2.10 001 RFQAmend SF 30.pdf

R

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

List of Contract Documents, Exhibits, or Attachments

The following attachments were added:

RFP Questions and Responses

N6883626RS0030001

Addendum to 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors - Commercial Products and Commercial Services

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

ADDENDUM 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors--Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

The following provisions are incorporated into 52.212-1 as an addendum to this solicitation:

The Government intends to post solicitation N6883626RS003 and all amendments to the Government Point of Entry via SAM.gov.

QUESTIONS

All questions and clarifications regarding this solicitation shall be submitted via email to Yaynel Yambo at yaynel.c.yambo.civ@us.

and Robert Edwards at robert.s.edwards42 ; subject line to read: Questions/Clarifications for navy.mil .civ@us.navy.mil

N6883626RS003. Each question or comment should reference the applicable document, page number, and paragraph number. Offerors shall not include any proprietary information in a question because the Government will provide the question and answer to all potential offerors. All questions must be submitted no later than 5 business days after solicitation posting. No phone calls will be accepted.

The Government reserves the right not to respond to any questions received concerning this solicitation after the questions receipt date above. Accordingly, offerors are encouraged to carefully review all solicitation requirements and submit questions to the Government early in the proposal timeframe.

HISTORICAL DATA

Incumbent: Gemini Tech, Contract number N6883620C0002

Historical Resources: The below information illustrates the Historical Labor Mix utilized on past contracts and is provided as a tool to assist in establishing resources. It is the Contractor's sole responsibility to determine appropriate resources needed to accomplish work.

Position Location Hours (per year)

Instructors Gulfport, MS 45,760

(a) North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and small business size standard. This procurement is being solicited in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 19.8 - Contracting with the Small Business Administration (The 8(a) Program). See block 10 of the SF1449 for the type of Small Business Set Aside, the North American Industry Classification Code System (NAICS), and the Small Business Size Standard.

(b) Submission of offers. Offerors shall submit offers in PDF format by volume as described below. Each volume shall contain a cover sheet with #1 and #3 below.

The offer shall contain the following information:

1. Solicitation number as indicated on page one (1) of the SF1449, Block 5 and the Title of the procurement.

2. Time specified for receipt of offers: Offerors shall ensure that offers are received by the Government point of contact no later than the date and time indicated on page one (1) of the SF1449, Block 8.

3. Name, title, e-mail address, and telephone number of the individual(s) with authority to bind the company.

Offeror's POC information for contractual questions/discussions. CAGE Code, Unique Entity ID (UEI), Business Size.

4. Technical Description: See volumes below.

N6883626RS0030001

mailto:yaynel.c.yambo.civ@us.navy.mil mailto:yaynel.c.yambo.civ@us.navy.mil mailto:juan.m.marshall.civ@us.navy.mil

5. Terms of any express warranty: Not modified.

6. Provide Price and any discount terms as described in Price Volume.

7. "Remit to" address: The Offeror shall submit all volumes of its offer electronically via the Government Point of Entry via email to Ms. Yaynel Yambo at yaynel.c.yambo.civ@us.navy.mil and at Robert Edwards robert.s.edwards42.civ@us.navy.mil .

8. Representations and certifications: See Contractor Responsibility Volume.

9. Acknowledgment solicitation amendments: All amendments issued with signatures to acknowledge terms and conditions of amendments. Acknowledgement of all amendments issued to the solicitation shall be signed, and dated.

10. Past performance information , when included as an evaluation factor, to include recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar items and other references (including contract numbers, points of contact with telephone numbers and other relevant information ).

11. Offers that fail to furnish required representations or information, or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration.

Offers shall be submitted in volumes 12 point size font, in Times New Roman, as follows:

Volume I - Price There is no page limit for Volume I submission

Offerors shall submit the following:

1. Standard Form (SF) 1449. Blocks 17a, 30a, 30b, and 30c of page one (1) of SF 1449 shall be completed and signed to show the Offeror has read and agrees to comply with all terms, conditions, and instructions provided in the solicitation document.

2. Price Offer. The Offeror shall fill in the price schedule and include unit prices. The unit price should be evenly incremented so that it adds up to the total price without rounding past the second digit right of the decimal point for total prices for all contract line items (CLINs). Pricing shall be structured in accordance with the contract line items identified in the SF 1449 bid schedule. Do not price TRAVEL CLINS 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002 and 5002.

