Solicitation Questions and Answers Amendment 02.pdf

N6134020R0011, Courseware IDIQ Solicitation Question and Answer Form

Question

Number

Subject (title) Question Question Reference (SOW, L&M, Page

#s, etc)

Answers

1 Past Performance We understand a “Performance Confidence Assessment Rating (PCAR) reflects the Government’s confidence in a company’s ability to performed based all contracts cited in the Past Performance Volume. We also understand that contracts performed for the Navy will be more highly rated than those performed for Other Agencies. Our express concern is the consequent devaluing of extremely relevant ITL and IMI experience merely on the basis of the who the customer is, and thus negatively impacts a company's overall "Performance Confidence Assessment Rating (PCAR)". For example: It is our interpretation that Company ABC submitting three (3) Navy contracts could receive a higher overall

PCAR than Company XYZ submitting three (3) Navy and two (2) Other Agency contracts as we assume the non-Navy contract ratings would negatively impact the overall PCAR for Company XYZ. The rationale being that all three (3) of

Company ABC’s Navy contracts have the potential of receiving a Relevant rating whereas Company XZY’s two Non-Navy contracts will receive no higher than Somewhat Relevant regardless of how closely aligned the task requirements are this Navy contract.

Question: Is it therefore better for Company XYZ to NOT submit their two other agency citations?" If so, would the government please, reconsider this approach and be more specific in how PCAR is determined/scored? It is our contention in this example that Company XYZ's PP is potentially as strong and relevant as Company ABC's yet would be scored lower as we understand the current description in Section M.

M-1 Section 2.0., Pg. 106, Part B Section

2.0, Pg. 109, Section 4.0 Pg. 113

The past performance confidence assessment ratining is complex in nature and is not merely determined on the basis of who the customer is. As is detailed in section M, there are three aspects of the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and demonstrated past performance. All three play a part in determining the confidence assessment rating. In determining the relevancy of a past performance reference, the customer is not the only factor. There are several factors that are encompassed in the scope, magnitude, and complexity as stated in the past performance relevancy rating's definition, and all are evaluated. The scenario in the question fails to consider the other scope, magnitude, and complexity factors; does not account for demonstrated past performance; recency; or any of the items in section M identified as items of consideration in assigning a performance confidence assessment rating or in the source selection tradeoff decision. All of these items considered, an offeror would not be

"dinged" for submitting non-navy work in the manner the question speculates The

Government cannot influence what contracts a potential offeror submits as part of its proposal. The assumption that company XYZ would be "scored" lower is not accurate on the face value of the question. However, as stated above the customer alone does not determine the relevancy of a past performance submission, or the determination of a confidence assessment rating.

2 Past Performance We request that the government extend the past performance period to include contract/task orders performed within five years of the solicitation release date. Extending the past performance period to five years offers the government a true picture of the offerors overall performance and allows offerors to demonstrate their capabilities in the performance areas required by NAWCTSD.

RFP pg 103 The Government is confident that three years of past performance will provide an adequate analysis of an offerors past performance.

3 CPAQ Submission Date If submitting a CPAQ for a past performance citation, please clarify whether the CPAQ is due to Mr. Mark Johnson by the Past Performance Due date (December 17, 2019) or by the Proposal Submission Due date (January 8, 2020)?

L, Pg. 103, 2.0 Volume 2: Past

Performance

Full proposals are due on the proposal due date stated in block 9 of the SF33. It is requested that past performance information be submitted on 17 December, however it is not required and any offeror who submits a timely proposal in accordance with block 9 of the SF33 will have their proposal fairly considered.

4 Past Performance Evaluation

Criteria

Section M, Part-B, 2.0 Past Performance, para. 2, last sentence: The government will only consider past performance by entities with the same CAGE Code and DUNS as the Prime Contractor and principal subcontractor(s) or JV team members.

It is our understanding that DUNS and CAGE codes are specific identifiation codes for a given entity thus no two or more entities will have identical DUNS and CAGE codes. Please clarify the above italized requirement. Is the

Government asking that PPIFs submitted by a given team member--beit the prime, principal subcontracot, or JV team member--be awarded under the same DUNS and CAGE code?

Section M, Part-B, 2.0 Past Performance, para. 2, Pg. 108

The Government will only evaluate past performance references that were performed under the prime offeror or principal subcontractor's same CAGE Code and DUNS number. A company can possess several CAGE codes for different divisions of the company, the italicized statement is clarifying that only the CAGE Code and DUNS number of the proposing entity will be considered. All PPIFs submitted do not need to be the same CAGE Code and DUNS number, as the prime offeror or a principal sub-contractor would have different CAGE Codes or DUNS numbers, and in accordance with

Section L an offeror can provide references from both.

5 Past Performance CPAR In the event a CPAR exists, please confirm the Government will obtain the CPAR and that industry is not required to submit a copy with our proposal.

Pg. 104, Section 2.0 Past Performance, para. 3; Pg. 109, Section 2.0 Past

Performance, para. 4

The Government will obtain the CPARS record if a CPARS record exists.

6 Past Performance Forms Pleas confirm the maximum number of Past PerformanceInformation Forms (PPIF) is as follows: Prime offeror may submit no more than three (3) PPIFs; each prinicpal subcontractor or JV team membere may submit no more than two

(2) PPIFs.

Pg. 104, Section 2.0 Past Performance, para. 2

Yes, that is correct.

7 Government POC for CPAQs submission

Attachment L-5 indicates the Government POC to receive CPAQs is Reagan Gill. Section L, Part B 2.0, second to last para. Indicates the Government POC to receive CPAQs is Mark Jonhson. Please clarify who is to receive the completed

CPAQs and provide a corrected Attachment L-5, if applicable.

