Att L-13 Govt Resp. Qs 06OCT20 -0002.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 36 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- N6134020R0082
About this file
This request for proposal (RFP) solicits proposals for a Pilot and Aircrew Curriculum Revision and Maintenance (PACRM) Multiple Award Contract (MAC). The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division requires support for the revision and maintenance of Navy and Marine Corps pilot and aircrew curriculum and electronic classroom systems. This indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract will be used for multiple planned and unplanned procurements, including supporting the continued currency and accuracy of various training programs' curriculum. Offerors must submit proposals by the date specified to be considered for one of the three to five PACRM basic contracts to be awarded. The solicitation includes requirements for past performance, technical, and price proposals, as well as contract experience criteria.
View the file
Other files
Show all 41
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
| Att L-1 Solicitation Question Response Form | ||||
| Question Number | ||||
| Subject (title) | Question | Question Reference (SOW, L&M, Page #s, etc.) | Answer | |
| 1 | LMS | I would like to know if NAWCTSD is looking to replace the Learning Management System (LMS) for this project or other initiatives in near future. | PRE-RFP Question. | NAWCTSD is developing a custom LMS system to meet the unique Pilot and Aircrew training requirements, we are in process of certifying and installing the LMS at various sites under current support contracts. There is no firm schedule for E2 programs and we will not have a schedule until the software is DoD Cyber Certified later this year. |
| 2 | RFP, Distribution Statement D documents. | Is there a mechanism to share these documents with our subcontractors or do they need to request them directly from you? | Pre-Solicitation Notice. | Further distribution is subject to the documents Distribution Statements. Offerors in receipt of documents are responsible for compliance with restrictions when making further distribution. |
| 3 | 3.0 VOLUME 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE | Many TDPC contract holders utilized subcontractors to perform part of the scope; as such, they are able to use their subcontractor's work as their own past performance. As a non-TDPC contract holder, we are able to meet the requirements with our subcontractor's past performance; however, that past performance was not performed under our firm, thus we are currently prohibited from using it. Will the government allow subcontractor past performance to count which levels the playing field since many other prime contractors did not actually perform the work themselves and instead rely on subcontractors as well? | RFP page 123 | The Government considered the suggested changes. However, no applicable change was made to the solicitation/RFP. An offeror is not authorized to provide a contract reference for its subcontractor. |
| 4 | 3.0 VOLUME 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE | Given the above request regarding allowing subcontractor past performance, we respectfully request the ability to submit multiple past performances to cover the scope. Often curriculum contracts do not also require hardware and networking support; however, by utilizing various past performances and subcontractor past performance, we can demonstrate the ability to perform the entire scope. Current TDPC contract holders are likely able to submit their TDPC work since it had a similar scope, but non-TDPC contract holders are at a significant disadvantage. | RFP page 123 | RFP amendment 0001 allows for no more than three past performance/contract experience contracts to be submitted for consideration. Also see answer to question 3. |
| 5 | J1 | Once we receive J1 are we able to share it with our subcontractors or do they need to request it directly from the Navy? | RFP, Section J, Attachment J-1. | See answer to question 2. |
| 6 | L8 | Once we receive L8 are we able to share it with our subcontractors or do they need to request it directly from the Navy? | RFP, Section L, Attachment L-8. | See answer to question 2. |
| 7 | Present/past performance references | Would the Government reconsider use of prime-level recent/relevant past performance references from subcontractor teammates in order to demonstrate the entire teams capability? | Section L 3.1(3) and 3.2(b) | See answer to question 3. |
| 8 | Present/past performance references | Would the Government reconsider the use of subcontractor recent/relevant experience (prime and subcontracted levels), if even on a limited basis, to ensure full team capability is evaluated? | Section L 3.1(3) and 3.2(b) | See answer to question 3. |
| 9 | Correction to RFP | Tables G2 and G3 volume numbers and titles mismatched (specifically vol 3 and vol 4). Request correction, thank you. | Sec L, para 5.0 and 6.0 pages 117 and 118 | RFP amendment 0001 corrects Table G-2 Past Performance to Vol 3. and Technical to Vol 4. |
| 10 | Consideration to modify Section H | Regarding Section H.3 - SCHEDULE OF DEDUCTIONS of the solicitation: As written, the singular performance level acceptable by the Government for the factors identified in subparagraphs H.3 (a) through (f) is 100%. This represents an unrealistic, most likely unachievable, performance level for any organization, including the incumbent(s). At face value, such expectations virtually guarantee a reduction of the monthly payment amount for non-performance of services and pose a significant risk to competitors new to the PACRM environment. It is improbable that any team, including the incumbent and/or its team, can sustain 100% performance levels in all functional areas. Impractical performance levels and harsh deductions deter competition, creativity, and innovation the Government values, and reduce the prospect of achieving a best value outcome for NAWCTSD. Recommend lowering the top performance requirement from 99.9% to 95% to accommodate more realistic variances in professional performance. | Sec H.3 entirely | The government considered the suggested changes. This criteria is currently being used by the government on other R&M efforts. No change in the requirement. |
| 11 | Consideration to modify Section M | Consider Section M, Part B, paragraphs 1.0 and 2.0, subparagraphs 2 (a) through (e): Attribution of these requirements specifically to the Prime clearly eliminates a large population of “Teams” that can provide these services to the Government. Further, if a Prime contractor can meet the mandates of subparagraphs (a) through (e) there would be no need to develop teams of small businesses which can, through collaboration and coordination, deliver the very same services identified in the solicitation. Recommend the following: 1) in Paragraph 2.0 CONTRACT EXPERIENCE, subparagraph 1, replace the word “Prime Contractor” with the word “Team.” 2) eliminate 2.0 CONTRACT EXPERIENCE, subparagraph 2(d) and (e) as these are not actual measures of potential success, whereas team overall past performance and PPQ responses portray a more accurate assessment of potential success. These changes will promote more competition with a subsequent better value to NAWCTSD. | Sec M Part B pg 122 | Section M criteria was changed in amendment 0001. See amended section M for specific criteria changes. Additionally, see answer to number 3. |