Volume II - Technical Approach Volume II is limited to 25 pages

Offerors shall demonstrate an understanding of the solicitation requirements by providing the following:

1. Staffing Approach.

2. Personnel Qualifications.

Each technical approach element must provide sufficient evidence that the Offeror has a clear understanding of the solicitation and are able to meet the minimum requirements and qualifications set forth in the PWS.

Volume III - Past Performance Volume III is limited to 15 pages

The Offeror shall provide a maximum of three (3) relevant past performance references of similar magnitude, scope and complexity to services set forth in the PWS and completed within the past three (3) years prior to the solicitation release date (See Block 8 of the SF1449). If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available which meets the requirements identified above, it shall be submitted with the offer.

If a CPARS is not available, then the Offeror shall submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 1) for each reference submitted. At the PPQ customer/client's request, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact to Ms.

Robert Edwards by close of Yaynel Yambo at yaynel.c.yambo.civ@us.navy.mil and at robert.s.edwards.civ@us.navy.mil solicitation. Offers shall not incorporate by reference PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. However, this does not preclude the Government from utilizing previously submitted PPQ information in the past performance evaluation. The Offeror is responsible for providing the PPQ to their references for completion and for ensuring that the PPQ is received by the contracting office by the solicitation closing date and time.

N6883626RS0030001

mailto:yaynel.c.yambo.civ@us.navy.mil mailto:juan.m.marshall.civ@us.navy.mil mailto:juan.m.marshall.civ@us.navy.mil mailto:Ms.YaynelYamboatyaynel.c.yambo.civ@us.navy.milandMr.Juan mailto:Ms.YaynelYamboatyaynel.c.yambo.civ@us.navy.milandMr.Juan mailto:Marshallatjuan.m.marshall.civ@us.navy.mil

Offerors may submit a combination of delivery orders (DOs), task orders (TOs), technical direction letters (TDLs), and/or technical area tasks (TATs) placed under an Indefinite Delivery type contract or BPA as one of the examples of past performance, however, no more than three (3) total will be reviewed. Each individual example in the combination must meet the requirements listed above.

If offerors submit past performance examples where they served as a subcontractor, they must clearly identify their role as a subcontractor. Additionally, the offeror shall demonstrate that the scope, complexity, and magnitude of the subcontractor's work on the referenced past performance are substantially similar to the requirements outlined in the solicitation.

If no recent (within the past three years prior to solicitation release date), relevant past performance is available the Offeror shall affirmatively state that it possesses no recent or relevant past performance.

Note: An incomplete PPQ may not be evaluated.

Volume IV Contractor Responsibility There is no page limit for Volume IV submission

1. Representation and Certifications. Offerors shall either complete the following provisions contained in the solicitation OR provide a statement that certification in System for Award Management (SAM) is current, complete, and accurate as of the date of the Offeror's signature, or list any changes as they relate to the following provisions:

FAR 52.212-3

FAR 52.209-5

FAR 52.209-7

FAR 52.209-11

DFARS 252.204-7016

2. No Exception. Include a statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation. Offers that fail to furnish required representations or information, or reject the terms and conditions of the solicitation may be excluded from consideration.

3. Limitations on Subcontracting. Offeror shall affirmatively state that they intend to meet the requirements outlined in FAR 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting (Sep 2021) (Deviation 2021-O0008).

4. Financial Letter. A letter from the Offeror's financial institution that indicates that the Offeror has adequate financial resources to perform the contract;

5. Organization. A description of the Offeror organization, accounting, operational controls and lines of authority to make decisions on behalf of the company to meet the requirement.

Note: After the solicitation closing date, the Contracting Officer may require an Offeror to promptly submit additional information to demonstrate the Offeror is responsible.

AWARD NOTICE TO SUCCESSFUL OFFEROR

A written notice of award or acceptance of an Offer will be emailed to the successful Offeror. Before the Offeror's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Failure to submit all required documentation may render an offer non-responsive and the offer may not be considered for award.

(a) Period for acceptance of offers. Offeror agrees to hold their prices firm for a period of 120 calendar days from date specified for receipt of offers, unless another time period is specified in an amendment to the solicitation.

(b) Product samples. Not modified.

(c) Multiple offers. The Government IS NOT accepting multiple offers presenting alternative terms and conditions, including alternative line items, or alternative commercial products or commercial services for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation.

(d) Late submissions, modifications, revisions, and withdrawals of offers. Not modified.

(e) Contract award. Not modified.

(f) Multiple awards. The Government WILL NOT accept any item or group of items of an offer. The Government WILL NOT accept quantities less than those specified in the schedule. The Government WILL NOT make an award on any item for a quantity less than the quantity offered, at the unit prices offered.

(g) Availability of requirements documents cited in the solicitation. Not modified.

(h) Unique entity identifier. Not modified.

(i) Reserved.

(j) Debriefing. Not modified.

ATTACHMENTS: The following documents are provided as attachments and are considered part of this solicitation:

Attachment 1: Past Performance Questionnaire

Addendum to Evaluation - Commercial Product and Commercial Services

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available which meets the requirements identified above, it shall be submitted with the offer. If a CPARS is not available, then the offeror shall submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 1) for each reference submitted. PPQs shall be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Yaynel Yambo and Robert Edwards, at Yaynel.c.yambo.civ@us.navy.mil and robert.s.edwards42.civ@us.navy.mil by close of solicitation. PPQs shall be signed by the reference. PPQs signed by the offeror will not be considered As prescribed in 12.301(c), the Contracting Officer may insert a provision substantially as follows:

EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES (NOV 2021)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

1. Technical Approach

2. Past Performance

3. Price

Technical capability will be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. When combined, technical and past performance are approximately equal to price. If the offeror is found to be technically unacceptable, the offeror will be removed from further award consideration. For those offerors rated Acceptable in Technical Approach, a tradeoff will be conducted considering past performance and price with past performance considered approximately equal in importance to price.

FACTOR ONE - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Subfactor 1: Staffing Approach: The offeror shall submit a staffing plan that demonstrates adequate personnel with the necessary skill sets and qualifications to ensure the requirements of PWS Paragraphs 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. Proposals that include fewer than 45,760 hours of support would cause mission degradation and will render the proposal Unacceptable. Refer to PWS Paragraph 3.3 and Addendums I, II, and III for further details.

The offeror shall submit an organization chart which identifies all on-site management and instructor positions, the number of personnel assigned and their qualifications for each instructor area. Names of specific individuals are not desired and shall not be provided. If names are submitted, they will be removed prior to evaluation.

Subfactor 2: : Key Personnel: The offeror shall submit resumes for key personnel that Personnel Qualifications (Training Master Scheduler) meet the minimum qualifications of the solicitation and PWS section 4.1.

Evaluation Process:

Initially, the government evaluation team shall evaluate the technical capability proposals at the sub level assigning ratings of Acceptable factor /Unacceptable as defined below in table 1. An overall factor-level rating will then be assigned; any technical capability proposal which is Unacceptable on any of the sub-factors, will be considered Unacceptable overall.

Acceptable (A) Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following sub factors:

Subfactor 1: Staffing Approach: To be rated "Acceptable", the offeror's staffing approach must demonstrate adequate staffing, sufficient and qualifications to support the requirements identified in the PWS Paragraphs 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3. The evaluation will focus on ALL of the following elements:

1) Offeror's plan which describes proposed manning levels and skills/ qualifications mix necessary to ensure all required personnel resources are provided to successfully accomplish all performance requirements on the start date of the performance period;

2) An organizational chart which identifies all on-site management and instructor positions and the number of personnel assigned to each instructor course.

Subfactor 2: Personnel Qualifications : Key Personnel: To be acceptable, the offeror must provide resumes for key personnel that clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and PWS section 4.1.

FACTOR TWO - PAST PERFORMANCE

The offeror shall provide a maximum of three (3) past performance references of similar magnitude scope, and complexity to services set forth in the PWS and completed within the past three (3) years prior to the solicitation release date (See Block 8 of the SF1449).

If a completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation is available which meets the requirements identified above, it shall be submitted with the offer. If a CPARS is not available, then the offeror shall submit a completed Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) (Attachment 1) for each reference submitted. PPQs shall be submitted directly to the Government's point of contact, Yaynel Yambo and Robert Edwards, at Yaynel.c.yambo.civ@us.navy.mil and robert.s.edwards42.civ@us.navy.mil by close of solicitation. PPQs shall be signed by the reference. PPQs signed by the offeror will not be considered.

Offerors shall not incorporate by reference PPQs submitted under other solicitations. However, the Government reserves the right to consider other sources of past performance information at its discretion, including CPARS, previously submitted PPQs, and information obtained from program offices. The offeror is responsible for providing the PPQ to their references for completion and for ensuring that the PPQ is signed by the reference and received by the contracting office by the solicitation closing date and time.

If no recent (within the past three years prior to solicitation release date), relevant past performance is available the offeror shall affirmatively state that it possesses no recent or relevant past performance.

Past performance as the prime offeror will be given greater weight in the evaluation than subcontractor performance. If subcontractor performance is submitted, the offeror must clearly identify as it relates to scope, magnitude and complexity:

1. The scope and percentage of work p erformed by the offeror as a subcontractor,

2. The dollar value attributable to the work performed by the offeror as a subcontractor, and

3. The specific functions or tasks completed by the offeror as a subcontractor.

Note: An incomplete PPQ, or a PPQ not signed by the reference, will not be considered in the evaluation. No more than three (3) offeror submitted past performance references (CPARS/PPQ) will be evaluated.

A copy of the blank Past Performance Questionnaire to be used for requesting client references is included in Attachment 1.

Evaluation Process:

Factor 2 will be assigned a Performance Confidence Assessment rating from Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table based on the offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, rating for quality of services of past performance. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror's ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the quality of the offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant past performance.

The first part of the evaluation is to evaluate the recency of the offeror's past performance. Past performance will be considered recent if (i) the work has been performed within three (3) years before the solicitation release date.

(ii) The second part of the evaluation is to evaluate the relevance of the offeror's past performance. To considered relevant, the offeror's past be performance information will be assessed on the similarity of the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the offeror's prior or ongoing contracts to this solicitation's performance For purposes of the past performance relevancy evaluation, scope, magnitude, and complexity are requirements.

defined as follows:

Scope - Past performance will be considered relevant if the effort involved providing Instructor Support services to meet training requirements for basic and/or advanced construction training provided to military personnel in the Army, Air Force, or Navy in construction occupational fields.

Magnitude - Past performance will be considered relevant if the effort involved managing instructor support services and related administrative functions with an annual contract value of $2 million or greater. (Offerors shall clearly identify the annualized dollar value of the referenced effort.)

Complexity - Past performance will be considered relevant if the effort involved providing instructor support services in the functional areas of performance required by this solicitation, to include delivery of classroom and/or field training to DoD military members in basic and advanced construction training programs.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Table

Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the scope and magnitude of effort same and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The next aspect of past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror's past performance. The past performance evaluation conducted does not establish, create, or change the Offeror's existing record and history on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating is not performed; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

A review of all past performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information will be incorporated into an overall performance confidence assessment rating. After each reference is given a relevancy rating, quality will be addressed by examining the related CPARS /PPQ, but not rated. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and rating for quality of services of performance and will be rated as stated below:

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings Table

1.

2.

3.

4.

Rating

Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government no expectation that the has offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

If an offeror has no recent/relevant past performance record, or if an offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Factor 2. In this case, the offeror's past performance will be assigned a rating of 'Neutral Confidence.' Past performance ratings of "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" will be considered more favorably than a "Neutral Confidence" rating in conducting the trade-off.

FACTOR THREE - PRICE

An offeror's proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Schedule by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to confirm the extended amount for each. Offerors shall ensure each CLIN is priced.

The Government will evaluate price to determine the following:

Completeness - The proposal includes prices for all CLINs, and option periods. Failure to price a CLIN may render the proposal unacceptable. Do not price travel CLIN.

Accuracy and Mathematical Correctness - Proposed unit prices and extended amounts will be reviewed for consistency, accuracy, and freedom from calculation errors. In the event of a discrepancy, unit prices will govern.

Reasonableness - Prices will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine whether they are fair and reasonable. The Government may use one or more of the price analysis techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), including but not limited to: comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, comparison with historical prices paid, comparison with independent Government estimates (IGEs), and comparison with published price lists.

Total Evaluated Price - The Government will calculate the total evaluated price by summing all CLINs, inclusive of all option periods, to determine the basis for evaluation and award.

Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating but will be considered in the overall best value tradeoff in accordance with FAR 15.101-1.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

(End)

Question Answer

1. Is Incumbent still eligible for the recompete? Not Provided

2. Will the Government consider past performance delivering

Department of Labor Job Corps construction training as relevant where the effort involved providing instructor-led classroom and hands-on field instruction in core construction disciplines directly aligned with Seabee occupational skills (e.g., carpentry, electrical, welding, masonry, HVAC, and equipment operations), delivery of OSHA-certified and industry-recognized curricula, and management of instructor support services in a structured, surge-ready, high-tempo training environment designed to prepare participants for deployment-ready, work-world construction conditions?