Attachment L-5; Section L, Pg. 104

Section 2.0 Past Performance, Para. 3

Attachment L-5 is revised via amendment 01 to include Mark Johnson as well as Reagan

Gill for delivery of the CPAQ. Any offeror who has already submitted a CPAQ to a POC to be completed or who has sent a completed CPAQ to the Government, does not need to resubmit their CPAQ using the version provided via amendment 01, the orginal form will suffice. As long as either Reagan Gill or Mark Johnson receive the CPAQ it is sufficent.

Solicitation Question Form

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

When Filled In 1 of 11

8 Attachment L-5 CPAQ questions

In section III. Instructions to the CPAQ POC: Instructions to complete the assessment: Please provide responses to, 1 through 4, that are listed below the assessment rating system table.

The form consists of 7 questions. Please confirm our contract POC is to answer all 7 question. and provide an updated

Attachment L-5.

Attachment L-5 Yes, the POC is to answer all the questions in section III. The CAPQ form is revised via

Amendment 01. Any offeror who has already submitted a CPAQ to a POC to be completed or who has sent a completed CPAQ to the Government, does not need to resubmit their CPAQ using the version provided via amendment 01, the orginal form will suffice.

9 Attachment L-4 Section L formatting requirements specify Times New Roman font size 12 for text and 10 for graphics. Attachment L-4:

Past Performance Information Form is provided in Calibri, size 11. Please confirm for industry that the font type and size for any of the Government forms incorporated with the solicitation are to remain as the Government has established and thus not changed to Times New Roman size 12 or 10.

Section L, Pg. 99 2.0 Proposal Format, Attachment L-4

Offerors should not change the type or font of a form provided by the Government.

10 Error! Reference source not found on SOW

Would the government provide an updated SOW for 170021 without the "Error! Reference not found. SOW 170021, Sect. 3.2.2. Page 8 The Government reviewed SOW 170021 uploaded into beta.SAM and does not see the reference error in question.

11 Labor Categories Are all the positions required to work on government site? If not, which positions are able to work remotely? As stated in section 1.8 of the base SOW, the Government will not furnish facilities. The

Contractor shall provide all necessary facilities.

12 Exhibit Exhibit A is referenced on page 55; however, only Exhibits B - F have been provided. Please provide Exhibit A. Page 55 Clause 5252.247-9505 is revised to reference Exhibits B and F via Amendment 01.

13 Place of Performance Place of Performance indicates address in Orlando; however, are any positions allowed to on Contractor Site to complete tasks; if so, which ones?

The new beta.SAM site requires text to be entered into a place of performance data field when posting a solicitation. As stated in the base SOW the contractor shall provide all necessary facilities. Since the contractor is not known at this time, the

Government entered the NAWCTSD facility location in the required data field of beta.SAM.

14 Labor Categories/CLIN

Pricing

What is the man-year that the government is using to calculate a full-time person? 1880 or 1920? This effort is considered a supply contract, and therefore the Government calculation of a man year is not relevant.

15 Wage Determination/Labor

Categories

Is there an applicable Wage Determination for any of the the positions listed on the Labor Categories? If so, can the government provide the applicable Wage Determination and identify the roles?

This effort is not a service contract act covered contract as it is coded and considered a supply contract, therefore there are not applicable Wage Determinations.

16 Proposal

Submission/Packaging

Can the government clarify the statement of grouping like Volumes to mean Volume 1 and Volume 3 originals are to be packaged in the same envelope together and their subsequent copies packaged similarily? Also, since Volume 2 (PP) will be sent earlier, should it be provided again as a completed set for submission?

page 101 The Government considers like volumes to be all original volumes as like volumes and copy volumes as like volumes. If all volumes (both original and copy) fit into one container that can be carried by a single person, offerors can submit all volumes in one single container. If a full past performance volume is submitted early, than a second volume does not need to be submitted again at proposal submission.

17 Administrative If we have Reps & Certs registered with SAM, please confirm we only need to provide the acknowledgement page to comply with Section 3.3?. Also, do we need to include the Reps and Certs on page 89, along with the acknowledgment from page 85?

Page 105 If Reps & Certs are in SAM an offeror does not need to include them in the proposal, however a fully complete Section K with any necessary fill-in portions completed should be provided in the proposal regardless of whether or not the same clause is completed in the SAM Reps & Certs.

18 Incumbent Can the government provide the current incumbent name, and contract number ? There is no contractor or contract number that is considered an incumbent.

19 CLIN PRICING Can the government provide their formulary for the Quantity column of the CLIN pricing tab spreadsheet to ensure we are meeting NAWCTSD specifications for CLINS 1101-1103 and 1201 - 1203 since from experience each course development, revision and update differs depending on the complexity of the course?

Attachment L-6 CLIN PRICING The quantity listed for CLINs X101-X103 and X201-X203 are based on the number of hours of delivered courseware the Government expects to order in each ordering period. For instance CLIN 1101 lists a quantity of 80 hours. That is 80 hours of delivered Level 1 ILT New Curriculum Development. The type of employees and number of hours necessary to complete and deliver to the Government 1 hour of Level

1 ILT New Curriculum Development is part of an offerors proposed solution and is for each offeror to determine. As the requirements to produce 1 hour of each specific type of courseware are broken out by each CLIN, and the Government has successfully competed and executed other contracts with the same construct, the Government is confident there is adequate information provided for an offeror to propose for each of these CLINS on a FFP basis. A unit of measure column is added to the CLIN pricing tab of Attachment L-6 CLIN Pricing Form to provide additional clarity via Amendment 01.

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1021 Each TDPC - Functional Area 1 - LOT I FPI Training Data Products, Functional Area 1, LOT I NON-SET-ASIDE PORTION. The contractor shall deliver the Functional Area 1 (Analysis, Design, and Evaluation) Training Data Products requirement as specified in each individual DO/TO in accordance with the Statement of Work # 110023. BASE ORDERING PERIOD (AWARD + 60 MONTHS). FOB: Destination

TARGET COST TARGET PROFIT TOTAL TARGET PRICE CEILING PRICE SHARE RATIO ABOVE TARGET SHARE RATIO BELOW TARGET

Solicitation Question Form

When Filled In 2 of 11

20 CLIN PRICING On Attachment L-6 CLIN pricing tab; CLINS 1001 and 1002, respectively and their Option period CLINS have a quantity of (1); however, Section B for the same CLINS have a quantity of (5) each. Would the government advise which one is correct?

