0002.

25 Multifactor Authentication Atch (1)_S2025 RRL FY20CC SOW Will the Online Management System require multifactor authentication?

Generally, no, unless the contractor has additional requirements for getting into its server. The Government does not require CAC authentication, for example, for getting into the contractor's

OMS.

26 Number of Users Atch (1)_S2025 RRL FY20CC SOW How many Government users will be accessing the Online Management System?

No specific number is known, but each rating will potentially require many reviewers in addition to other Government users requiring access.

27 Onlline Management System Atch (1)_S2025 RRL FY20CC SOW What CLIN should the Online Management System need to be priced under?

The OMS is common across all Interactive Courseware Products throughout the duration of the contract. Please reference SOW section 3.1.3 Online Management System (OMS) "The Contractor shall establish, implement, and make available an OMS throughout the entire DO completion date."

28 Missing Hours Attachment 1 Appendix A Rating Requirements There are several line items in Attachment 1 Appendix A Rating Requirements that appear to be incomplete.

It looks as if the Navy would like an objective taught, but there are no associated hours/Levels of ICW requested. Please clarify.

The Government advises reviewing the Assumptions listed at the bottom of Attachment 1 Appendix A Rating Requirements. Assumptions #2, #3, and #4 address the possibility of no associated hours/levels of ICW requested.

Assumption #2: If there is no "Time Duration" accounted for in the draft data, 1 hour was assumed for content development

Assumption #3: If there is no "Ideal/Actual Recommendation" in the draft data, a combination of the "M/FA Strategy" and "ICW Level" was developed

Assumption #4: Any LO without an associated "M/FA Strategy" was assumed IFIT

29 Proposal Format

RFP Section L.A.3.2, Page 88 requirement states: "The separate CD-ROM copy of the Past Performance Volume shall be fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2016 products. Do not submit in .pdf format." however, later in the same paragraph the requirement states: "For information not supported by Microsoft Office products (e.g., drawings, attachments such as CDRLs), the Offeror must provide the information in a fully searchable portable document format (.pdf) using the latest Adobe Acrobat on each CD-ROM."

and RFP Section L. Part B.1.1.l.4 , Page 95 states: "As part of its Past Performance Volume, the Offeror shall provide printed CPARS that are referenced in the table. Electronic CPARS shall be provided in a fully searchable file using Microsoft Word product or Adobe portable document format (.pdf)."

As long as the documents remain searchable, is it acceptable to the Government for bidders to submit the Past Performance volume and applicable proposal artifacts in .pdf?

No. As noted in Section L.A.3.2, the past performance volume requires to be fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2016 products. The items that are called out as possibly not supported in Microsoft Office 2016 (drawings, attachments such as CDRLs, etc.) can be submitted as a fully searchable portable document format (.pdf) using the latest Adobe Acrobat. CPARS provides both options for Microsoft Word or PDFs. Section L.A.3.2 is updated to reflect this (see Amendment 0002).

30 Past Performance RFP Attachment (L-4), Page 3 Table f1 Scope of Effort

Will the government confirm that the top two cells of table f1 “Scope of Effort” are to be used to cross reference the scope of the proposed contract reference information to this instant solicitation's SOW, and that the following row that asks for the offeror’s rationale is to be used for the past performance proposed contract reference supporting narrative?

The "Scope of work proposed under contract reference" cell is to identify the SOW, PWS, SPEC, SOO, and/or CDRL sections of the past performance contract reference that offerors identify as relevant to the scope of the effort as defined in the solicitation. The cell "Required under this Solicitation's SOW" identifies the sections of the SOW that are specified in the solicitation.

The following row/cell in the f.1 Scope of Effort table (below "Scope of work proposed under contract reference" and "Required Under This Solicitation's SOW") allows offerors to provide rationale to describe why the work proposed under the past performance contract reference is relevant in regards to scope based on what was identified within the worksheet table above.

31 Past Performance Attachment L-4 Requirement

Attachment L-4 Relevancy Information b. Total Dollar Amount of Past Performance Contract, Page 1 SOW Sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, and 3.4; Pages 28-45 and 46-51 L. B.1.1.c, Page 92 L.B.1.2, Page 96 Section M.B.1.2.c, Page106 Attachment L-4 Relevancy Information b. Total Dollar Amount of Past Performance Contract states: Compare the total dollar amount of the past performance contract reference to the proposed amount the prime or principal team member is proposing to complete for the instant solicitation requirement.

The amount the prime or principal team member is proposing to complete for the instant solicitation requirement shall match the amount identified in Section L.B.1.1.c. The past performance contract reference dollar amount compared to the instant solicitation requirement shall be the dollar amount relevant to the scope requirement reflected above. The instant solicitation (i.e., this solicitation) is estimated at a total of $86 million, inclusive of Options.

Please clarify that what is requested in section Attachment L-4 b. Total Dollar Amount of Past Performance Contract L-4 is the following:

1) List the total dollar amount of the past performance contract.

2) Show the comparison of the total dollar amount of the past performance contract to the dollar amount that is included for that team member in the table referenced in Section L.B.1.1.c - which is the amount that reflects delivering ICW that supports SOW paragraphs 3.3.1 Design Phase, 3.3.2 Development Phase, 3.3.3 Implementation Phase, 3.3.4 Evaluation Phase, and 3.4 Systems Engineering.

Via Amendment 0002, Section L and Attachment L-4 have been updated to reflect the following. Offerors are required to identify the percent and dollar amount the prime, its principal team members, and subcontractors, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendors’ are proposed to complete for the instant solicitation requirement. The amount identified in Table Section L.B.1.1.c is used to determine the amount that is used for comparison purposes for the instant solicitation requirement (example ABC Inc. proposes to complete $20,000,000 of the contract requirement - 20% assuming a $100M total proposed price)

This amount should be the total relevant dollar amount of the past performance contract reference (further in L-4 b Total Relevant Dollar Amount it states "The past performance contract reference dollar amount compared to the instant solicitation requirement shall be the dollar amount relevant to the scope requirement reflected above"). Section L-4 b will be updated to reflect this.

32 Contract Start Date General -RFP Amendment 1 CLIN Date Changes For proposal purposes, will the Government please provide the anticipated contract start date? Anticipated award is March 2020.

33 Past Performance Section L, Part A, 3.0 and Section L, Part B, 1.2.g

Supporting documentation. To support the prime and principal team members’ comparison of the past performance contract references’ product or service similarities to the instant solicitation’s work, offerors shall provide one copy of the contract or subcontract and its contract line items, Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, Specifications, Statement of Objectives, and/or Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs). The government does not want to receive invoices, DD250s, or any other document that is not an attachment to the past performance contract reference. The copies of the past performance contract reference shall be provided in fully searchable files (MS Word or .pdf) as required in Sections L. Offerors are required to cite specific paragraphs and Contract CLIN(s) from their provided documentation in the corresponding Attachment L-4 worksheet to support the prime and principal team members’ comparison of the past performance contract references’ similarities to the instant solicitation’s work.

Would the government accept the SOWS and supporting documentation on the CDs only rather than hard copy? However, hard copy is required, would 2-side printing be acceptable to reduce the volume of paper being submitted?

Section L, Part A, 3.0 (Proposal Volumes) will be updated in Amendment 0002 to include 3.5, which will state that submission of past performance supporting documentation (in accordance with Section L, Part B, 1.2.g) in electronic format only as part of the CD-ROM submission for the Past Performance Volume is acceptable. Past performance supporting documentation shall be submitted electronically via the required CD-ROM submissions, and in accordance with the requirements of the solicitation. The requirement for paper copies is NOT being removed for any other portion of an offeror's proposal.

Sheet1