Specifically, can the Government confirm whether relevancy may be established based on equivalency of training scope and instructional complexity consistent with NCTC’s mission, although trainees were civilian participants rather than DoD military members?

Past Performance will be considered relevant as per the solicitation scope and complexity as outlined.

3. The Government provides Hours per year for this effort at 45,760 hours per year. This equals 2,080 hours per year, per

FTE.

This appears to include hours for unproductive time for PTO, Holiday and Sick Leave. The productive hours per year would equal 1,856 hours per FTE (40,832 total annual productive hours).

Furthermore, PWS Section 3.5 page 9 states “The total annual hours, inclusive of both instructors and the Master Scheduler, shall be no less than 45,760 hours. Proposals offering fewer than 45,760 hours would cause mission degradation and will be deemed unacceptable”.

Please confirm that this 45,760 annual hours being used by the Government in the evaluation includes hours for PTO, Holidays, and Sick leave.

45,760 includes paid leave, holidays, and all work duties.

4. Section 8.1.0, pages 13 and 14 provides a two-week phase in period, however there is no CLIN covering phase in activities.

Will the Government provide a separate CLIN so bidders may propose cost during the phase in period?

As per PWS 8.1.0 “Phase in costs shall be incorporated into CLIN 0001.”

5. Section 24.0 page 17 states “The Heavy Equipment Mechanics will be provided hand/power tools and equipment used in the mechanical trade, including but not limited to torque wrenches, brake tools, gear pullers, compression testers, vacuum analyzers, electric circuit testers, tachometers, brake lathes, diagnostics equipment, etc.”

Since the only two labor categories referenced in this solicitation are Technical Instructors and the Master

This equipment is furnished for any Advanced Construction Mechanic Instructors required.

Scheduler, will the government clarify if these tools will be provide to Technical Instructors instead of Heavy Equipment Mechanics or is this requirement is not applicable to this solicitation?

6. Do copies of CPARS count against the 15-page limit of Volume III - Past Performance?

Yes, CPARS count towards page limit.

7. The PWS states, "The number of specific courses, course duration, start dates, curriculum, class size, and the number of instructors required to adequately meet NCTC Gulfport mission is determined by the coordinated effort of NCTC Gulfport, CSFE, and NETC and approved by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO)." Are there any other supporting entities that will affect operations?

No.

8. The PWS states, "The Contractor’s sole responsibility is to provide the number of fully qualified instructors approved to meet the training requirements and to ensure the training requirements are fully met as prescribed by NCTC Gulfport."

Who is actually developing the training material?

Training material is developed by the Center for Seabees and Facilities Engineering (CSFE).

9. What types of training environments will instructors operate in?

This is addressed in section 3.02 and 4.1.

10. What happens if an instructor needs to be replaced? Refer to PWS 3.0.2 in the RFP that states replacement instructions.

11. What courses are included in this requirement? The requirement covers multiple construction-related courses listed in the PWS, including: Interservice Builder Apprentice Training (BU-A Navy)Steelworker Class A (various blocks)Construction Project Estimating, Planning, and Execution Concrete and Masonry Welding, Sheetmetal Work, Electrical Theory Heavy Construction I & II Automotive and Hydraulic Systems(Full list provided in PWS Section 3.0.1 / 3.2)

Courses are listed in Addendum I and II.

12. The PWS states, "In the event of a conflict between documents referenced herein and the contents of this PWS, the contents of this PWS take precedence." Which documents outside of the PWS are being referred to here?

Only documents referenced in the PWS and CANTRAC Training Course Control Documents

13. Reaching out to see if the Agency has an incumbent for this contract? If so, can the Agency provide the contract number?

Refer to the RFP page 30 of 53.

14. Secondly, how many instructors are forecasted for the base year of this contract? And as such, does the Agency have any instructors contact information that it currently has and is willing to share to Offerors?

Refer to addendums listed in the

RFP.

Instructor contact information will not be shared.

15. Reference: Evaluation Section (Pages 34-37) The solicitation states, "When combined, technical and past performance are significantly more important than price" and that "For those offerors rated Acceptable in Technical Approach, a tradeoff will be conducted considering past performance and price with past performance considered more important than price."