P. 2 - Solicitation Section B is revised to reflect the same quantity as the CLIN pricing form Attachment L-

6 via Amendment 01.

21 Past Performance CPAR If the most recent CPAR we possess for a given PP contract is more than three years old, and an updated CPAR was not provided, do we include the CPAR with our proposal or do we need to request a CPAQ? Please advise.

Pg. 104, Section 2.0 Past Performance, para. 3; Pg. 109, Section 2.0 Past

Performance, para. 4

Since the CPARS is outside the recency period a CPAQ should be provided. Anything outside the three year recency period will not be evaluated.

22 Clearance Can the government clarify if all positions including the Administrative Assistant require a Secret clearance to perform their work?

Attachment 2 and Attachment 3 Anyone working on, handling, or who has access to classified material must possess the required clearance level. If an employee is not working on, handling, or does not have access to classified material they are not required to have a clearance.

23 Resource Allocation Can the government provide the equivalent government hires for the Resource Allocation list to level the playing field with the incumbent and all bidders?

Attachment 2 The Government provided a general description of the education and skill level the

Government will utilize for each labor category when negotiating delivery orders in the

Resource Allocation Matrix, Attachment 2. This is not a service contract so the

Government Equivalent Rates Clause is not applicable. There is not a contract or contractor that is considered an incumbent for this effort. All potential offerors are provided the same information via the solicitation.

24 CLIN PRICING In the provided pricing template (10. L-6_CLIN Pricing Form) on the CLIN Pricing tab, cell E100 indicates that cell F100 is the Ordering Period 5 Total however cell F100 is the total of cells F20, F40, F60, and F80 (Ordering Period 1-4

Totals) vice the sum of cells F82-F97. This is causing the Total Evaluated Price to be miscalculated. Can the government please update the template cell F100 to sum cells F82-F97?

L-6_CLIN Pricing Form.xlsx; CLIN Pricing tab; Cell E100

Attachment L-6 CLIN Pricing Form is revised to correct the error via Amendment 01.

25 Volume 1 Technical page count

Volume 1 Technical Page Limit states " 20*" what is the single asterisk denoting? Does it refer to the ** Page limitation footnote below the table?

RFP/Section L.Part A 3.0 Proposal

Content & Volumes/Pg. 99

The language under the table is revised to reflect the information the single asterisk is referencing via Amendment 01.

26 Format of electronic files Will the government accept all electronic files except the pricing spreadsheet in Adobe Acrobat (pdf) format? RFP/Section L.Part A.2.0/Pg. 99 Section L, 3.0 requires both paper and electronic copies. As long as the electronic files meet the requirements of section L paragraph 2.0 Proposal Format, the files will be accepted.

27 Electronic file media Will the government accept the electronic files on DVD-ROMs? RFP/Section L.Part A.2.0/Pg. 99 Only CD-ROM is acceptable.

28 PPIF format Will the government accept the Past Performance Information Forms as MS Word documents to facilitate inclusion in

Volume 2?

RFP/Section L. Part B 2.0/Pg. 103 Section L, 3.0 requires both paper and electronic copies. As long as the electronic files meet the requirements of section L paragraph 2.0 Proposal Format, the files will be accepted.

29 Curriculum Development tools

Quote: If legacy courseware includes Flash files, the Contractor shall replace Flash files with HTML 5 or Adobe Animate, as required by the DO.

Question: Will the government permit use of other HTML5 / WebGL development+F7 tools such as Adobe Rise 360?

Attachment 1 Base SOW/Section

1.2.3/Pg. 5

Development tools that comply with the requirements set forth in NETC Instruction

1500.22 (dated 27Sep2018) are permitted.

30 Curriculum Development tools

Quote: If legacy courseware includes Flash files, the Contractor shall replace Flash files with HTML 5 or Adobe Animate, as required by the DO."

Question: Will the government permit the use of other HTML5 / WebGL development tools such as Adobe Captivate?

Attachment 1 Base SOW/Section

1.2.3/Pg. 5

Development tools that comply with the requirements set forth in NETC Instruction

1500.22 (dated 27Sep2018) are permitted.

31 Curriculum Development tools

Quote: If legacy courseware includes Flash files, the Contractor shall replace Flash files with HTML 5 or Adobe Animate, as required by the DO."

Question: Will the government perrmit the use of other HTML5 / WebGL development tools such as Unity3D?

Attachment 1 Base SOW/Section

1.2.3/Pg. 5

Development tools that comply with the requirements set forth in NETC Instruction

1500.22 (dated 27Sep2018) are permitted.

32 Curriculum Development tools

Quote: The Contractor shall develop all courseware using NETC DADMS approved software".

Question: Will the government provide a list of all approved software?

Attachment 1 Base SOW/Section 3.1/Pg.

Government Contractors can access DITPR/DADMS by using the PIV_Auth certificate at https://www.dadms.navy.mil/ to verify software requirements. If an offeror does not have access to a CAC card to review approved software, an offeror may contact Mark

Johnson at mark.johnson13@navy.mil with questions on specific software and the

Government can answer questions on software directly.

ITEM NO SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 1021 Each TDPC - Functional Area 1 - LOT I FPI Training Data Products, Functional Area 1, LOT I NON-SET-ASIDE PORTION. The contractor shall deliver the Functional Area 1 (Analysis, Design, and Evaluation) Training Data Products requirement as specified in each individual DO/TO in accordance with the Statement of Work # 110023. BASE ORDERING PERIOD (AWARD + 60 MONTHS). FOB: Destination TARGET COST TARGET PROFIT TOTAL TARGET PRICE CEILING PRICE SHARE RATIO ABOVE TARGET SHARE RATIO BELOW TARGET

Solicitation Question Form

When Filled In 3 of 11

33 PP as a JV Member Quote: "The government will only consider past performance by entities with the same CAGE Code and DUNS as the

Prime Contractor and principal subcontractor(s) or JV team members".

Question: How does the government want the Prime Contractor to cite past performance gained as a JV partner on another contract since the Prime Contractor's CAGE is not the same as the JV's CAGE but the work in an unpopulated

JV is performed by the individual partner companies? As written, the solicitation seems to prohibit submitting past performance gained as a JV member. Will the government please clarify?

RFP/Section M, Part B, 2.0/Pg. 108 Due to an inability to accurately determine who was responsible for the prior performance of a previous JV, the Government will only evaluate past performance by entities propsoing with the same CAGE code and DUNS number as the submitted previous past performance.

34 CLIN Pricing Form Quote: The quantities, travel costs, and ODC costs are for evaluation purposes only.

Quote: ...the government will take the Offeror submitted information from Attachment L-6 CLIN Pricing Form and populate section B of the Base ID/IQ.

Question: The CLIN Pricing Form for x001 and x002 has quantities of 1 for all years and Schedule B has quantities of either 5 or 10. Will the government please clarify the CLIN x001 and x002 quantities since all the other CLIN quantities match between the CLIN Pricing Form and Schedule B?

L_6_CLIN Pricing Form/Instructions tab

RFP/Section L, Part B 3.0 (a)/Pg. 105

Section B is revised to reflect the same quantity as the CLIN pricing found in Attachment

L-6 via Amendment 01.

35 SOW Number Sections L and M state requirements for DOs 0001 on SOW 170021, however the SOW provided as Section C is numbered 170020. Is the SOW 170020 the desired reference for DO:0001?

N6134020R0011, Section L, Part B, paragraphs 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 on page 103 of 114 and Section M, Part B paragraphs

1.1.1 and 1.2.1 on page 108 of 114

No, the desired SOW for Delivery Order 0001 is not SOW #170020. SOW #170020 is the overarching SOW for all requirements that may take place under this ID/IQ. SOW

#170020 provides the basic requirements for all the work to be performed under each

Delivery Order, and will be attached to the base award. SOW #170021 is the SOW for

Deliver Order 0001 which defines the specific requirements of Delivery Order 0001 and will be attached to the Delivery Order 0001 Award. SOW #170021 is referenced in

Section C of the Delivery Order 0001 Terms and Conditions document, Attachment L-6.

After award each subsequent Delivery Order will also have its own individual SOW that will provide the specific requirements of that Delivery Order.

36 SOW Number Section C of RFP refers to the SOW as #17002, however Section J, Attachment 1 is number 170020. N6134020R0011, Section C, paragraph

C.1 on page 45 of 114

The SOW reference in Section C is revised to SOW # 170020 via Amendment 01.

37 Technical Volume

Instructions

For Section L and M, Part B, 1.1.1, Should this read as follows " Given existing course design documentation provided under Delivery Order 0001 as GFI, the Offeror shall describe their overarching approach for selecting and implementing instructional strategies into blended learning, incorporating Computer Assisted Instruction ((CAI), as defined in DO

0001, SOW 170020 Paragraph 3.2.2) with Instructor-Led Training (ILT). The Offeror shall describe how it will develop media to support the design'.

Section L page 103 and M, page 108, paragraph 1.1.1 states that the offeror shall describe their overarching approach approach for selecting and implementing instructional strategies into blended learning, incorporating

Computer Assisted Instruction ((CAI), as defined in DO 0001, SOW 170021

Paragraph 3.2.1.

No, the SOW for Delivery Order 0001 is SOW # 170021. Please refer to question 35.

38 Technical Volume

Instructions

For Section L and M, Part B, 1.2.1, Should this read as follows " 1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overarching approach for the production and delivery of a Training Situation Document for the Advanced Welding

Course as outlined in DO 001 SOW 170020 and 3.2.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for how the

Offeror will apply their approach to developing CDRL F001, Training Situation Document".

Section L page 103 and M, page 108, paragraph 1.2.1 states that the offeror shall describe their overarching approach approach for selecting and implementing instructional strategies into blended learning, incorporating

Computer Assisted Instruction ((CAI), as defined in DO 001 SOW 170021 paragraph 1.1 (b), and 3.2.2.

No, the SOW for Delivery Order 0001 is SOW # 170021. Please refer to question 35.

39 Technical Volume

Instructions SOW PWS e-copies

As many training contract SOW/PWS are typically general in nature, does the Government desire any additional specific information, in the form of individual TASK instructions, TASK ORDERS, DELIVERY ORDERS, or other specific guidance repeatedly referenced as "in accodance with.." on DO/TOs?

Section L page 104 paragraph 2.0

Volume 2: PAST PERFORMANCE states

"Additionally, the Offeror shall provide one electronic copy of the Statement of

Work/Performance Work Statement for each contract reference as Annex 1 to this Past Performance Volume".

Only documents that are part of the contract an offeror is providing as a past performance reference may be submitted with the reference. If the Government cannot verify the relevancy criteria from the SOW/PWS or contract documents, than the Government cannot consider the work to have been performed under the past performance reference.

40 Past Performance RFP Page 109, item e. states: “Offerors who demonstrate past performance in both IMI and ILT may receive a higher

Confidence Assessment Rating than Offerors who demonstrate past performance in only IMI or ILT.”

Is page 109 item e referring to past performance across references or within a single reference?

RFP Page 109, item e. It can be either in the same reference or across references.

Solicitation Question Form

When Filled In 4 of 11

41 Past Performance RFP Page 103, 2.0 – Volume 2: Past Performance (last paragraph) states: "For contract references that contain delivery/task orders, additionally provide the work description(s) for each specific delivery/task order deemed relevant by the Offeror to this solicitation’s requirements.”

We have several questions regarding that statement:

a. For an ID/IQ, can multiple DOs be combined in a single Past Performance reference to achieve relevance?

b. Can we use multiple DOs on a single award IDIQ as a single Past Performance reference?

c. Can we use multiple DOs under a MAC as a single Past Performance reference?

RFP Page 103, 2.0 - Volume 2: Past

Performance (last paragraph)

As stated in section M, CPARS will only be evaluated at the filing level stipulated in the proposed effort. An ID/IQ will not be evaluated at both the basic and the order level.

Therefore, if the CPARS of an ID/IQ is performed at the basic level the ID/IQ as a whole is considered one reference, if the CPARS is filed at the Delivery Order level, each

Delivery Order will be considered a separate reference.

42 CPAQs In the RFP on page 104 it says “All CPAQs should be received by the Government concurrently with the Offeror’s proposal submission.” Does this mean that the CPAQs (attachment L-5) should be received by the Government no later than 11am on 8 Jan 2020? Or are the CPAQs due along with the Volume 2 (Past Performance) submission on 17 Dec

2019?

RFP Page 104 Full proposals are due on the proposal due date stated in block 9 of the SF33. It is requested that past performance information be submitted on 17 December, however it is not required and any offeror who submits a timely proposal in accordance with block 9 of the SF33 will have their proposal fairly considered.

43 Pricing The last sentence inside the box seems incomplete. Could you please publish the remainder of the sentence, or any remaining instructions?

Attachment L-6, CLIN Pricing Form –

Instructions tab

The box is revised to show the entire sentence via Amendment 01.

44 Pricing CLIN Pricing tab - Cell F100 in Att. L-6 is described as “Order Period 5 Total”; however, the cell's formula adds Order

Periods 1 through 4 plus the Delivery Order 01 Price. Should this formula be corrected? This also over-inflates the TEP in Cell F106.

Attachment L-6, CLIN Pricing Form –

CLIN Pricing tab

Attachment L-6 CLIN Pricing Form is revised to correct the error via Amendment 01.

45 Pricing Paragraph 3.2 Price Information states that "Offerors are encouraged to round to the whole dollar, but in any event shall not have any decimals beyond two digits."

Attachment L-6 CLIN Pricing Form does not round the totals in the Extended Price columns nor does it allow the offeror to modify the formulas for rounding. Can you provide a revised L-6 Pricing Form with rounding in the Extended Price columns for all applicable tabs?

RFP Section L, Part B, paragraph3.2 The formula in Attachment L-6 CLIN Pricing Form will not be revised. The formula allows for two decimal points. The statements referenced apply to both unit and extended price columns.

46 OCI Given the obvious OCI issues inherent in the incumbent entity (ies) hosting software listed in the solicitation (e.g., AIM/LOM, CPM, and others), how will an equitable competitive environment be maintained for this competition.

NA There is no incumbent for this contract, it is a new start. No contractor hosts the software (AIM/LOM/CPM), the Government is the host of this software. The

Government is providing all necessary GFI to all potential offerors. Additionally, after speaking with the subject matter experts we have determined that there is no information contained in AIM/CPM/LOM that would provide a competitive advantage as the Government has provided all GFI necessary to propose for this effort.

47 F001 CDRL F001, Box 16, item 5 says submissions should be in Microsoft Project 2010 and Microsoft Excel 2016.

Is Microsoft Word also an acceptable format?

CDRL F001, Box 16, item 5 CDRL F001, Box 16, item 5 is modified via Amendment 02 to state: Submissions shall be delivered in MICROSOFT WORD 2016 compatible format.

48 F001 CDRL F001 shows due 9 months after DO award, which is 270+ days, but RFP Attachment L-1 DO 0001 Terms and

Conditions, Page 4, Section F Delivery Information shows CLINs due at 180 days. What is the intended period of performance for the DO 0001 TSD?

CDRL F001, Block 16, item 4

DO 0001 Terms and Conditions, Page 4, Section F

CDRL F001 is modified via Amendment 02 to state: SUBMISSION SHALL BE DUE SIX (6)

CALENDAR MONTHS AFTER DELIVERY ORDER (DO) AWARD.

49 F002 CDRL F002, Box 16, item 5 says submission shall be due “NINE (6) CALENDAR MONTHS” after DO award.

Is CDRL F002 due in 9 months or 6 months?

CDRL F002, Box 16, item 5 CDRL F002 is revised via Amendment 02 to reflect delivery as six (6) Months.

50 F00E CDRL F00E Instructional Visual Aids, Block 16 #6 says format is Microsoft Office 2016 Compatible. Are other media formats outside PowerPoints acceptable?

CDRL F00E, Block 16, item 6 Yes. Development software that is Department of Navy Application Database

Management System (DADMS) approved may be used in the development of visual aids. Specific DADMS approved media formats can be found at https://www.dadms.navy.mil or by contacting the DADMS Help Desk at

DADMS@att.com or by calling (703) 506-5220.

51 F00J CDRL F00J Course Pilot Test, Block 16 #5 says that for ILT, first submission of a Post-Pilot Report shall be 90 days prior to course pilot. Do you want submission before or after the pilot?

CDRL F00J, Block 16, item 5 The Post-Pilot Report is submitted after the pilot course. Block 16 #5 of F00J is revised via Amendment 02 to read "The first submission shall be due ninety (90) calendar days prior to first course convening".

52 F00J CDR F00J Course Pilot Test, Block 16, #2 says the Government will have 30 calendar days to accept, accept w/comments, or reject, but #7 says 20 calendar days to accept/reject. How many days will Government review be?

CDRL F00J, Block 16, item 2 The Government review period is thirty (30) calendar days. CDRL F00J is revised via

Amendment 02.

Solicitation Question Form

When Filled In 5 of 11

53 F00J CDR F00J Course Pilot Test, Block 16, #3 says the contractor shall incorporate approved corrections into the instructional materials.

Are those corrections already accounted for under CDRLs F00C, F00D, F00E, etc. under the 2nd/Final submissions for those items – or is this an additional separate deliverable?

CDRL F00J, Block 16, item 3 F00J is a separate deliverable that addresses the instructional effectiveness and operational functionality of the delivered course of instruction. The contractor shall incorporate approved corrections identified during the Pilot Course into the instructional materials. The Pilot test shall be in accordance with Base SOW 3.2.2.16

54 F00K CDRL F00K Final CD/DVD is listed as a requirement for courseware in the Base SOW under 3.2.5. However, it is It is not listed as a CDRL requirement for the LCU CHENG courseware in the DO 0001 SOW. Is CDRL F00K a requirement for the courseware in DO 0001?

Base SOW (28 October 2019), Page 30, Section 3.2.5

Yes. CDRL F00K is a deliverable for the LCU CHENG Course. Delivery Order 0001 SOW and Section J of the Delivery Order Terms and Conditions are revised via Amendment

02.

55 IMP/IMS Base SOW (28 October 2019), Page 14, Section 3.1.9.2, states, “The purpose of the CDMs shall be to finalize design and technical requirements, …..[details omitted]. The contractor shall communicate this information in the final submittal of the IMP and IMS.”

Per CDRL B005, Only an IMS is required (and not an IMP). Should the IMP reference be deleted?

Base SOW (28 October 2019), Page 14, Section 3.1.9.2

Yes. The reference to the IMP has been removed via Amendment 02.

56 Pricing Attachment_DO1_01_Delivery_Order_SOW 170021.docx, Section 1.1a, page 1 states that the LCU CHENG course curriculum shall consist of “approximately 120 hours of Instructor Led Training, 57 lab hours and 30 Test hours.”

However, the CLIN structure in RFP Section B refers to hours of ILT/CAI and IMI only at a specified level of interactivity for the ordering period. There are no CLINs for lab and test hours. Where do the lab and test hours get priced? Are the total courseware hours to be developed actually 207? (120+57+30=207)

Attachment_DO1_01_Delivery_Order_S

OW 170021.docx, Page 1, Section 1.1a

The total hours for CLIN 1202 in Delivery Order 0001 is revised to 220 hours via

Amendment 02. The hours referenced in SOW 170021 for the LCU CHENG course is revised via Amendment 02 as well.

The content analysis and course design strategy is provided in the Instructional Media

Design Package (IMDP), and estimates the total instructional hours of the LCU 1610

Class CHENG Course. The total instructional hours consists of classroom, lab and test hours combined, and totals approximately 220 hours. The course content will be developed in the LO Module. Please review the IMDP and the Source Files Folder of the

GFI. The Central Machinery Monitoring and Control System (CMMCS) units are completed and must be incorporated into the LCU 1610 Class CHENG Course.

57 Technical Approach, Task

1.2.1

RFP Page 103, Section L, Part B 1.2.1 says to write an approach "as outlined in DO 0001 SOW170021 paragraph 1.1.(b) and 3.2.2 and how the offeror will apply its approach to developing CDRL F001…"

Para. 1.1.(b) requires a Business Case Analysis as part of the TSD. Finally, the BCA is done under CDRL F002. Is CDRL

F002 (BCA) a requirement for the technical approach to Part B 1.2.1?

RFP Page 103, Section L, Part B 1.2.1

DO SOW 1.1.(b)

CDRL F002

Yes, CDRL F002 is part of the requirement for section L, part B, paragraph 1.2.1. CDRL

F001 is added to both 1.2.1 of the Technical Approach in Section L and Section M via

Amendment 02.

58 Date Discrepancy CDRL F002, Block 16 remark #4 says submission shall be due “NINE (6) calendar months.” Please confirm this should be

NINE (9) calendar months.

Exhibits CDRLS.docx (CDRL F002) CDRL F002 is revised via Amendment 02 to reflect delivery as six (6) Months.

59 Submission Format Exhibits CDRLs.docx F001/F002 (pages 7,8), Block 16 , item #5 remarks state "5.BLK 14: SUBMISSIONS UNDER TEN (10)

MB SHALL BE DELIVERED IN BOTH MICROSOFT PROJECT 2010 AND MICROSOFT EXCEL 2016 COMPATIBLE FORMATS VIA

EMAIL TO BLK 14 ADDRESSEES. SUBMISSIONS OVER TEN (10) MB SHALL BE DELIVERED IN BOTH MICROSOFT PROJECT

2010 AND MICROSOFT EXCEL 2016 COMPATIBLE FORMATS AND AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD VIA AMRDEC SAFE WITH

AN EMAIL NOTIFICATION TO BLK 14 ADDRESSEES. EMAIL ADDRESSES ARE PROVIDED IN SECTION F OF THE CONTRACT."

Exhibits CDRLS.docx (CDRL F001, F002) The incorrect delivery format was specified. CDRL F001/F002 Box 16, item 5 is revised via Amendment 02 to read: Submissions shall be in MICROSOFT WORD 2016 compatible format.

60 Question 2 Clarification Please confirm if Question 2 Q&A is also applicable to Task Area 1 and Task Area 2. Answers to draft questions - Question 2 The Government's answer to Draft Q&A #2, "Government will provide GFI that will allow JTA Data, TPP, TCCD, to be entered into CPM that will then allow for approved

JDTA,TPP, & TCCD" applies to Task Area 1, but does not apply to Task Area 2.

61 Broken Links DO SOW There are broken reference links throughout the DO SOW ("Error! Reference source not found). Please update. SOW 170021 28 October 2019 The Government has successfully opened all links and does not receive any error messages. If the errors are still seen by an offeror, please provide specific paragraphs.

62 F00F CDRL F00F Instructional Media Source Files is listed as a requirement for courseware in the Base SOW under 3.2.2 in

3.2.2.12. However, it is not listed as a CDRL requirement for the LCU CHENG courseware in the DO 0001 SOW. Is CDRL

F00F a requirement for the courseware in DO 0001?

Base SOW (28 October 2019), Page 28, Section 3.2.2.12

Yes. Delivery Order 0001 SOW paragraph 3.2.1 and Delivery Order 0001 section J is revised via Amendment 02 to include CDRL F00F Instructional Media Source Files.

63 F00G CDRL F00G SCORM Conformance is listed as a requirement for courseware in the Base SOW under 3.2.2 in 3.2.2.4.7.

However, it is It is not listed as a CDRL requirement for the LCU CHENG courseware in the DO 0001 SOW. Is CDRL F00G a requirement for the courseware in DO 0001?

Base SOW (28 October 2019), Page 26, Section 3.2.2.4.7

No. CDRL F00G SCORM Conformance is not a DO 0001 requirement.

Solicitation Question Form

When Filled In 6 of 11

64 LCU CHENG GFI LCU_CHENG_FEA_Report_JULY.docx, Pages 22-31, Section 5.1 lists additional courses available for reference. The corresponding CMMCS course files were provided with the GFI. Will the corresponding SEPEC (A-651-0110), Detroit

Diesel Engine Overhaul Tech (A-652-0217), and Engineering Hydraulic Systems and Components Basics (K-652-2146) course materials be provided as GFI?

LCU_CHENG_FEA_Report_JULY.docx, Pages 22-31, Section 5.1

No. Only the CMMCS course files are to be integrated into the LCU CHENG Course. The

A-651-0110: Senior Enlisted Propulsion Engineering Course (SEPEC) Course, the A-652-

0217: Detroit Diesel Engine Overhaul Technician, and the Engineering Hydraulic

Systems and Components Basics (K-652-2146) course materials will not be provided as

GFI due to the fact there is no existing content in these courses that is LCU CHENG specific.

65 LCU CHENG Requirements Attachment_DO1_01_Delivery_Order_SOW 170021.docx, Page 8, Section 3.2.1 says, "The Contractor shall use CPM to deliver all reports (e.g. TPP, CTTL, Table of Specifications, TCCD, COI and Test Plan). " However, the CDRLs for these items (i.e., CDRLs F005 TPP, F006 TCCD, and F007 CTTL) are not listed as applicable to DO 0001. Are these CDRLs required?

DO SOW, Page 8, Section 3.2.1 Yes, CDRL F005, F006, and F007 are applicable to Deliver Order 0001. The Contractor shall use CPM to deliver CDRLs F003 JDTA, F005 TPP, F006 TCCD, and F007 CTTL.

Delivery Order 0001 SOW and Section J of the Delivery Order 0001 terms and conditions is revised to reflect this change via Amendment 02.

66 Reference documents RFP Page 104 states that "Offerors should identify the relevant portions (sections, paragraphs, and page numbers) of the referenced contract’s SOW/PWS to clearly identify how past efforts performed are similar to the Relevancy

Definitions as defined in section M."

If other government source documents than the SOW provide evidence to substaniate the relevance of the selected contract, can they be provided in addition to the SOW?

RFP Page 104, middle of 2nd paragraph;

PPIF Attachment L-4 - various references to SOW/PWS

Offerors can include a document that is part of the contract (either the contract itself or documents listed in section J). If the document is not officially part of the contract then the document will not be evaluated.

67 DO 001 due dates In the body of CDRLs F001, F002 and F004, it says they are due 9 months after DO award. Yet “Attachment L.1 – DO

001 Terms & Conditions” says all CLINs are due 180 ADC [6 months]. What are the correct due dates for the final DO

001 CLINs?

CDRLS F001, F002 & F004 - Block 16, Item 4; Attachment L.1 - DO 001 Terms

& Conditions, Page 4 (top half of page).

The DO 0001 CLINs are due six (6) Months following DO award.

68 Past Performance Can the government be more specific about 'regulatory requirements' as required on the Past Performance attachment L4?

Attachment# 8. L4 - Section: Description of Scope.

The Government searched Attachment L-4 for the words "Regulatory Requirements" and could not find any reference to those words nor reference to "Description of

Scope" in Attachment L4. We are unable to answer this question without proper knowledge of reference or attachment.

69 Volume 2 Submission

Deadline

Offerors are instructed to submit past performance information by 1300 EST 17 Decenber 2019. Given the requirement to submit CPAQs for past performance where no CPAR exists, is the aforementioned deadline the date for when offerors must submit CPAQs to their customers for completion? Please confirm offerors are not required to submit

Vol. 2 to the Government prior to the RFP deadline on the 8 January 2020.

RFP, Section L, Para. 4.0 , Page 100 See question # 42 -If an offeror was unable to submit past performance information by

17 Dec, the Government requests this information be submitted as soon as possible.

70 Allowability of Profit on Non-

Labor

Since Attachment 2 instructs offerors to include profit on travel, please confirm all non-labor CLINs (ODCS and Travel) will be awarded as FFP at the order level.

Attachment 2, Page 1 Yes, all non-labor categories will be awarded as FFP at the order level.

71 Past Performance Relevancy Relevant past performance is defined as efforts performed within 3 years of the initial solicitation release date. Could the Government please confirm that "initial solicitation release date" mentioned is 18 November 2019?

Section L, 2.0 Volume 2: Past

Performance, Page 103

Yes, the initial solicitation release date was 18 November 2019.

72 Personnel Allocation Matrix Section L 3.0 Proposal Volume Table ** states "Page limitation does not include front matter such as title page, table of contents, list of figures, etc., glossary (if used), acronym list (if used), personnel matrix, etc." A personnel allocation matrix is not mentioned anywhere else in the RFP. Is a personnel allocation matrix required? If so, in which Volume?

Section L 3.0 page 99 Proposal Volume

Table

The personnel allocation matrix language was removed via Amendment 02.

73 Relevancy rating In order to ensure a fair and competitive procurement, will the government consider broadening the past performance evaluation factor to receive a ”relevant" rating to include any type of Navy design, development, and/or delivery training support?

RFP N6134020R0011, Section M, Part C,

3.0 Past Performance Relevancy Rating, pages 111 and 112.

Relevancy definitions are based on the predominate work to be performed under this

Curriculum ID/IQ and will not be revised.

74 Contract Effort Description data placement on PPIF

Please confirm that the information requested to be documented in the "Contract Effort Description" on page 104 of the RFP, is referring to the "Description of the Effort/ Clarification of SOW/PWS References" field on the PPIF.

RFP N6134020R0011, Section L, Part B,

2.0 Volume 2 Past Performance, page

104, paragraph 2

Yes. Section L is revised via Amendment 02 to provide consistent language.

75 Additional pages to PPIF May additional pages be added to the PPIF in order to accommodate the inforamtion requested in the "Description of the Effort/ Clarification of SOW/PWS References" field on the PPIF?

RFP N6134020R0011, Section L, Part B,

2.0 Volume 2 Past Performance, page

104, paragrpah 2

Offerors may expand this box if necessary, however, offeror's are cautioned that this information is only meant to provide a brief description. Verification of performance will only be accomplished through the SOW/contract references.

76 Key personnel May the contractor designate any resource as key? RFP N6134020R0011, Section L, Part A,

2.0 General, page 98

As Key Personnel are not being evaluated, Key Personnel are not applicable. "Key

Personnel" is removed via Amendment 02.

78 Volume 2 requested date Must Volume 2 be submitted no later than 1300 on December 17, 2019? RFP N6134020R0011, Section L, Part A,

4.0 Proposal Submission, page 100

See question #42

Solicitation Question Form

When Filled In 7 of 11

79 Volume 2 requested date Is there any penalty for submitting Volume 2 after 1300 on 17 December 2019? RFP N6134020R0011, Section L, Part A,

4.0 Proposal Submission, page 100

See question #42

80 Volume 2 final submissions If a Volume 2 is submitted on December 17, 2019; may we submit a final (updated) version of Volume 2 with the entire proposal by the proposal submission date?

RFP N6134020R0011, Section L, Part A,

4.0 Proposal Submission, page 100

Yes, however if any revisions are submitted with the final proposal it is the Offeror's responsibility to clearly identify the changes in the final submission. If the revisions are not clearly annotated it is not the Government's responsibility to try and delineate the documents the Offeror wishes to be the final documents, nor is the Government required to seek clarification.

81 Reading values directly from the graph

Section L, 2.0 Proposal Format includes the following, "Graphs and tables shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 pt.

font and should contain a grid, which allows values to be read directly from the graph." What is meant by "allows values to be read directly from the graph?"

RFP N6134020R0011, Section L, Part A,

2.0 Proposal Format, page 99

This means that all values in the graph should be able to be read directly from the graph as it is printed.

82 Single asterisk (*) refers to first double asterist (**)

The table on page 99 of the RFP has an entry in the Page Limit column for Volume 1 of 20*. Please confirm that this refers to the first note following the table, "Page limitation does not include front matter such as title page, table of contents, list of figures, etc., glossary (if used), acronym list (if used), personnel allocation matrix etc. When foldout pages are used, they must not exceed 11 x 17 inches and will be counted as 1 page. Drawings may be provided separately and may be any size, with font of any size, but should be folded to approximately 8.5 x 11 inch standard size and will count as 1 page. Graphs shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 point font. Drawings are included within the page count."

RFP N6134020R0011, Section L, Part A,

2.0 Proposal Format, page 99

See question #25

83 Organization of SOW Section

3.2.2

Sections 3.2.2.4.1 through 3.2.2.4.5 appear to support Section 3.2.2.4, Instructor Led Training (ILT). Section 3.2.2.5.6 appears to be the start of the IMI-related paragraphs. The sections currently marked 3.2.2.4.6 through 3.2.2.4.13 all relate to IMI and not ILT. Additionally, sections 3.2.2.7 through 3.2.2.12 appear to be related to Section 3.2.2.6. Will the government consider updating the subsections within Section 3.2.2?

SOW 170020, Section 3.2.2, pages 23-29 Section 3.2.2 has been revised to clarify the separation between ILT and IMI requirements. Lesson Plans and Trainee Guides apply to ILT and IMI efforts. These revisions are made via Amendment 02.

84 "OCD" typographical error The text between the tables contains the following sentence, "The travel fixed factor rate below shall be applicable to orders under the Travel (FFP) CLIN X501 and the OCD fixed factor rate below…" Please confirm that OCD should be ODC for "other direct costs."

Resource Allocation Matrix Yes it should read ODC and is revised via Amendment 02

85 Past Performance SOW/PWS The solicitation states that offerors must submit one electronic copy of each Past Performance Reference SOW/PWS as

Annex 1 to this Past Performance Volume. Should offerors include paper copies of the Past Performance Reference

SOW/PWS within the Volume 2 Past Performance Paper Original and Paper Copies?

Section L, Part B Specific Instructions, Section 2.0 Past Performance, Page 104

Yes.

86 Past Performance CPARs

Submission

Is the offeror required to include copies of CPARs within Volume 2? Or will the government procure CPARs for Past

Performance References with a corresponding CPAR? Additionally, if copies of CPARs are required with submission, will the government allow sealed Past Performance bid packages from subcontractors as CPARs are generally considered sensitive in nature?

Section L, Part B Specific Instructions, Section 2.0 Past Performance, Page 103-

The Government will obtain the CPARS record if a CPARS record exists.

87 Past Performance Interim vs.

Final CPARs Question

If an offer has interim but not final CPARs for a Past…