RRL FY22 CC Presolicitation QuestionsAnswers Beta.Sam.Gov Posting 2 16Feb2021.pdf

Attachment L-1 FY22 Ready Relevant Learning Content Conversion DRAFT RFP Question Answer Form N61340-21-R-0032

Q # Subject Reference (i.e. RFP, SOW, Attachment, etc.) Specific Question Government Response 1 Principle Subcontractor Past Performance and Small

Business' capability to provide a Past Performance that meets 20% of the proposed total contract price.

Ref 1: RFP, p. 79….f) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principal subcontractor – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 20% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 20% of the proposed total contract price. Merely stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficient.

Given the challenge of many small businesses to provide a Past Performance that meets 20% of a potential $195M contract ($39M range), will the Government consider amending the Principal Subcontractor rules to:

1)Allow a threshold of 10% of awarded value for a Principal Subcontractor vice 20% 2)Allow SB’s to bundle up to three relevant PP’s to meet the dollar threshold needed as a Principal Subcontractor

Rationale: The unintended consequences of applying standards used in previous RRL waves without adjusting for the high contract value will be:

•Severely limit compe on •Limit qualified SB par cipa on on teams as their PP cannot be used in evalua on •Poten ally drive teaming to mostly large businesses, thereby increasing price

The Government recognizes this and is considering modifying the language pertaining to the percentage associated with principal subcontractors, lowering it from 20% to 15%, along with allowing more than three individual orders under a SINGLE award IDIQ to be counted as one single contract reference. The final solicitation will include any modified language.

2 Ref 2: Industry Day Slides: The RRL CC-22 Industry Day presentation on Past Performance (slides 18-20) require 20% of awarded price for a teammate to qualify as a Principal Subcontractor , with the magnitude of PP linked to specific SOW areas to meet Relevancy. While we understand the Government’s intent, 20% of a contract of this magnitude is an unreasonably high bar that very few if any past performers on RRL will meet. In response to a chat question, the Government affirmed that only a Principal Subcontractor’s PP may be used.

Ref 2: Industry Day Slides: The RRL CC-22 Industry Day presentation on Past Performance (slides 18-20) require 20% of awarded price for a teammate to qualify as a Principal Subcontractor , with the magnitude of PP linked to specific SOW areas to meet Relevancy. While we understand the Government’s intent, 20% of a contract of this magnitude is an unreasonably high bar that very few if any past performers on RRL will meet. In response to a chat question, the Government affirmed that only a Principal Subcontractor’s PP may be used.

See response to question #1.

3 Past Performance RFP Section L, Part B Specific Instructions, 1.0 Volume 1 Past Performance, 1.1 (b.), Page 67 of 83:

b) ...The offeror shall include no more than five (5) Past Performance Contract References (government or commercial) for the Government’s evaluation consisting of the offeror’s and principal subcontractor’(s) relevant past performance...

Would the U.S. Government (USG) consider evaluating past performance contracts from any proposed subcontractor, not just principal subcontractors?

No. The Government will only consider the past performance records of those subcontractors considered principal subcontractors. However, the percentage associated with being considered a principal subcontractor may be lowered in the final version of the solicitation. The Government is most interested in the past performance record of those entities performing a meaningful portion of the effort, as defined as a principal subcontractor in the final solicitation.

4 Past Performance RFP Section L, Part B Specific Instructions, 1.0 Volume 1 Past Performance, 1.1 (b.), Page 67 of 83:

b) ...A “principal subcontractor” for purposes of the past performance evaluation factor is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 20% of the total contract price.

To meet magnitude relevancy requirements, should principal subcontractors submit individual past performance references that equal 20% (around $39M) of the USG's estimated contract value of $196M?

The draft solicitation gives the impression that the USG wishes to see individual principal subcontractor past performance references that equal nearly $40M each. Is this the case?

It is assumed to be in an offeror's best interest for an offeror to submit past performance contract references for itself and its proposed subcontractors which best represent the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities of the work that it proposes to perform in the instant effort. As stated in Section M, "The government will compare the prime or principal subcontractor’s total relevant dollar amount of the past performance contract reference to the amount it is proposing to complete for the instant solicitation requirement."

5 Past Performance RFP Section L, Part B Specific Instructions, 1.0 Volume 1 Past Performance, 1.2 (b.), Page 70 of 83:

b) Total Dollar Amount of Past Performance Contract Reference: Compare the total dollar amount of the past performance contract reference to the proposed amount the prime or principal subcontractor is proposing to complete for the instant solicitation requirement. The amount the prime or principal subcontractor is proposing to complete for the instant solicitation requirement shall match the amount identified in Section L. Part B Volume 2 (Price) 2.1(a)(i) Offeror Summary Table.

Does the USG intend to compare past performance contract values to its estimated value of $196M?

Would the USG consider comparing the total dollar amount of the past performance contracts to the total proposed dollar amount of Delivery Order 001, rather than to the Total Evaluated Price?

As stated in Section M of the draft solicitation, the government will compare the prime or principal subcontractor’s total relevant dollar amount of the past performance contract reference to the amount it is proposing to complete for the instant solicitation requirement.

No, the Government will not compare the past performance contract reference to the proposed value of the first Delivery Order.

6 Past Performance SOW pg. 70 Section L 1.1.m 1. Can contractors with only Multiple Award Contracts (MACs) submit multiple Delivery Orders (DO) /Task Orders (TO) as long as they are relevant and within the 5 year periodicity? For companies, such as our own, we typically have a minimum of three DO/TOs awarded that support much of the same type of IMI design/revision/update/conversion as is required in support of the pre-SOW and it would provide you a better scope of our full capabilities and the full dollar amounts we are awarded in support of these efforts.

No. At this time, the Government intends on considering each awarded DO or TO under a MAC as separate contract references.

7 Past Performance SOW pg. 70 Section L 1.1.m 1. If a company is currently performing IMI design/revision/update/conversion work through purchase orders (PO) as a sub-contractor, can the POs be used as past performance?

Yes. An offeror or principal subcontractor may provide its past performance references for efforts performed as a subcontractor. Be sure to include the appropriate supporting documentation as defined in the solicitation so the Government can understand the work breakout between what was performed by prime and the work performed by the subcontractor. However, offerors (or principal subcontractors) cannot group several POs together (where they performed as the subcontractor) as one contract reference submission.

8 Sailor 2025 RRL RFP Will the final RFP include a requirement to offer adaptive training? If not, will the capability to provide or deliver adaptive training be addressed in the evaluation criteria?

No, the final RFP will not include a requirement to offer adaptive training per se; however, offerors are required to design and develop training products using xAPI statements, which build capability to provide or deliver adaptive training. Since there is no technical evaluation factor, offerors should determine their unit pricing according to their planned technical approach.

9 Sailor 2025 RRL RFP How will RRL incorporate new and emerging training capabilities of benefit to government end-users into this contract vehicle/program over the course of the POP?

The government expects offerors to design and develop training products that meet both current and emerging Navy training IT infrastructure requirements. Offerors should determine their unit pricing according to their planned technical approach.

10 Existing IMI or Source Files SOW Section 1.7.f What estimated percentage of existing courseware will be provided as GFI at DO award? There is not a pre-established estimated percentage of existing courseware that will be provided at DO Award. The contractor will receive only examples of existing online courseware for each rating, but not a significant portion of the courseware.

Attachment L-1 FY22 Ready Relevant Learning Content Conversion DRAFT RFP Question Answer Form N61340-21-R-0032

11 Existing IMI or Source Files SOW Section 1.7.f For courseware that is not provided as GFI at DO award (to discourage the contractor from simply copying and pasting content into a different format) what materials does the government intend to provide as GFI? Will IMDPs, storyboards, or other documentation be provided?

The Government intends on providing the lesson plans, training course control documents, trainee guides, knowledge capture reports, Functional Requirements Documents (FRDs), technical publications and other documents for each rating. The contractor should not anticipate receiving IMDPs or storyboards at DO award.

12 Personnel Security Clearance Level SOW Section 1.1 and 3.2 The table in Section 1.1 states that training will be at the unclassified level while Section 3.2 states that the Contractor shall meet the personnel security clearance requirements for handling classified data and accessing classified spaces (up to SECRET-NOFORN). What is the required Personnel Security Clearance Level for contractors?

Contractors shall meet Personnel Security Clearance Level for handling classified data and accessing classified spaces (up to SECRET-NOFORN). Most training developed will be at the UNCLAS level, some of the courses may be classified up to SECRET-NOFORN, depending on the rating. The language will be clarified in the final solicitation.

13 Principal Subcontractor Past Performance RFP Section L The RFP does not seem to require past performance information from subcontractors, including principal subcontractors. It does permit it, but can the government confirm if it is required?

The draft solicitation states that offerors can provide past performance information for its principal subcontractors, as defined as performing at least XX% of the instant effort. (The final percentage will be updated in the final solicitation.) If a principal subcontractor desires to provide its supporting documentation directly to the Government Contract Specialist, versus through its prime contractor (i.e. the offeror), it may do so as long it is received by the Government in a timely manner, as defined by the proposal due date set forth in Section L of the instant solicitation. Offerors are not required to provide past performance contract references for its principal subcontractors if it chooses not to. See the final solicitation for the quantity of references allowed.

14 Principal Subcontractor Past Performance RFP Section L Related, if principal subcontractor past performance is not required and a prime only submits prime past performance, will the government's evaluation compare the prime's past performance against the entire requirements regardless of the number of subcontractors or workshare associated with subcontractors?

If an offeror only submits past performance contract references for itself (as the prime contractor) and no past performance contract references for its proposed principal subcontractors, the magnitude will still be compared to the total relevant dollar amount of the past performance contract reference to the amount it is proposing to complete for the instant solicitation.

15 FRD SOW page 26, section 1.7 1.7 Government-Furnished Information (GFI) The SOW states, "Functional Requirements Document (FRD), corresponding SOW Appendix A, and corresponding supporting data workbook for each rating, at DO award."

Will the FRD or a Draft FRD be provided for the RFP?

The Supporting Data Workbook (Appendix A) for all rating requirements in the solicitation will be provided at the time of final RFP with the estimated requirements for the overall effort. The FRD and Supporting data workbook related to each rating/path will be provided at DO award.

16 FRD Atch+(L-11)+-+Responses+to+Industry+Questions+-+20200714 (FY21) In FY21, SOJT hours were included in associated IMI Development Hours. The Responses to Industry Day Questions stated, "SOJT is anticipated to be created during courseware development to align with the content as applicable.

Offerors are instructed to review the Attachment (1) Appendix (A) layout to identify when/where SOJT is required and consider that within your unit pricing."

Is the format for SOJT the same for FY22?

If so, will an FRD or other documentation be provided to assist with identifying where SOJT may be applicable?

Yes, the format for SOJT is the same for FY22 as it is for FY21.

Yes, the Supporting Data Workbook (a.k.a. Appendix A) from the FRD will be provided with each delivery order to assist with identifying where SOJT may be applicable.

17 FRD SOW page 26, section 1.7 Government-Furnished Information (GFI) Will there be existing Performance Support (PS) for some of the content?

If so, will an FRD or other documentation be provided to assist with identifying what objectives have existing PS?

There is existing performance support for some of the content, however, the government does not anticipate providing Performance Support as GFI at the time of RFP release.

The Supporting Data Workbook (a.k.a. Appendix A) from the FRD will be provided with each delivery order to assist with identifying where performance support may be applicable.

18 Actual Equipment Atch+(L-11)+-+Responses+to+Industry+Questions+-+20200714 (FY21) In FY21, the Responses to Industry Day Questions states, "Operational equipment is not part of this contract. Within the IMI Rollup Tab, all actual equipment with instructor = IMI 2 hours. All new ICW4 with hardware = IMI 2. Existing ICW4 with hardware = IMI 1."

Will this hold true for FY22 as well?

Yes, this holds true for FY22 as well.

19 Single award IDIQ sum of all delivery orders DRFP page 70, Sec on L.B.1.1.nDRFP page 80, Sec on M.B.1.1(C) The DRFP states "If an offeror proposes an entire single-award indefinite delivery contract as a past performance contract reference, however, the offeror must provide the past performance information below for up to three (3) of the most relevant DOs/TOs issued under that single-award indefinite delivery contract, and those three orders will count as one past performance contract reference. " The magnitude requirement in the DRFP on page 80 states, “The government will compare the prime or principal subcontractor’s total relevant dollar amount of the past performance contract reference to the amount it is proposing to compete for the instant solicitation requirement (the instant solicitation dollar amount shall match the amount identified in Section L.B.2.1(a)(i) Offeror Summary Table.”

With the significant increase in the magnitude of FY 22 relative to the earlier waves of Sailor 2025 Ready Relevant Learning Content Conversion, we believe for offerors to thoroughly demonstrate their scope, complexity, and magnitude (as required by the RFP) they should be afforded the opportunity to utilize all relevant scope across an entire Single Award IDIQ. We request the Government allow Industry to submit all relevant DOs/TOs from a single award IDIQ with FFP CLINS similar to the structure proposed in the DRFP? Without this inclusion we feel very few companies would be able to meet the stringent past performance requirements or provide a true picture of their capabilities in size, scope, complexity, and magnitude.

See response to question #1.

20 Non-NEL SCORM Compliant? SOW 3.5.2.11 Is there a mechanism in place for testing non-NeL SCORM compliance in place? NAWCTSD uses an XML editor to review that the course metadata and imsmanifest xml files conform with the NeL guidance files for SCORM. The XML editor will also be used to validate the imsmanifest xml file. That is the extent of SCORM compliance testing for content that will be hosted in Non-NeL Training Environments.

Attachment L-1 FY22 Ready Relevant Learning Content Conversion DRAFT RFP Question Answer Form N61340-21-R-0032

21 Key Personnel SOW Throughout the Draft, "personnel" are referenced. Will the government provide a listing of Key Personnel besides the referenced Subject Matter Experts (SME), or is that up to the bidding team?

There are no positions designated as Key Personnel. It is up to the contractor to utilize the correct personnel for the effort.

22 LMS SOW Is there currently a Learning Management System (LMS) or Learning Platform being used by the Navy for RRL related training? If so, which?

NETC is currently planning that Moodle will be the LMS around June/July 2021.

23 Soliciation Timeline RFP What will be the timeframe for the Request for Proposal (RFP) and solicitation response? Offerors will have approximately 30 days from the solicitation date to submit their proposals.

24 Soliciation Timeline RFP Will the full RFP be released far enough in advance so bidders may respond with comments, questions and suggestions?

Offerors will be able to submit questions in response to the final solicitation once it is posted. The proposal instructions provide a question "due date" so the Government may attempt to answer and post responses prior to the proposal due date without delaying the schedule.

25 Place of Performance SOW Being that the "A" Schools, "C" Schools and Training Centers are spread throughout San Diego, Great Lakes, Virginia Beach and Dahlgren, where is the expected place of performance? Will the contractor be expected to have an office within a certain distance from the place of performance?

It is the offeror's decision as to where it will support the effort from.

26 Learning Tools SOW Is the Government open to leveraging commercial learning experience platform solutions that utilize the Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) standard? Many LMS' support the LTI standard to enable learners (especially in academia and higher education) to seamlessly and securely launch into state-of-the-art learning experience platforms that provide more effective and efficient approaches to building retention and minimizing skill decay.

The Government is open to technologies that fit within the scope of the SOW.

27 Curriculum Sustainment SOW After the content is implemented, what is the strategy for sustainment and updates? As of the current time, curriculum sustainment will be handled by the cognizant program office and training agency rather than by the RRL TSPM.

Per the FY22CC Draft RFP, Section M, Part B, 1.1.(c) the Govt intends to evaluate each of the 5 past performance citations for relevancy on an individual basis and not as an aggregate of the 5. Furthermore, the Govt intends to evaluate ‘Magnitude’ by comparing the prime or subcontractor’s total relevant dollar amount of the past performance contract reference to the amount it is proposing to complete for the instant solicitation requirement.

Would the Government also consider evaluating ‘Magnitude’ of past performance citations based on an ‘annualized average contract value’ rather than just total relevant dollar amount ?

The Government may take that into consideration; however, that causes difficulty because different efforts concentrate resources/execution in the beginning of an effort, whereas for others, the majority of the work happens at the end. The relevant dollar value helps the Government to consider all relevant magnitude fairly across all contract references.

29 Would the Govt reconsider evaluating past performances in an aggregate fashion if and only if it can be demonstrated/proven that such past performances to be considered aggregately were executed simultaneously for some or all of the duration of each of the PP citations period of performance for a single entity? Only simultaneous execution period should be considered in an aggregate fashion. And only programs of relevant complexity and scope should be considered in an aggregate fashion.

Typically, all references for a single offeror don't line up under exact timelines and it could cause a difficult evaluation to determine how performance that takes place outside this "aggregate window" is evaluated.