Due to funding changes in FY2026, evaluation has revised to “When combined, technical and past performance are approximately equal to price”

However, the Technical Approach evaluation criteria appear to function primarily as a pass/fail gate (Acceptable/Unacceptable), with limited differentiation among technically acceptable offerors. Given that Technical Approach subfactors evaluate only whether proposals "clearly meet the minimum requirements" with no gradations above "Acceptable" and Past Performance uses a five-tier confidence assessment rating system (Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence), as well as the stated “best value” evaluation approach (“Price will not be assigned an adjectival rating but will be considered in the overall best value tradeoff…”) emphasizes past performance over price once technical acceptability is established.

Question: Will the Government consider revising the evaluation methodology to clarify that among technically acceptable offerors, Past Performance confidence ratings will be the primary discriminator for award, with only minimal consideration of price differences unless Past Performance ratings are equal? The current language "when combined, technical and past performance are significantly more important than price" does not clearly establish the relative importance between Price and Technical Approach / Past Performance.

This clarification would also ensure the evaluation approach properly reflects the critical importance of demonstrated performance capability for instructor support services where quality of instruction directly impacts military training readiness.

Rationale: The current structure may not adequately emphasize the government's apparent priority on proven past performance, given that all technically acceptable offers would proceed to tradeoff with Past Performance vs. Price, potentially allowing price to become a primary discriminator despite the stated importance of performance history.

16. Productive work hours per FTE (annual basis) Reference: PWS §3.5 (PDF p.62); PWS §5.0 (PDF p.65) Excerpt(s):

“The total annual hours, inclusive of both instructors and the Master Scheduler, shall be no less than 45,760 hours.” (PDF p.62)

“Core hours are Monday – Friday 0700 – 1600, excluding weekends and legal public holidays.” (PDF p.65)

Question:

Please confirm whether the Government’s 45,760-

45,760 includes paid leave, holidays, and all work duties.

hour requirement (PWS §3.5) is evaluated as (a) paid/compensated hours (including paid leave/holiday time), or (b) productive/actual worked hours. If the requirement is productive hours, please confirm the Government’s assumed annual productive hours per FTE (e.g., 1,720 / 1,800 / 1,880 / 2,080).

17. Non-productive time treatment (leave/holidays/training/admin) Reference: PWS §5.0 (PDF p.65); PWS §5.1(c) (PDF p.66) Excerpt(s):

“…excluding weekends and legal public holidays.”

(PDF p.65)

“…no form of holiday or other premium compensation will be reimbursed… unless stipulated otherwise.” (PDF p.66)

Question:

For staffing and hour compliance, are Offerors expected to include non-productive time (e.g., paid leave, holidays, training, admin/meetings) within proposed staffing while still meeting the 45,760-hour requirement—or does the Government assume proposed hours are fully productive/actual worked hours?

45,760 includes paid leave, holidays, and all work duties.

18. Staffing adequacy evaluation basis (total annual vs demonstrated productive) Reference: Addendum I – Factor One (Technical Capability), Subfactor 1 (Staffing Approach) (PDF p.34); PWS §3.5 (PDF p.62) Excerpt(s):

“Proposals that include fewer than 45,760 hours of support… will render the proposal Unacceptable.”

(PDF p.34)

“…shall be no less than 45,760 hours.” (PDF p.62)

Question:

When evaluating Staffing Approach/adequacy, will the Government assess compliance based on (a) total proposed annual paid hours, or (b) demonstrated annual productive/actual worked hours available to perform contract requirements (net of leave/holidays/training/admin)?

45,760 includes paid leave, holidays, and all work duties.

19. Historical consistency (NCTC Gulfport) Reference: Historical Data table (PDF p.30); PWS §3.3 (PDF p.62) Excerpt(s):

“Hours (per year)… 45,760” (PDF p.30)

Historical data is a baseline only. Things may change.

“Based on historical data, it is estimated that there are 35 courses, 242 instructional days at 8 instructional hours per day.” (PDF p.62)

Question:

Please confirm whether the labor-hour expectations and staffing productivity assumptions in this solicitation are intended to remain consistent with the historical baseline reflected in the RFP (including the 45,760 hours/year reference and the workload data in PWS §3.3). If not consistent, please identify what has changed (hours basis, workload, productivity expectation, or evaluation approach).

20. Overtime expectation (and how to price it) Reference: PWS §3.0.3 (PDF p.55); PWS §5.1(c) (PDF p.66) Excerpt(s):

“…but not to exceed 40 hours per week per instructor.” (PDF p.55)

“This provision does not preclude reimbursement for authorized overtime work if applicable.” (PDF p.66)

Question:

Does the Government expect performance (including schedule recovery) to be achieved without overtime given the “not to exceed 40 hours per week per instructor” constraint (PWS §3.0.3), or is authorized overtime anticipated? If overtime is anticipated, should Offerors price it as a normal operating condition or an exceptional/authorized event only?

Performance does not exceed 40 hours per week per instructor.

21. Price realism / productivity assumptions (evaluation handling) Reference: Factor Three – Price (PDF p.37); Addendum I – Factor One/Subfactor 1 (PDF p.34) Excerpt(s):

“Reasonableness - Prices will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)…” (PDF p.37)

“Proposals… fewer than 45,760 hours… will render the proposal Unacceptable.” (PDF p.34)

Question:

Beyond price reasonableness and mathematical checks, will the Government evaluate price realism/feasibility tied to staffing productivity—specifically whether proposed price can fund staffing sufficient to meet the 45,760-hour minimum and schedule requirements? If yes, should Offerors explicitly state their productive-hours (paid vs worked) assumptions in Volume II and Volume I?

No, the Government will not evaluate price realism.

22. Confirm the “45,760 hours” basis (paid vs productive/actual worked)

45,760 includes paid leave, holidays, and all work duties.

Reference: PWS §3.5 (PDF p.62); PWS §5.0 (PDF p.65) Excerpt(s):

“The total annual hours… shall be no less than 45,760 hours.” (PDF p.62)

“…excluding weekends and legal public holidays.”

(PDF p.65)

Question:

For compliance with PWS §3.5, are the 45,760 hours intended to represent actual worked (productive) hours, excluding leave/holidays—or paid/compensated hours? Please confirm which basis the Government will use for proposal evaluation and post-award enforcement.

23. Government verification method for the 45,760-hour minimum Reference: Addendum I – Factor One/Subfactor 1 (PDF p.34); PWS §3.5 (PDF p.62) Excerpt(s):

“The offeror shall submit a staffing plan that demonstrates adequate personnel…” (PDF p.34)

“Proposals… fewer than 45,760 hours… will render the proposal Unacceptable.” (PDF p.34)

Question:

How will the Government verify compliance with the 45,760-hour minimum during evaluation—e.g., will Offerors be required to provide a computable hours crosswalk (FTE × hours basis × coverage) and will the Government validate whether hours are paid vs productive/actual worked?

Offerors will need to provide RFP requirements as outlined in the solicitation. Government will evaluate proposals IAW the evaluation criteria outlined in the solicitation.

24. Vacancy requirement enforcement and “like-qualified” interim coverage Reference: PWS §3.2 (PDF p.58); Replacement Personnel language (PDF p.64) Excerpt(s):

“…no billet… remains vacant for a period exceeding two (2) weeks.” (PDF p.58)

“…alternate and/or replacement shall be as qualified as the Contractor they are replacing.” (PDF p.58)

“…shall be completed within two weeks of the vacancy.” (PDF p.64)

Question:

Please confirm that the “two-week vacancy” requirement will be enforced as a strict standard (PWS §3.2) and that interim coverage during any gap must be “as qualified” as the

Vacancies must be filled within two weeks, and replacement employees must meet technical requirements as stated within the contract. Government will require pre-review of replacement resumes.

See PWS 3.2 replaced personnel. Also confirm whether the Government will require pre-approval/review of replacement resumes during performance.

25. Are there any formatting requirements? 12 point size font, Times New Roman.

26. Will the government consider expanding past performance relevancy definition to include DoD trade school training?

Relevancy remains the same

27. Can the cover letter, table of contents, and acronyms, if applicable for each volume, be omitted from the page count?

Cover Sheet Does not count towards page count.

28. Is using team subcontractor past performance acceptable? If so, will it be graded the same as the prime offeror?

Refer to RFP evaluation factors for past performance.

29. To increase competition, is it acceptable to change Annualized Value from $2M to $1.5M?

No change.

JACKSONVILLE FL 32212-0097

JACKSONVILLE, FL 32212-0097

UNITED STATES

Yaynel Yambo, Email: yaynel.c.yambo.civ@us.navy.mil Telephone: 904-968-0026 AdminBy:

SCD: PAS: