RFP_Questions_and_answers_23_Oct_2018.xls
XLS spreadsheet 917 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6134019R0025
About this file
RFP_Questions_and_answers_23_Oct_2018.xls
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N6134019R0025_Amendment_2____2nov2018.pdf | ||
| N6134019R0025_Amendment_0002.zipx | ZIPX file | |
| Attachment_21_2_Nov_2018.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N6134019R0025_Amendment_0001.pdf | ||
| N61340-19-R-0025_Amendment_0001.zipx | ZIPX file | |
| N61340-19-R-0025_Attachment_17-22_and_Exhibit_B.zipx | ZIPX file | |
| Attachment_16_Note.docx | DOCX document | |
| N6134019R0025_9OCT2018.pdf | ||
| N61340-19-R-0025_Attachments_1-15.zipx | ZIPX file |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Date of | |||||||
| Request | Question Number | Topic | Subject (title) | Question | Question Reference (PWS, L&M, Page #s, etc.) | Government Response | |
| 10/16/18 | 1 | Proposal Submission | We are requesting the government forego hard copies/binders submission in order to support the Navy's Green Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs). | page 125 of 138 | |||
| 4.0 Proposal Submission | The Government denies this request. | ||||||
| 10/16/18 | 2 | CLIN 4370 Labor Hours | CLIN 4370 – Great Lakes MGTI Instructor SWOS has not labor hours associated. Should this be 1920 as reflected within Attachment 21 CLIN Price Worksheet? | Section B, Page 48 | Yes it will be updated to on the solicitation to match Attachment 21. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 3 | CLIN 5370 Labor Hours | CLIN 5370 – Great Lakes MGTI Instructor SWOS has not labor hours associated. Should this be 1920 as reflected within Attachment 21 CLIN Price Worksheet? | Section B, Page 60 | Yes it will be updated to on the solicitation to match Attachment 21. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 4 | Section B CLINS | RFP - The CLINS for FFP labor include Quantities in a number of stated hours, and UNITs as hours. Is the expectation of the government that we invoice 1/12th of the hours each month? (Otherwise this would appear to be more of a time and material contract) | Section B - CLINS | The Offeror should invoice for the amount of hours that were performed each month. The Government confirms this is not a time and material contract. The term hour is an instructor hourly unit price that may include instructor time, scheduler time, course prep time, post instruction remedial training, curriculum updates, etc. Section B will be updated to define an Instructor "Hour". | ||
| 10/16/18 | 5 | Ship to Address | CLIN 0001 Ship to Address. Can you please confirm that the Ship to Point of Contact is correct. | Section F, Page 73 | This is the correct point of contact for this solicitation at this time, if changes occur they will be updated at time of award. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 6 | Firm-Fixed Price/Cost Type | FAR Clause 52.216-1 Type of Contract states “Firm-Fixed Price”, however Travel CLIN’s are Cost Type. Should “Cost” be included within this clause? | Section I, Page 97 | This contract is primarily Firm Fixed Price. The additional Cost clauses have been previously added for the incidental Cost CLINs. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 7 | Instructions to Offerors | RFP - Section L (f) (5) the government states that it "can make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit cost or process offered" - additionally, Section L, Part A, 1.0 states that "the Government may incorporate any portions of the Offeror's proposal into the resulting contract." Th language in these two sections seem completely counter to a FFP services contract and precludes development of a coherent staffing strategy if the government can make any change they would like. This reads more like a CPFF Time & Material LOE contract. Per Page 95, Clause 52.216-1 - the contract is specified as a FFP contract. Can the government clarify this language? | 52.215-1 pg. 120 (f) (5) | The Government will be reserving the option to award a contract without discussion. FAR 15.209 requires FAR clause 52.215-1 to be included in all competitive solicitations. The standard clause states "(5) The Government reserves the right to make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit cost or prices offered, unless the offeror specifies otherwise in the proposal". If the Offeror wishes to state otherwise, it has an opportunity to do so. The questioned language "the Government may incorporate any portions of the Offeror's proposal into the resulting contract", the purpose of this language is to ensure the Offeror understands the awardee may be held to exactly what is stated in the proposal should the Government choose to award without discussions. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 8 | CBA | RFP - Previous SWOS CIS contract included a CBA for instructors in the San Diego area, however it is not referenced, nor provided. Can the government confirm that there is no existing CBA in place at any location? | RFP pg. 66 C4 | The Government confirms that there is no existing CBA. The CBA that is referenced in the Offeror's question expired September 30, 2013 an no new Collection Bargaining Agreements were made. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 9 | Payment Instructions | RFP G-TXT-PAY Table does not appear to have relevant clause that supports the FFP services structure articulated ( Page 95, Clause 52.216-1 - the contract is specified as a FFP contract). The closest match is 52.232-7 which is for Payments Under Time & Material and Labor Hour contracts - however that is paid using a COST VOUCHER and is also not included in Section I Clauses. Can the government confirm that this is a FFP labor services contract? | RFP page 88 Table G-TXT-PAY | The Government confirms that this is a FFP labor services contract. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 10 | Wage Determination Minimum | RFP Section L, Paragraph 1.2 CI Recruitment, Staffing, and Retention approach states “The Wage Determinations (WDs) contained in the RFP (attachments 10-14) have been provided for reference. If the Offeror chooses to propose the minimum WD wage, escalation shall not be applied in accordance with FAR 52.222-41; however, if the Offeror chooses to propose above the WD wage, the Offeror should include escalation as they may not be eligible for an adjustment.” The level of certifications and experience required for the Technical Instructors appear to be more than the Service Contract Act Labor Category Description for SCA Labor Code 15090 and 15095, therefore the minimum WD wage may be unrealistic. Can you please confirm that the Offeror can propose above the WD wage minimum and include escalation were a fair and reasonable determination can be made to do so? | Section L, Page 129 | The Offeror can propose above the WD minimum. If the Offeror should choose to do so they should include escalation. Fair and reasonableness will be determined through adequate price competition and a price analysis or in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section L, 3.3(a). | ||
| 10/16/18 | 11 | Hazardous Pay Differential | All Wage Determination RFP Attachments identify “**HAZARDOUS PAY DIFFERENTIAL**”, 8% differential pay for employees employed in a position that represents a high degree of hazard and 4% differential for employees employed in a position that represents a low degree of hazard. Can you please confirm that the 8% differential pay is applicable to the Pearl Harbor and San Diego High Risk Instructor? | Wage Determinations | The Government concurs that Pearl Harbor and San Diego are considered high risk due to the nature of work required. Offerors should at the minimum follow all laws applicable with their proposed labor category. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 12 | Staffing and Pricing | As this is an SCA contract, and unlike the current contract offerors are responsible for developing a staffing plan based on the estimated hours provided, to be able to adequately price fringe, can the government provide the number of incumbent staff and their years of service so that we can account for vacation accurately? | Section L 3.0 | The Government can only provide an employee count as of Oct 23, 2018.Great Lakes (23), San Diego (25), Norfolk (8), Rhode Island (1), and Pearl Harbor (4). | ||
| 10/16/18 | 13 | Site Manager (SM)/ Alternate Site Manager (ASM) | For designated Site Managers (SMs) and Alternate Site Managers (ASMs) serving as a dual role also as an Instructor, is there an established rate higher than the Wage Determination to account for the additional roles and responsibilities (PWS 4.3.1)? | Attachment 1, Page 19 | It should be determined by the Offeror if a higher rate should be established for every labor category and its job description. The unburdened direct labor rate shall be a weighted average of all personnel for the associated labor category and site | ||
| 10/16/18 | 14 | Mobilization | Per the PWS, "The Contractor shall have all proposed personnel on-board at the training site…". Are personnel to be onboard and working on 3/17/19, 30 days after mobilization, and if so do those 2 working days belong in Mobilization costs | Attachment 1, Page 12 | The Offeror is expected to perform the day after Mobilization ends. The Offeror should understand the unit of measure is hours not Full Time Employees (FTE) to meet the requirement. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 15 | Past Performance | Section L 2.0 and M Past Performance state that the government will NOT evaluate or consider ANY PP from a sub-contractor. As part of a team, a sub-contractor will play a substantial role in supporting the overall performance on the contract. In our experience, this is very unusual and contrary to: other NAWCTSD solicitations that are currently out for bid, the current contract, and other NAWCTSD training contracts that we have performed under. Will the government reconsider this constraint, or provide additional rationale as this evaluation factor seems to be decidedly in favor of the SDVOSB incumbent? | RFP Section L&M | The Government chooses evaluation methods that are unique to every individual acquisition. The Government is not required to evaluate subcontractor past performance. The Government's intent is to only evaluate past performance of contractors that will be legally bound to performing on the contract. Ultimately it will be the prime contractor's responsibility to manage its subcontractors. Given the market research the Government has concluded evaluating subcontractor past performance in not critical. Additionally given the Government's evaluation criteria not evaluating subcontractor performance does not create an unfair competitive advantage for the incumbent. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 16 | Past Performance Evaluations | We are requesting the government consider subcontractor past performance, because at this SB size standard, teammate past performance is critical in establishing our ability to staff multiple areas. Not allowing subcontractor past performance is overly restrictive as this provides a significant competitive advantage for the incumbent. | page 135 of 138 | |||
| 2.0 Past Performance | The Government chooses evaluation methods that are unique to every individual acquisition. The Government is not required to evaluate subcontractor past performance. The Government's intent is to only evaluate past performance of contractors that will be legally bound to performing on the contract. Ultimately it will be the prime contractor's responsibility to manage its subcontractors. Given the market research the Government has concluded evaluating subcontractor past performance in not critical. Additionally given the Government's evaluation criteria not evaluating subcontractor performance does not create an unfair competitive advantage for the incumbent. | ||||||
| 10/16/18 | 17 | NACLC/TIER - 3 | Per PWS Paragraph 3.2.4.b, contractor personnel are required to complete NACLC/TIER - 3 which is for a secret security clearance. Please confirm that all contractor personnel are required to have a secret clearance. | Attachment 1, page 14 | Attachment 1 PWS and Attachment 15 DD 254 will be updated. Attachments 2-7 (Appendix A01-F06) provide the sites that require Secret Clearances which are Zumwalt Training Facility at San Diego and SWOS Learning Site, Newport. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 18 | Classified Material | PWS 4.1.7 states that the contractor is responsible to secure and maintain an accurate inventory of classified material. However the DD254 does not ID any material or information, and the only positions that state a clearance requirement are in support of the DDG1000. Can the government clarify this requirement and which instructors require a clearance and at what level? | PWS 4.1.7 | Attachment 1 PWS and Attachment 15 DD 254 will be updated. Attachments 2-7 (Appendix A01-F06) provide the sites that require Secret Clearances which are Zumwalt Training Facility at San Diego and SWOS Learning Site, Newport. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 19 | IT Systems | PWS 3.2.2 includes language supporting NIST 800-171 compliance for CUI. From review of the other sections, it does not appear that contractor network systems are allowed on government sites, nor has any CUI been identified in the DD254. Can the government confirm that we will have access to the government's network in support of tasking? | PWS 3.2.2 | Access to the Government's computer network will be granted only to Contractors that require this access for the performance of their duties as outlined in the PWS. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 20 | Base Access | Do any of the learning site facilities still use Rapid Gate for base access? | RFP Mobilization and PWS 4.1.6 pg. 18 | No sites use Rapid Gate, they now use Defense Biometric Identification System (DBIDS). A Security Branch Office Standard Operating Procedures for Physical Access to facilities and Networks will be added to the GFI Attachment 16. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 21 | Meetings | PWS 3.3.1 describes Joint Meetings during mobilization, and a pre-CSD meetings 2-weeks prior to CSD. Can the government clarify the locations of these meetings? Do these include the prime and sub-contractors? | PWS 3.3.1 | The Government will be choosing to conduct a consolidated Mobilization/Pre-CSD meeting in San Diego. This meeting will not include subcontractors. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 22 | Personnel Information | The PWS Section 3.1.1 describes a cover letter and resume for personnel. On page 12 of the PWS it states that an acceptance letter is sufficient for hiring of incumbent personnel. Can the government confirm that a cover letter and resume is only required for new or replacement hires? | PWS 3.1.1 page 12 | Yes. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 23 | Overtime | PWS 5.2.4 discusses "extended Instruction" hours. Is the Offeror allowed to bid overtime hours utilizing the appropriate overtime premiums? If overtime is allowable under this effort, who has the ability to approve overtime and is it to be approved in advanced? If overtime premiums are not to be included within the offer and hours are required by the Government during this effort, how will the costs associated with those labor hours be billed/paid? | Attachment 1, Page 34 | Overtime is not considered allowable under this effort. In the unlikely event that overtime is required the note states (Section 5.2.5.2 training surge)"In the event that overtime is required the Contractor shall submit an overtime request to the PCO for approval prior to overtime being performed". | ||
| 10/16/18 | 24 | Extended and Adjustments to Training | PWS 5.2.4 and 5.2.5 require the capacity to support extended instruction, adjustment, surge and weekends. The Note states that if any overtime is required that a request must be submitted to the PCO for approval. How will required OT be compensated? Does the government have historical data related to weekends, holidays, and extended training requirements (ie. a % in excess of estimated time)? | PWS 5.24 and 5.2.5 | Overtime is not considered allowable under this effort. In the unlikely event that overtime is required the note states (Section training surge)"In the event that overtime is required the Contractor shall submit an overtime request (to include all costs associated) to the PCO for approval. Historically the PCO has not authorized weekend or overtime hours. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 25 | Back-Up Support | With regards to PWS Paragraph 4.12 Back-up support staff for Instructors, are all back-up support individuals required to be certified at the same level and have base access as the Instructor they are providing back- up support for? | Attachment 1, Page 28 | Attachment 1 Para 4.12 has been updated. The Offerors should determine a Back-Up Support plan that meets the PWS requirements for Instructor Services. Such as the Back up support should retain the same certification levels. | ||
| 10/16/18 | 26 | Back-Up | PWS 4.12 requests that we provide a plan for back-up support that is above the stated staff capability. Will the government provide clarification on the magnitude of additional capacity required to meet the stated need? | PWS 4.12 | Attachment 1 Para 4.12 has been updated. |
Back up support should not to be included in pricing, but Offeror should provide a narrative with backup support plan per Attachment 1, Para 4.12 10/16/18 27 Back-Up Related to question above - if exercised, how is the contractor compensated for back-up capacity? Does the government desire that pricing include this capacity? PWS 4.12 Attachment 1 Para 4.12 has been updated.
Back up support should not to be included in pricing, but Offeror should provide a narrative with backup support plan per Attachment 1, Para 4.12
| 10/16/18 | 28 | Training Material | PWS 4.13.2 states that the contractor and COR will coordinate purchasing supplies and curriculum materials for the classroom. Can the government clarify what materials we are responsible for purchasing, printing etc.? Are these expected to be included as ODCs for each sites personnel? | PWS 4.13.2 | The Government provides all materials. Attachment 1, Para 4.13.2 updated. |
| 10/16/18 | 29 | Classroom Admin | PWS 5.3.5.c requires maintaining adequate classroom materials. Are these provided by the government? IF not, can the government provide a list and numbers required? | PWS 5.3.5.c | The Government provides all materials. Attachment 1, Para 4.13.2 updated. |
| 10/16/18 | 30 | Classroom Admin | PWS 5.3.5.c requires maintaining adequate classroom materials. Are these provided by the government? IF not, can the government provide a list and numbers required? | PWS 5.3.5.c | The Government provides all materials. Attachment 1, Para 4.13.2 updated. |
| 10/16/18 | 31 | Material | Please clarify Section 4.13.2 - does the government provide ALL training material, to include the purchasing of supplies and curriculum material? | PWS 4.13.2 | The Government provides all materials. Attachment 1, Para 4.13.2 updated. |
| 10/16/18 | 32 | PPE | Will the government provide safety equipment for both high-risk and non high-risk instructor positions? | PWS 4.13.3 | The Government will provide safety equipment for High Risk only. Refer to Attachment 1 Para 4.1.5.1 "The Contractor shall also provide all required safety items for all non-High Risk locations (i.e., eye, ear, safety shoes) and smocks or jackets (see paragraph 4.9) for the instructors with the company logo. " |
| 10/16/18 | 33 | Core Unique Instructor Training (CUIT) | Are all General Instructors require to complete CUIT or is this requirement only applicable to only High Risk Instructors? | Attachment 1, Page 21 | Yes all instructors shall complete CUIT, Attachment 1, Page 21 states "SWOS/PMS 339 has extended this requirement to all training delivered under this contract regardless of the risk level assigned to the course. " |
| 10/16/18 | 34 | Instruction | Are Cis responsible for proctoring certification exams at the completion of a course of instruction? | PWS Section 5 | EPA Certification exams are proctored by CIs. The CIs proctor other exams during the courses of instruction that are not certification exams. |
| 10/16/18 | 35 | Urinalysis Screening | Please confirm that PWS Section 4.5.1.3 is applicable to High Risk Instructor's only. PWS Section 4.5.1 stated "Additional Employment Qualification Requirements for High Risk CIS", however PWS Section 4.5.1.3 states "Instructors" in several instances and "High Risk Instructors" only once. | Attachment 1, Page 24 | Yes, Attachment 1, Page 24, Paras 4.5.1-4.5.1.7 only pertain to High Risk Instructors |
| 10/16/18 | 36 | Quality Control Plan | Attachment 5 does not identified Pearl Harbor Fire Fighting instructors as High Risk, however Attachment 21 Tabs (D) through (J) identify the instructor as High Risk. Please confirm that the Pearl Harbor Fire Fighting Instructors are considered to be High Risk. | Attachment 5, Page 2 | Attachment 5 states in 6.1 " a minimum of 4 High Risk instructors..." The Table Note also states these are high risk courses. The Government confirms the Pearl Harbor Fire Fighting Instructors are to be considered High Risk. |
| 10/16/18 | 37 | Quality Control Plan | CDRL B0002 Title states Quality System Plan (QSP) as well as Block 16, Remark 5. However, the remainder of the document States QCP and references PWS Paragraph 4.17 which is for Quality Control Plan (QCP). Will the Government be issuing a revised CDRL B0002 to state QCP vice QSP? | Attachment B002, All Pages | Yes, Attachment 1 has been updated and Attachment B002 has been updated to state QSP. |
| 10/16/18 | 38 | DOL ID Numbers | RFP Attachment 18 – Staffing Chart, Tab “CIS SAMPLE 1” and “CIS SAMPLE 2” Identifies SCA Labor Code 15090 – Technical Instructor for all Instructors. RFP Attachment 21 – CLIN Price Worksheet tab “(A) Instructions” States “the Offeror will insert the title of the labor category and DOL ID number it will be utilizing”. Can you please confirm that we are able to determine the SCA Labor Code for each labor category as we see fit? As an example, there is course change work (PWS 4.14) identified within the PWS making SCA Labor Code 15095 Technical Instructor/Course Developer more appropriate in some instances. | Attachment 18 | Yes the Offeror should determine and list the DOL ID they are utilizing in their proposal. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to determine and propose the appropriate SCA Labor Code. |
| 10/16/18 | 39 | G&A on Travel | The travel cost identified within Section L Paragraph 3.5.1 indicates estimated travel as "unburdened" with Fee being unallowable. If it is truly unburdened, can the Offeror adjust travel costs within Attachment 21 to burden with G&A accordingly? | Attachment 21 | No, The Cost CLINs are incidental. If travel is required the Offeror will submit G&A costs at the time when submitting their travel expenses. |
| 10/16/18 | 40 | Full Time Equivalent (FTE) | What is the Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for this effort, 1880 or 1920? | Attachment 21 | This is unique to each individual Offeror how they calculate a Full Time Employee. |
| 10/16/18 | 41 | Full Time/Part Time | Is the Offeror to propose staffing with Instructors being onsite Full time? Or is the Offeror to propose Instructors being on site for the administering of courses and per the monthly schedule provided by the COR to the Site Leads for the required CI hours as stated in PWS Paragraph 3.1.1 "NOTE". | Attachment 21 | The Offeror should determine the best staffing approach based on Attachment 1-7 |
| 10/16/18 | 42 | Program Management | The Level of Effort stated for this requirement does not include Program Management Hours. Does the offeror have the ability to proposed additional hours for Program Management and if so, where should those hours be proposed? | Attachment 21 | Program Management hours will be considered service support. Service support amounts are not separate prices but are included within the unit pricing to include direct costs. This should be reflected in your burdened unit prices. |
| 10/16/18 | 43 | Travel | Can the government provide further clarification on the travel between sites that is expected under 4.1.6.3? | PWS 4.1.6.3 | Attachment 1 Para 4.1.6.3 has been updated. This is for onsite transportation between trainer facilities. |
| 10/16/18 | 44 | Schedule | Attachment 16-O provides a schedule of classes. However the course descriptions, including number of required instructors are not provided, nor is a CIN/CDP correlation matrix. The schedule is provided by CDP without info on the corresponding CIN. Additionally, there is no information as to which courses are 100% the responsibility of the contractor, vs. a workshare with uniformed or government instructors. As such, it is not possible to ensure that we have adequately staffed to meet all requirements using only the provided "estimates." As an example, each site Appendix lists the courses and the contractor hours - most course lengths do not have the same hours as the contractor required hours estimated in the tables (implying a workshare with government on some, or multiple instructors on others). Can the government provide additional detail so that we can adequately staff and price the FFP labor? | Attachment 16O Schedule and Site Appendix Course/Hours Tables | a. Course descriptions are not provided |
--- Course descriptions attached (Course Purposes). An attachment 16-Q will be added.
b. Number of required instructors are not provided --- This contract is structured to provide contractor support based on hours, not to provide for FTE. Therefore, there are no FTE requirements outlined in the solicitation.
c. CIN/CDP correlation matrix --- We added another column to each tab in the attached document for the CIN (Attachment 160_GCIS Convene with Dates by Site). This will allow for correlation between the CDP and the course. Attachment 16-O will be updated.
d. There is no information as to which courses are 100% the responsibility of the contractor, vs. a workshare with uniformed or Government instructors. --- The required CI hours for each course is provide in "Table A" in the individual Appendices for each site. The military/government will satisfy all remaining hours of instruction required for each course. For those course in the Tables that required CI
&L&"Times New Roman,Bold"&10Offeror Name:
&C&"Arial,Bold"&14SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104&12 &RAttachment L-2 Solicitation Question Form &P N61340-18-R-0025
RFP Question and Answer Form This spreadsheet shall be used to submit RFP questions .
Section J will be updated at time of award RFP Amendment will include the following changes:
1. Updated RFP Section B
2. Updated Attachment 1 PWS (3.2),(4.1.7), (4.1.6.3), (4.3.1), (4.3.2), (4.12), (4.13.2),(4.17)
3. Updated Appendix A01 San Diego (6.6)
4. Updated CDRL B002
5. Updated Attachment 15 DD Form 254
6. Updated GFI Attachment 16-O GCIS Covene Dates by Site
7. Add Attachment GFI 16-Q Courses Purposes
8. Add Attachment GFI 16-R- SECURITY BRANCH OFFICE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
FOR PHYSICAL ACCESS TO FACILITIES AND NETWORKS
File details come from the government source that posted it.