| 12 | Consideration to modify Section L | The statement "The Offeror shall identify and submit one past performance contract reference" clearly disadvantages a competitive Team and disallows showcasing relevant ability to meet contract requirements on an enterprise level, virtually eliminates competition and unfairly favors an incumbent. Request this requirement be deleted from the solicitation. | Sec L 3.0 pg 123 | See answer to number 4. |
| 13 | Consideration to modify Section L | The statement "Offeror’s shall NOT provide present/past performance contract references for any subcontractors" clearly disadvantages a competitive Team and disallows it from showcasing relevant ability to meet contract requirements on an enterprise level, virtually eliminates competition and unfairly favors an incumbent. Request this requirement be deleted from the solicitation. | Sec L 3.0 pg 123 | See answer to number 3. |
| 14 | Pass/Fail Criteria (e): Management of Courseware Support | We respectfully request the Government consider a slight adjustment to Contract Experience Pass/Fail Criteria (e) to specify, “The Offeror’s contract reference includes management of courseware support at four (4) or more Government sites and the Offeror must demonstrate an active SECRET (S) or TOP SECRET (TS) Facility Clearance.” Inclusion of a National Industrial Security System (NISS) Verification printout can substantiate the Offeror’s facility clearance. This minor change in language does not diminish the contract applicability requirements for pass/fail criteria “e”. The slight adjustment maintains the intention of demonstrating experience managing courseware support at multiple-locations and ensures that Offerors with an appropriate facility clearance can operate in compliance with the Solicitation’s overall security directives while supporting NAWCTSD. | Section L. Paragraph 2.1(e), |
Section L, Paragraph 3.2 (4.c), Section M, Paragraph 2.0 (2.e),
| Page 136 of 146 | RFP amendment 0001 updated Contract Experience Pass/Fail Criteria. See RFP amendment for specific criteria changes. | |||
| 15 | Contract Experience PASS/FAIL Criteria | We are assuming our company passes the Corporate Experience criteria. We have a contract that does not have a DD 254. However, individual task orders/delivery orders required us to support, manage, and deliver Secret courseware at more than five (5) locations. Developers, Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), and Instructional Systems Designers (ISDs) supporting the task orders/delivery orders possessed, and currently possess, either an active Secret or Top Secret clearance. Our professionals had access, and currently have access, to controlled Government Furnished Material/Information and spaces, and our Facility Clearance level exceeds the solicitation requirements. | Section L. Paragraph 2.1(e), |
Section M, Paragraph 2.0 (2.e),
| Page 136 of 146 | See answer to question 14. | |||
| 16 | Contract Experience PASS/FAIL Criteria | We meet all the criteria in 2.1 using a single contract reference with the exception of the management of secret courseware support at four (4) more Government sites. We currently have a Top Secret facility clearance and have personnel with Secret to Top Secret clearances on similar prime contracts managing secret courseware support at Government sites. To ensure sufficient competition for the three to five MAC basic contracts to be awarded, would the government consider allowing up to two (2) contract references to meet the pass/fail requirements? | Section L. Paragraph 2.1(e), |
Section M, Paragraph 2.0 (2.e),
| Page 136 of 146 | See answers to question 4 and 14. | ||
| 17 | Pass/Fail criteria | In review of the solicitation Section L requirements, it appears the government desires to attract competition from highly qualified small businesses with extensive experience across the potential scope areas of the PWS. Although the idea of a single contract reference, performed as a prime, containing each primary area of the entire scope would in fact guarantee only highly experienced offerors would be able to enter the competition, this hurdle of entry may also eliminate other highly qualified small businesses. |
Perhaps the goals of the government can also be accomplished by allowing qualified small businesses the opportunity to show prime experience across the technical areas of the PWS, even if not performed in a single contract reference. In addition, allowing small businesses the opportunity to team with other small business, or larger businesses while using the partner’s past performance references commensurate with their team responsibilities, gives the small primes the ability to grow their technical expertise and management capabilities. If the offeror can provide supporting data of proven “contract experience” as a prime that covers “similar” technical scope and satisfactory management of teaming partners, perhaps the government’s desire for highly qualified and experienced competitors could still be obtained while allowing contractors to expand capabilities and contribute to a robust, competitive field of contractor partners which would benefit the government.
Question:
| Would the government consider reframing the pass/fail criteria? | 2.0 VOLUME 2 CONTRACT EXPERIENCE: | See answers to questions 3 and 14. | |
| 18 | Pass/Fail criteria | Perhaps the goals of the government can also be accomplished by allowing qualified small businesses the opportunity to show prime experience across the technical areas of the PWS, even if not performed in a single contract reference. In addition, allowing small businesses the opportunity to team with other small business, or larger businesses while using the partner’s past performance references commensurate with their team responsibilities, gives the small primes the ability to grow their technical expertise and management capabilities. If the offeror can provide supporting data of proven “contract experience” as a prime that covers “similar” technical scope and satisfactory management of teaming partners, perhaps the government’s desire for highly qualified and experienced competitors could still be obtained while allowing contractors to expand capabilities and contribute to a robust, competitive field of contractor partners which would benefit the government. |
| Question: Would the government consider deleting this criteria? | 2.1 CONTRACT EXPERIENCE PASS/FAIL CRITERIA letter d) | See answers to questions 3 and 14. | |||
| 19 | E2/C2/LSO PWS | Attachment L8 was not included in the original solicitation package. Pricing and planning for the first task order is problematic. | Section C.1(b) | Attachment L-8 Performance Work Statement (PWS) For E-2, C-2, and Landing Signal Officer (LSO) Training Programs Curriculum Revision and Maintenance (and J-1 1. SCOPE For Pilot and Aircrew Curriculum Revision and Maintenance Contract (PACRM) are restricted Distribution Statement Documents and were provided in accordance with https://beta.sam.gov Special Notice Memorandum |
SUBJ: REQUEST FOR PILOT AND AIRCREW CURRICULUM REVISION AND MAINTENANCE (PACRM) SOLICITATION (N6134020R0082) DOCUMENTS WITH DISTRIBUTION D RESTRICTIONS. Government email document to contractor on 15 Sept 2020. Also see answer to question 2 for information on further distribution of these documents once received.
| 20 | PWS/PWS | Section C.1(b) refers to the PWS as attachment L8, whereas Section L.5.0.1 refers to attachment L8 as the PBW (which was provided as attachment L7) | Section L 5.0.1 | Price Breakout Worksheet (PBW) is Attachment 7. Typo corrected in RFP amendment 0001. |
| 21 | CBA | Are their any other known CBAs in place at other locations that are acquiring services through the use of this ID/IQ contract? Where? | Att L -9b | Yes, there are other Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) in place at locations that will require support via this Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract in the future. However, the pertinent CBAs for other efforts will be incorporated via individual Task Orders as requirements materialize. The CBAs attached to the solicitation pertain only to the first Task Order for E-2, C-2, LSO, which is being solicited and awarded in conjunction with the MAC. |
| 22 | DOL WD | Are their any other known DOL Wage Determinations in place at other locations that are acquiring services through the use of this ID/IQ contract? Where? | Att L-9a | Yes, there are other Wage Determinations (WDs) in place at locations that will require support via this Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract in the future. However, the pertinent WDs for other efforts will be incorporated via individual Task Orders as requirements materialize. The CBAs attached to the solicitation pertain only to the first Task Order for E-2, C-2, LSO, which is being solicited and awarded in conjunction with the MAC. |
| 23 | ID/IQ Contract | When an offeror is determined to be an award winner on the ID/IQ contract, what will the requirement to bid on subsequent Task Orders be? That is, would we be required to bid on 25% of Task Orders? 50%? 75%? | RFP | Although the government desires robust competition of future task orders within the Multiple Award Contract, it does not anticipate imposing any requirements on MAC awardees to submit offers on future task order requirements other than the initial Task Order for E-2, C-2, LSO. |
| 24 | Annex A | Given the government has asked for monthly reports for the contract reference we will use to satisfy the requirement for Annex A, and some of these reports run dozens of pages long with 30 or so monthly reports of that length, when we submit them, the 8 mb size restriction may be prohibitive. Can we break Annex A into Annex A - 1 and Annex A - 2, etc. in order to submit the documents you've requested? | RFP, Sect L, p 118 | RFP Amendment 0001 modified this criteria to eliminate requirement for delivery of reports. See the amended solicitation for specific changes. |
| 25 | PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY TABLE (PRST) | What method does the Government use to determine the number of hours that total 100% for the month for SMEF, SSF, LRC Clerk, and IATF when calculating Maximum Payment? If the services are not interrupted, can 100% maximum payment still be met? And How does this tolerate human factors such illness, COVID-19 related leave/quarantine, Weather closures and other emergencies? | PACRM RFP 20R0082, SECTION H (b) and Att L-8 E2 PWS 20R0082, Section 7, pg 50 | 25a - The method used to determine 100% achievement is identified in the PWS's PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY TABLE (PRST) under the column titled "Lot Size" for each of the categories listed. |
25b - See contract solicitation section H.3 for requirement for 100% 25 c - Each vacancy will be addressed on a case by case basis
| 26 | Company Experience | The requirement for 'DOD operator courseware' does not allow SBs to compete who support other agencies (e.g. CBP, FAA, FHA, DHS, DOS, etc.) but not DOD with R&M work very similar to those specified in the PACRM SOW. Will NAWCTSD consider removing the DOD requirement? | RFP at Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1, b) on page 122 | Amendment 0001 made changes to the Contract Experience criteria regarding this issue. See amended solicitation for specific changes. |
| 27 | Company Experience | The requirement for a SB to perform both R&M and Maintenance/Operations of a Electronic Classroom or other Training solution with electronic courseware is very limiting to SB industry unless you were on the previous TDPC contract. Please considering making this requirement on the same or a secondary contract but not on the same contract/Task order | RFP at Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1 c) on page 122 | Amendment 0001 made changes to the Contract Experience criteria regarding this issue. See amended solicitation for specific changes. |
| 28 | Company Experience | The requirement for "management of Secret courseware support at four (4) or more Government sites" is very limiting. A SB with a Secret FCL who supports multiple locations, but not necessarily on the same contract, manages at the same level of complexity. Please consider removing this requirement, or modifying it to allow Secret courseware support at multiple government sites on one or more contracts. | RFP at Section L, Part B, Paragraph 2.1 e) on page 122 | Amendment 0001 made changes to the Contract Experience criteria regarding this issue. See amended solicitation for specific changes. |
| 29 | Price Proposal | There is a reference to Attachment 8 and the Price Breakout Worksheet. Should this be attachment 7 or is there additional Price Breakout worksheet not included with the RFP? | RFP at Section L, 5.0 Paragraph 1 a) on page 126 | Amendment 0001 corrected reference numbers. |
| 30 | Attachment L-9a | Please provide an updated WD; the one included with the RFP is from 2019 | RFP Package | Amendment 0001 updated attachment L-9a. |
| 31 | Existing Training | Can the Gov't please identify the existing training, associated delivery modes and durations for subject E-2, C-2, and LSO training programs? | PWS 1.1 | The duration of existing training is 1 hour per lesson. Amendment 0001 includes attachment of Training System Status Report (TSSR), which list all the courseware by lesson name and delivery method along with all hardware and software associated with the training. However, distribution of this document is restricted (Distribution D). The TSSR will be distributed via email to all potential offerors who previously requested and received copies of Attachments J-1 and L-8 upon release of the RFP. Distribution will go to the same individual who received the aforementioned copies. If document is not received by close of business the day of RFP amendment release contact Ms. Kelly Stevens via email kelly.stevens@navy.mil to request document. See answer to question 2 for information on further distribution of this document once received. |
| 32 | LMS | Can the Gov't please identify the LMSs currently being used at each location? | PWS 4.3.2 | SHARP LMS, MELD LMS |
| 33 | Authoring Tool | Can the Gov't please identify the authoring tool used for the existing training? | PWS 4.3.3 | Toolbook, Captivate |
| 34 | LO/TI | Are there existing LO/TI databases for the current training programs? | PWS 4.3.8.2 and 4.7.4 | No |
| 35 | Current Training Task Lists | Are there existing CTTLs for the current training programs? | PWS 4.3.8.4 | No |
| 36 | CRs | Can the Gov't please identify the current Gov't approved development software package? | PWS 4.5 | Captivate |
| 37 | Advanced Electronic Copies | Per Section 7.0 of the RFP, does the USG intend to receive advanced electronic copies of just Volumes 2 (Contract Experience) and 3 (Past Performance), or should Volume 1 (Executive Summary and Contract Administration) also be sent in advance as indicated in the last sentence of the paragraph? Please clarify. | PACRM RFP, Part A, General Instructions, Section 7.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND PACKAGING, Paragraph 4, page 119 | The contractor is requested to submit advanced copies of Vol 2 and 3 only. |
| 38 | Volumes 3 and 4 Clarification | Volumes 3 and 4 differ throughout Section L of the RFP. Please clarify whether Volume 3 is Past Performance or Technical. Please clarify whether Volume 4 is Technical or Past Performance. | PACRM RFP, Section 5.0, Operating System and Applications, Table G-2 Offeror Electronic File Naming Convention, page s116-117. |
PACRM RFP, Section 7.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION AND PACKAGING, Paragraph 4, page 119
| Amendment 0001 corrects Volume numbering discrepancies identified. Also see answer to question 9. | ||||
| 39 | LRC Certification | Section 4.6.2 states, “All LRC positions shall be certified in accordance with DOD 8570.01-M Information Assurance…”. Is the LRC Clerk required to be certified to Level I, II, III, or is no certification required at all? | E2/C2 Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section 4.6.2, Learning Resource Center (LRC) Clerk Experience, page 21 | The minimum certification requirement for an LRC clerk is level I, based on the responsibilities outlined in the PWS for an LRC clerk. However, it is the offeror's responsibility to ensure the appropriate level of certification for any additional responsibilities assigned to the LRC clerk as a result of an offerors proposed strategy. |
| 40 | IAT Support | What, if any, IAT support is required at Naval Air Station (NAS) Oceana? | E2/C2 PWS, Section 4.6.3.1, Information Assurance Technical (IAT) Responsibilities, page 23 | The referenced Attachment L-8 paragraph (4.6.3.1) states, "The Contractor shall have Journeyman IAT at each site." It goes on to identify responsibilities. The requirements for IAT at Oceana are already provided in the PWS. |
| 41 | Printing Material | What is the quantity of contractor supplied printed material required for both Naval Station (NS) Norfolk and NAS Oceana? | E2/C2 PWS, Section 4.8, Printing of Instructor and Student Training Materials, page 25 | Approximately 40,000 pages in FY20 |
| 42 | Facility/Spaces/Equipment | What are the facilities and infrastructure (work desks, computers, telephones, etc.) in place for contractor onsite work? | E2/C2 PWS Section 4.13, Facility, Subsections 4.13.1 – 4.13.5, pages 35-36 | For sites identified in the PWS the facilities and standard office equipment (work desks, computers, telephones) the government determined are needed to provide the required on site services are provided. Any facilities/infastructure for work performed outside of the Government sites identified is the offeror's's responsibility. |
| 43 | CLIN References | Each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) within the spreadsheet is specifically identified in the PWS; however, Section 4.3 is not referenced. Will the Government reference Section 4.3 to the appropriate CLIN? | Attachment L-7, E2-C2-LSO PBW | Amendment 0001 updated L-7 |
| 44 | CLINs xx09 | For CLINs xx09, the Change Request (CR) quantities do not match the quantities listed in PWS 4.4.1. Please clarify. | Attachment L-7, E2-C2-LSO PBW |
| E2/C2 PWS, Section 4.4.1, CR Completion Table, page 12 | Amendment 0001 updated L-7 | ||||
| 45 | CLINs xx03 and xx04 | CLINS xx03 and xx04 reference PWS 4.14; however, there is no PWS Section 4.14. Please clarify. | Attachment L-7, E2-C2-LSO PBW | Amendment 0001 updated L-7 | |
| 46 | PACRM Scope Tasking vs. E2, C2, and LSO R&M Scope Tasking | Paragraph 3(b) of this section states, “As this information is presented in the proposal, demonstrate the relevancy of the Prime’s and JV team members’ past performance with respect to the PACRM Scope tasking.” In addition, paragraph 4(a) of this section states, “SCOPE: Contains a scope including revision of DOD operator courseware and maintenance and operation of TDS comparable to the description in the PACRM Scope document #20R0082.”; however, relevancy is more apparent in the E2, C2, and LSO R&M Scope tasking. Would the Government prefer the demonstrated relevancy of past performance be comparable to the description with respect to the E2, C2, and LSO R&M PWS instead? | PACRM RFP, Part B, Specific Instructions, Section 3.2, Past Performance Information Point of Contact, No. 3(b), page 125 |
| PACRM RFP, Part B, Specific Instructions, Section 3.2, Past Performance Information Point of Contact, No. 4(a), page 125 | Amedment 0001 updated both of the referenced paragraphs to reflect the PWS vs. the Scope document. | ||||
| 47 | Pilot or NFO SMEs | Attachment L-7, E2-C2-LSO PBW CLIN xx05 (Norfolk Weapons School), Option Task A lists one Full Time Equivalent (FTE). Is this FTE a Pilot or NFO SME? This information is required as the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) agreement currently has separate salaries for the two. | Attachment L-7, E2-C2-LSO PBW | Amendment 0001 updated all references within attachments L-7 and L-8. See amendment for specific changes. | |
| 48 | Oceana Onsite IT Support | Does the Oceana Training Delivery Systems (TDS) require onsite Information Technology (IT) support? | Attachment L-7, E2-C2-LSO PBW | Yes | |
| 49 | Significance of Yellow Highlights within the Worksheet | What is the significance of the highlighted areas within the worksheet? | Attachment L-7, E2-C2-LSO PBW | See Section M, part B, 5.0 Price 1 a) | |
| 50 | Government Paying Office Information | Paragraph 4(a) states, “Provide the mailing address, telephone, fax numbers, email address and facility codes for the Offeror’s local Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), and Government Paying Office.” Because the Government Paying Office changes for each contract, does the Government want the information for the reference identified for contract experience and past performance? Please clarify. | PACRM RFP, Part B, Specific Instructions, Section 1.1, Contract Administration, Subsection 4(a), page 120 | Amendment 0001 changed to delete request for Government Paying Office. | |
| 51 | L7 CLIN 2103, 2104 PWS references | Both CLINs 2013 and 2014 in the L7 reference PWS 4.14. The L8 PWS does not include a 4.14. The "4" section stops at 4.13.7. Section "5" is security. Should 4.14 be removed? | L-7 E2-C2-LSO PBW 08-14-20 & L-8 PWS 29 Jul 2020 08-14-20 | See answer to question 47. | |
| 52 | L-7 use of "Task" references | L7 references tasks against the CLIN items: Task 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, 4C, 5A, 5B, 6, 7. A search of the L8 PWS does not specifically reference these Tasks by the numbers in the L7. Was the Task references created specifically for the Pricing schedule, or can we find corresponding documents also referencing these Tasks by the numbers in the L7. | L-7 E2-C2-LSO PBW 08-14-20 & L-8 PWS 29 Jul 2020 08-14-20 | Task numbers are created for pricing only. Task numbers provide additional descriptive nomenclature that identify what level of support in the Price Breakout Worksheet is being priced in Section B of Task Order CLINs. | |
| 53 | L-6 MSC Chart Blank | Are the Columns listed "as needed" to be replaced with labor categories when utilized similar to those Columns with the Categories already created to include SM, LC, IAT, 32 SME, LSO SME? Should we add the additional labor categories to the Ledger? | L-6 MSC Chart Blank 8-12-2020 | Yes | |
| 54 | L-9B CBA | for the Job titles listed on Page 10 of the CBA could any of those employees work off-site in the performance of their work. Also can they be on-site or off-site and/or perform work at both Norfolk and Oceana from the one site or even part time at each site? | L-9B CBA N6134017F0028E2C2 | Offeror is responsible for reviewing PWS, which identifies which responsibilities require on site support. | |
| 55 | B001 and B005 CDRL reports for last 3+ years | Request CDRL deliverables for the last 3 to 5 years for B001 Contractor Progress, Status and Management and the B005 Mobilization Contractor Performance Report for the last contract for both the Norfolk, VA site and the NAS Oceana, VA site. | ATT L-10 E2 CDRL Pkg 08-14-20 | B001 and B005 will be provided via email. However, distribution of this document is restricted (Distribution D). This attachment will be distributed via email to all potential offerors who previously requested and received copies of Attachments J-1 and L-8 upon release of the RFP. Distribution will go to the same individual(s) who received the aforementioned copies. If document is not received by close of business the day of RFP amendment release contact Ms. Kelly Stevens via email kelly.stevens@navy.mil to request documents. See answer to question 2 for information on further distribution of these documents once received. | |
| 56 | D002 CDRL reports for most recent year | Request most recent D002 Equipment Inventory Records (EIRS) for each site. | ATT L-10 E2 CDRL Pkg 08-14-20 | CDRL D002 has not been delivered on the current task order. | |
| 57 | F004 CDRL report | Request CDRL reports for F004 Instructional Performance Requirements Documentation for the last year. | ATT L-10 E2 CDRL Pkg 08-14-21 | F004 is a new CDRL requirement for this task order, prior deliveries are not available | |
| 58 | Element 1: Technical Proposal TDS Availability and/or Loss of Acess to TDS. | Responding to the Technical requirements for TDS Availability specific to the TO for the 2 sites for E-2, C-2 and LSO requirements and not just a general TDS approach begs a site visit and/or documentation on the building/class layouts, actual hardware configuration for the LMS and the student stations for each site. We respectfully request that documentation and/or a site visit be provided to support a complete response specific for each site. | L/M 4.0 Volume 4 Technical Proposal Element 1 | Training System Status Report (TSSR) will be provided for all site, contains a full equipment inventory to include all software and O/S. Also see answer to question 31. | |
| 59 | Element 2: Manning/Staffing (Human Resourcing) | Responding to the Manning/Staffing requirements specific to the TO requirements we request documentation and/or a site visit be provided for understanding building/site/classroom, etc. specifics. It has been established in M that "the Government will evaluate the likelihood that the contractor will be able to complete CRs within the requirement timeline given the location of the proposed support staff." That would require an understanding of the building/sites/classroom/office specifics to build a manning/staffing response that is specific to the 2 locations to meet the requirements. Could you please provide that documentation. | L/M 4.0 Volume 4 Technical Proposal Element 2 | Spaces for sites will be addressed in specific task orders. |
For the E2-C2-LSO there are:
1) At NAS Oceana to support the LSO school, there is one shared office space, with a total of 2 desks available and one shared NMCI seat.
2) At NS Norfolk to support E2/C2 there are 3 shared office spaces, with a total of 11 desks available and a total of 8 shared NMCI seats.
Also see answer to question 58.
| 60 | CR Completion Table and additional Optional CRs Tables in E-2/C-2/LSO PWS | The following CR Completion Table is provided in 4.4.1 of the PWS indicating a minimum CR Number per FY. Also 4.4.2 Addional Option CRs indicate numbers of each Level 1 to 5 per FY. In both cases the years have not been completed. Also under CLIN 2109 and 2110 there are specific quantities for each level and a reference to PWS r.r, r.t and 4.6. Are we to assume the numbers in the table in 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 are notional/example but that the quanties in 2109 and 2110 are what govern the competion of the L-7 Pricing schedule and not the quantities reported in 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 | 4.4.1 CR Completion Table and 4.4.2 additional Optional CRs in the E-2/C-2/LSO PWS | The PWS 4.4.1 "Minimum CR Number per FY" is in reference to a 12 month period. The periods of performance for FY21 and FY26 in the PBW are for less than 12 months. Therefore, the numbers in the PBW reflect some portion of the total FY numbers listed in the PWS. Additionally, references throughout the solicitation to include attachments have been corrected. |
| 61 | Step 1, 2, 3 in 4.2.2 Weapons School SME Requirements Table and Tasks eQ, 3B, 3C and 4A, 4B and 4C. | The Weapons School SME Requirements Table in the 4.2.2 of the TO PWS refers to FTE and Step 1, 2 and 3. There is no earlier reference for the PWS requirements to Step, 1,2 and 3 for the work to be performed in 4.2 and 4.2.1. Could you explain the categories of Step 1,2, and 3 in relationship to the requirements. Also in the L-7 CLins 2105 and 2106 for 3A, 3B, and 3C, and 4A, 3B, 3C respectively is there a connection to the term Step in the PWS. | 4.2.2 Weapons School SME Requirements Table in the E-2/C-2/LSO PWS. L-7 PBW CLINs 2105 and 2106 | In these cases the Steps (1, 2, 3) corrolate to the number of FTE(s) (1, 2, or 3) or the level of effort being required for a specific CLIN. At any given time only one level is supported. Yes, the steps numbers in the PWS corrolate to the FTE number listed next to each of the task numbers in the Attachment L-7 CLINs that reference FTEs. This task/step corrolation provides the flexibility for optional levels of pricing/support that can be selected throughout performance. |
| 62 | Step 1 and 2 and Task 5A and 5B | The LSO Multi-Media Requirements Table in 4.6.2.5 refers to Step 1 and Step 2. Under all sections of 4.6.2 LRC Clerk Experience there is no reference to Step 1 and 2 for the requiremenn ts. Could you explain the categories of Step 1 and 2 and how they relate to the requirements in 4.6.2. Also in looking at Attach L-7 under CLIN 2107 there are lines for "Task 5A (1 FTE)" and "Task 5B (2 FTE)." Is there connection between the term "step" and "task" used in the PWS and the L-7 PBW. | 4.6.2.5 LSO Multi-Media Requirements Table in the E-2/C-2/LSO PWS. L-7 PBW CLIN 2107 | The Step identifies the number of FTE(s). Also see answer to question 61. |
| 63 | For the table provided under 4.5.3 CR Level Completion Times the Completion dates for a Level 1 is "Urgent - 7" and "Priority-14." Does that mean an Urgent Level 1 CR is to be completed in 7 days and a Priority in 14 days? | 4.5.3 CR Level Completion Times Table in the E-2/C-2/LSO PWS | Yes. | |
| 64 | PRST Column No 5 under 7. in the TO PWS | Under "Method of Surveillance" in the PRST in 7 in the TO PWS Column No. 5 is completed with Measured Daily 100% Inspection. Who is the Daily 100% inspection performed by? Is that Contractor personnel who report it on their B001 Contractor Progress, Status and Management submission and/or Government personnel? | 7 Performance Requirements Summary Tble (PRST) in the E-2/C-2/LSO PWS | The assigned Government Contracting Officer Representative (COR) performs all inspections. |
| 65 | Attachment L-7 | Does the TEP evaluation only apply to the yellow highlighted cells? | Yes, it will also include the FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services calculation, which will be based on the highlighted areas of the final year of pricing as identified in the RFP. | |
| 66 | Attachment L-7 | Is the offerer only to make inputs in the yellow highlighted cells? Or, do the un-highlighted cells require input as well? | Yellow highlighted cells on Attchment L-7 | All pricing is required. |
| 67 | Attachment L-7 | The Pilot/NFO SME is identified as one labor category in the TEP. However, the CBA identifies a seperate Labor Category for the SME pilot and the SME NFO. Is this a blended rate? | Attachment L-7; Cell C23 of FY21 tab | No. See Amendment 0001 changes to Attament L-7, CLIN xx05 NFO requirement has been removed. |
| 68 | Attachment L-7 | Referencing errors on cells H100-H104. These cells are pulling from H89 of the following Tabs when it looks like they should pull from H86 | Attachment L-7; Cells H100-H104 of FY21 tab | Amendment 0001 updated L-7. |
| 69 | Attachment L-7 | Possible incorrect equation on cell H105 for the 6 month extention. Could you just use the last full year two cells above (H103) and divide that by 2? | Attachment L-7; Cells H105 of FY21 tab | The formula is based on the RFP explanation and will remain the same. Offeror should ensure all calculations are correct before submitting it's proposal. |
| 70 | Attachment L-7 | Referencing errors on cells H93-H94. The CNAL formula does not pick up Task 1. The CR Option Est. formula does not pull in all CR cells | Attachment L-7; Cells H93-H94 of FY21 tab | Amendment 0001 updated L-7. |
| 71 | Attachment L-7 | Referencing errors on cells H83-H84. The CNAL formula does not pick up Task 1. The CR Option Est. formula does not pull in all CR cells | Attachment L-7; Cells H83-H84 of FY22 - FY26 tab | Amendment 0001 updated L-7. |
| 72 | Attachment L-7 | Both Formulas under "Total FY 22 Funded" coulmn on all tabs refference blank cells. | Attachment L-7; Cells I93-I94 of FY21 tab & Cells I83-I84 of FY22-FY26 tab | Amendment 0001 updated L-7. |
| 73 | PWS 4.11.1.2 INTEGRATED PRODUCT TEAMS (IPT) | How many IPTs per year will be in-person? Where will the IPT meetings be held? | PWS 4.11.1.2 INTEGRATED PRODUCT TEAMS (IPT) | Historically, one every four to six weeks via phone. As needed, historically we've had one per quarter. |
| 74 | PWS 4.11.1.3 CONFERENCES AND MEETINGS | How many conferences/meetings per year will be in-person? Where will the meetings be held? | PWS 4.11.1.3 CONFERENCES AND MEETINGS | Historically, one per quarter, at site. |
| 75 | 4.2.2 WEAPONS SCHOOL SME REQUIREMENTS TABLE | What do the Steps in the FTE section of the table refer to? | 4.2.2 WEAPONS SCHOOL SME REQUIREMENTS TABLE Step 1, Step 2, Step 3 | The Step identifies the number of FTE(s). Also see answer to question 61. |
| 76 | 4.6.2.5 LSO MULTI-MEDIA REQUIREMENTS TABLE | What do the Steps in the FTE section of the table refer to? | 4.6.2.5 LSO MULTI-MEDIA REQUIREMENTS TABLE Step 1, Step 2 | The Step identifies the number of FTE(s). Also see answer to question 61. |
| 77 | CLINs xx07 and xx08 | These CLINS are for Training Delivery Systems Support. Should these CLINs reference PWS Section 4.6 TRAINING DELIVERY SYSTEMS (TDS)? | Attachment L-7, E2-C2-LSO PBW |
| E2/C2 PWS, Section 4.6 | Amendment 0001 updated CLIN/CDRL/PWS paragraph references. | ||||
| 78 | CLIN xx05 | CLIN xx05 references Weapons School E-2/C-2 Pilot/NFO (SME) Labor Hours IAW PWS para 4.2. As the CBA agreement has different base salaries for the SME Pilot and SME NFO should there be a separate CLIN for each of these positions? | Attachment L-7, E2-C2 and CBA Agreement page 10. | See answer to question 67. | |
| 79 | CLIN xx07 | Task 5A and 5B are each for (1 FTE) for FY22 through FY26. Is this correct? | Attachment L-7, E2-C2 | Amendment 0001 updated L-7. | |
| 80 | Attachment L-7, E2-C2 | Can the Government review the Excel formulas and references within Attachment L-7? There appear to be numerous formula and summation anomalies. In addition, for FY25 and FY26 the sequence of CLINs and Task numbering appear inconsistent. For example, FY26 has two CLINs for CLIN 2604; and CLIN xx08 references Task 6 for FY21 - FY24 then Task 12 for FY25 and then Task 4 for FY26. | Attachment L-7, E2-C2 | Amendment 0001 updated L-7. | |
| 81 | Insurance | RFP states "(d) Aircraft public and passenger liability: $200,000 per person $500,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, other than passenger liability; $200,000 per occurrence for property damage. Passenger bodily injury liability limits of $ $200,000 per passenger, multiplied by the number of seats or number of passengers, whichever is greater." Will there be task orders that require the contractor to fly the aircraft? Will the insurance only be required if bidding on flying task orders? | RFP Page 39, 5252.228-9501 Liability Insurance | RFP amendment 0001 removes clause. | |
| 82 | FFP/CPFF | CLIN 0002 and 1002 are CPFF CLINS wheras CLIN 0001 and 1001 are FFP CLINS. The E2/C2/LSO is all FFP. Does the Government anticapte most Task Orders to be FFP or a mix of CPFF/FFP as has been the case on recent TDPC task orders? | RFP page 2, 3 | The CLINs are in support of the historical R&M Contracts/TO which contain are both FFP, and a mix of CPFF/FFP type of CLINs. TO CLIN types will be determined at the TO level. | |
| 83 | PWS Highlighting | RFP pg states "the Offeror shall highlight, in yellow, the portions of the documents that clearly identify that the conract reference meets the pass/fail criteria in Section L, Part B, paragraph 2.1." Also it states, "the Offeror shall highlight, in yellow, the portions of the documents that clearly identify the scope, magnitude, and complexity perfromed by the offeror." Will the Government consider multiple colors to make it easier to evaluate? For instance, one color for scope, one for magnitude, etc. | Page 123 | The government will allow different collor highlights however no change wil be made to the RFP. | |
| 84 | Evaluation | The RFP does not specifically state the Technical and Price evaluations are for the E2/C2/LSO Task Order. Can the Government clarify? | page 139 | The best value trade-off which considers Past Performance, Technical, and Price will be used to select MAC awardees and the seed task order. See Section M, Part A, Paragraphs 1.0, 2.0, & 3.0. | |
| 85 | Experience and Past Performance | The contract experience states, "The Offeror shall complete Attachment L-2." The Past Performance states, "The Offeror shall complete Attachment L-3." Table G-2 indicates these are the same file. Can the Government clarify? | Page 121, 123, 117 | Amendment 0001 made changes to these forms. Offerors shall follow solicitation instructions and complete both documents for proposal submission. | |
| 86 | Price Breakout Worksheet (PBW) | Attachment L-7, PBW, states CR quantities for Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as 1, 25, 25, 5, and 1, respectively for CLINs 2109, 2209, 2309, 2409, 2509, and 2609 (regardless of duration of the period). However, Attachment L-8, E2 PWS, Section 4.4.1, CR Completion Table indicates the minimum CR number per FY for CR Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of 1, 50, 50, 10, and 1, respectively. Should the PBW reflect the minimum levels specified in Att L-8, E2 PWS? And should the CR quantities in the PBW vary based on duration of period associated with each CLIN? | Att L-7, PBW | ||
| Att L-8, E2 PWS, section 4.4.1 (p12 of 15) | Amendment 0001 updated Attachments L-7 and L-8. | ||||
| 87 | Security Clearance | PACRM Scope lists the clearance levels for VFA-122, SFWSP, SFWSL, and VFA-106 as S. Should these positions be TS? | Page 2 | Not at this time, the specific task orders will identify clearance level requirements | |
| 88 | Volume Numbers, Naming Conventions | Table G-2 lists Technical as Volume 3. Table G-3 lists Past Performance as Volume 3. Which is correct? Which volumes should be submitted in the complete advanced electronic copy? Should the naming conventions in Table G-2 be updated accordingly? | Page 117 | See answer to question 9. | |
| 89 | Incorrect formulas in the PBW | The formulas in the summaries for each year of the PBW (bottom of each page) do not line up with the correct cells. Example: On the FY21 tab, the CNAL formula in H93 shows G9 and G10 where is should be G8 and G9. | |||
| Please revise. | Att. L-7: PBW | Amendment 0001 updated L-7. | |||
| 90 | Contractor Spaces | The solicitation states "The Contractor shall be responsible for providing any spaces not furnished by the Government. Additional spaces may be external to the Government property." |
1) What is the maximum number of spaces (internal/external) that the government will provide to the Contractorn at each site?
| 2) Are these spaces void of furniture, computer equipment, phones, internet access, etc.? | PWS page 35, paragraph 4.13.1 | See answers to questions 58 and 59. | |
| 91 | Volume 2 Content | Table G-2 states that Volume 2 consists of two components: |
Vol 2 CE# [CAGE].docx Vol 2 CE-PP Info [CAGE].xlsx
Section L (pg. 121), Volume 2 instructions list the requirement to complete Attachment L-2. Section 2.1 then lists the pass/fail criteria already contained in Attachment L-2.
1) Confirm that RFP Attachment L-2 is the basis for "Vol 2 CE-PP Info [CAGE].xlsx
2) If the body of Volume 2 consists of addressing the requirements listed in RFP Attachment L-2 (which is to be submitted as a separate document), what additional information should be provided in the "Vol 2 CE# [CAGE].docx"? Solicitation pg. 117 of 146; Table G-2
| Solicitation pg. 121 of 145; Section 2.0, Volume 2 Contract Experience | Table G-2, Offeror Electronic File Naming Convention, provides a sample of required naming convention for electronic file type documents (i.e. word docs or excel doc) submitted for each Volume. Attachment L-2 will be used along with supporting documentation for contract experience evaluation. | ||
| 92 | Volume 3 and 4 Designation | Table G-2 lists the Technical Volume files under "Volume 3" and the Past Performance Volume files under "Volume 4". |
Request the Government revise the file names in G-2 to match the proposal structure listed in Table G-3:
Volume 3: Past Performance Volume 4: Technical Solicitation pg. 117 of 146; Table G-2
| Solicitation pg. 118 of 146; Table G-3 | See answer to question 9. | ||
| 93 | Volume 3 Content | Solicitation Table G-2 (starting on page 116) states that Volume 4 (really Volume 3) consists of two components: |
Vol 4 PPE# [CAGE].docx Vol 4 CE-PP Info [CAGE].xlsx (Table G-2 also contains a Note that states the CE-PP file is the same as used for Volume 2).
Section L, Volume 3 instructions then lists the requirement to complete Attachment L-3.
1) Confirm that Volume 4 (really Volume 3) should focus on RFP Attachment L-3.
2) Clarify what is meant by the following "Vol 4 CE-PP Info [CAGE].xlsx Note** Same file as Vol 2 CE-PP Info [CAGE|.docx with different name." since Volume 2 and Volume 3 seem to focus on different RFP attachments. Solicitation pg. 117 of 146; Table G-2
| Solicitation pg. 123 of 146; Section 3.0, Volume 3 Past Performance | See answer to question 9 and 91. | ||
| 94 | RFP Attachment L-3 | Attachment L-3; Row 26: the text in the first column is cut off: "Date past performance questionnaires were sent (if applicable; if not..." |
| Please clarify what response is needed if PPQs are not applicable. | RFP Attachment L-3 | Amendment 0001 updated L-3 | |
| 95 | J-4, DD254 & J-1, Scope | The DD254 lists the highest classification requirement of Secret (Box 1.a). |
The J-1 Scope document (Page 1, para. 2.1 table) lists TS (Top Secret) for the E/A-18 and EP-3 sites.
1) Will the DD254 still remain at Secret?
| 2) If yes, will TS work still be required at the E/A-18 and EP-3 sites? | J-4, DD254 (Box 1.a) | ||||
| J-1, Scope (Pg 1-2, para 2.1 table) | Draft DD254 is for the MAC lowest level. DD254 will be at task order level. | ||||
| 96 | CDRLs and PWS matches | It looks like the PWS was updated after completion of the CDRL package, and most of the references inside the CDRLs (CDRL Box #5) are incorrect. We ask that you update the incorrect PWS references in all the CDRLs. We noticed 16 of the 21 CDRL PWS references were incorrect. | Att. L-8 E2 PWS | ||
| Att. L-10 CDRL Package | See answer to question 77. | ||||
| 97 | Att. 2 PBW | ||||
| Att. L-8 PWS | CLINs 2013 and 2014 reference PWS para. 4.14. We could not locate a para. 4.14 in the PWS. Should this para. reference be deleted or updated? This is relevant to the "03" and "04" CLINs for all Fiscal Years. | Att. 2 PBW | |||
| Att. L-8 PWS | See answer to question 77. | ||||
| 98 | Att. 2 PBW | ||||
| Att. L-8 PWS | CLINs 2107 and 2018 reference PWS para. 4.7. Should this be 4.6? This is relevant to the "07" and "08" CLINs for all Fiscal Years. | Att. 2 PBW | |||
| Att. L-8 PWS | See answer to question 77. | ||||
| 99 | Att. 2 PBW | ||||
| Att. L-8 PWS | CLIN 2111 references PWS para. 4.12.5. Should this be 4.13.5? This is relevant to the "11" CLIN for all Fiscal Years. Please check PWS references for all CLINs to be sure they line up with the PWS. | Att. 2 PBW | |||
| Att. L-8 PWS | See answer to question 77. | ||||
| 100 | Att. L-8 PWS | PWS page 33, para. 4.12.1 discusses handling of Government Owned Equipment (GOE). Can we be provided with a list of GOE at each site that we will be responsible for under this Delivery Order? | Att. L-8 PWS - page 33 section 4.12.1 | See answer to question 31. | |
| 101 | Att. L-8 PWS | PWS page 19, para. 4.6.1 discusses the support requirements for the TDS. Can we get a list of the TDS at each site that will be required to be supported by the contractor on this Delivery Order? | Att. L-8, page 19, para. 4.6.1 | See answer to question 31. | |
| 102 | Att. L-8 PWS | PWS page 8, para. 4.3.2 discusses the requirements for a Government approved LMS (Meridian Global, SHARP LMS, MELD) that the contractor will be responsible for. The para. further states that the contractor shall "keep active and current all licensing and all vendor maintenance agreements for the LMS..." |
1) Which LMS/s will the contractor be responsible for?
2) What is the status of the license(s) for these LMSs? I.e. when will the licensing need to be renewed by the contractor?
3) Is a separate license required at each site? Att. L-8, page 8, para. 4.3.2 1) All LMS used at training site, however, cost for the licesencing is handled via the over and above process per Section H clause 5252.217-9507 Over and Above Work Requests.
2) LMS are Government owned for E2/C2/LSO
3) No
| 103 | Att. L-8 PWS | PWS page 35 para. 4.13.2 discusses contractor responsibilities regarding office equipment and furniture. | |
| Please provide a list of all furniture and office equipment that will be provided by the Government for contractor use (at each site). | Att. L-8, page 35, para. 4.13.2 | See answer to question 90. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .