Amendment_0004_Question_and_Comment_Period_2.pdf

Enterprise Training Services Contract

Solicitation W900KK-17-R-0026; Amendment 0004

Response to Questions and Comments (Q&C) missed during Q&CP 2

Q&C 401:

Reference: RFP Section L.1.4.2, which is entitled “Independence of Proposal Volumes,” states:

“Any data previously submitted in response to any other solicitation should be assumed to be unavailable during this proposal evaluation and source selection process. Each proposal

Volume shall be completely stand-alone, and not require any reference to another source, Volume, or proposal. The information provided should assume that no cross-reference will be checked, and that all claims, approaches, and statements must be clearly articulated in their entirety within the proposal Volume being submitted.” (Emphases added.)

However, Answer to Question 91 states: “Similar to the definition of a stand-alone Volume in

Section L.1.4.2 - The three Plans referenced in Sections L.4.1.1, L.4.1.2 and L.4.1.3 - "The information provided should assume that no cross-reference will be checked, and that all claims, approaches, and statements must be clearly articulated in their entirety within the proposal Plan being submitted." Each of the three plans should be independently submitted in order to comply with guidance.”

As the PgMP, PeMP and TIP are defined in RFP L.4.0 as constituent parts of Volume I, the RFP reference allows cross-referencing among the three plans. However, Answer 91 would appear to prohibit doing so.

Question: Inasmuch as Offerors have in good faith been preparing their submissions on the basis of the RFP L.1.4.2 instruction, which Answer 91 would appear to reverse in the middle of the solicitation process, will the Government consider reversing Answer 91 to restore RFP L.1.4.2 permission for cross-referencing within Volume I (including the three plans and the three

STOPs)? Alternatively, If the Government wishes to make the three plans and STOPs truly standalone, would the Government consider a reasonable expansion to the page limits specified for Volume I, including each of the three STOPs, sufficient to allow material common to the plans and STOPs to be explained in each?

Answer: The PgMP, the PeMP, and the TIP must all be stand-alone and should not cross-reference each other. The Government stated in both the Final RFP (dated 3 JAN 2017) and

Amendment 2 to the Final RFP (dated 15 MAR 2017), “A stand-alone PgMP…” (Section

L.4.1.1), “A stand-alone PeMP…” (Section L.4.1.2), “A stand-alone TIP…” (Section L.4.1.3), and “For the full breadth of the individual STO scopes for the applicable lot, the Offeror shall provide a STOP for each individual STO for the applicable lot.” (Section L.4.2). Please follow the guidance provided. The Government has determined that all page counts are adequate.

Please also note that the Amendment 0003 version of the RFP did update the definition of the

PeMP and PgMP documents to clarify the purpose for the two documents. These updated definitions do clarify the standalone nature of the submissions at issue in this question.

Q&C 402:

Reference: Referenced Tables establish Submission Due Dates for Phases I and II, by proposal days; that is, numbers of days from release of RFP. However, owing to the extended period of suspension, the potential for confusion is high.

Question: Consequently, would the Government consider identifying specific

Submission Due Dates for all proposal components by Calendar Days instead?

Answer: The Government cited all specific dates in the Amendment 0003 release as follows:

FOR BOTH LOTS:

Day 0 (RFP Release Date) remains 15 March 2017

ETSC Proposal Phase 1 Submission Due Date remains 17 April 2017

FULL-AND-OPEN LOT DATES (Reference L.3.3.1):

ETSC F&O Lot STO Release 1 Date remains 18 April 2017 (STO 3.x, STO 3.y)

ETSC F&O Lot STO Release 1 Question and Comment Period runs from 18-25

April 2017

ETSC F&O Lot STO Release 2 Date is updated to 8 May 2017 (STO 3.z)

ETSC F&O Lot STO Release 2 Question and Comment Period runs from 8-15

May 2017

ETSC Proposal Phase 2 F&O Lot Submission Due Date is updated to 31 May

2017 (inclusive of STOP and STOP Pricing Workbooks for STO 3.x, 3.y, 3.z)

SBSA LOT DATES (Reference L.3.3.2):

ETSC SBSA Lot STO Release Date remains 18 April 2017

ETSC SBSA Lot STO Question and Comment Period runs from 18-25 April 2017

ETSC Proposal Phase 2 SBSA Lot Submission Due Date remains 9 May 2017

(inclusive of STOP and STOP Pricing Workbooks for STO 3.1)

Q&C 403:

Reference: Question 24-7 on Attachment 3A has changed to: 24-7. Meaningful

Involvements Provide Any Relevant Performance Information To Support The

Definition Of Meaningful Involvement Per L.5.1.1. However, the instructions for question 24-7 still say: 24-7. Self-rating General Comments. Provide any Other

Relevant Performance Information. - Explain in detail any issues, experiences, and concerns, or to add information above and beyond the questions that the Offeror considers important to be understood by the ETSC evaluation team.

Question: Are offerors allowed to present both an explanation of meaningful involvement IAW L.5.1.1 and also General Comments the Offeror considers important to be understood by the ETSC evaluation team? This would present a much better picture of the overall effort to the evaluators.

Answer: The PPSA instructions for Section 24-7 have been updated for clarification.

Section 24-7 states “Provide any relevant performance information to support the definition of meaningful involvement per L.5.1.1 and remains unchanged from

Amendment 0002. Section 24-7 is not an area to further describe relevancy of the subject work. It is provided only to explain meaningful relationship as applicable.

Q&C 404:

Reference: This document states the per diem cost is based on worksite, not lodging site (see next bullet). There are times when these two locations can be in two different per diem locations, with differing per diem rates. As a result, hotel and meal costs can be different. This paragraph states, “…The authorized per diem rate shall be the same as the prevailing per diem in the worksite locality.”

Question: Did the government mean to use the lodging location when determining per diem rates for travel?

Answer:

Please note that since ETSC is global in nature, and thus can have any TDY situation occur, that the Government cannot give a single answer to your question. All TDY related issues will need to be adjudicated at the Future Task Order level.

Q&C 405:

Reference: Previous editions of Section L.5.1 included the following language:

“The PP work cited shall not represent work accomplished by any other entities (e.g. the

Prime contractor for a prior contract may not claim to have performed the work done by any subcontractor for that prior contract; and the major subcontractor for a prior contract may not claim to have performed the work done by the Prime for that prior contract).”

This precluded a prime contractor from submitting work that is primarily (more than 50% of the workforce) being performed by the subcontractor.

Question: Suggest the Government consider re-instating this language in Section L.

Answer: The Government has considered the recommendation and declines to make the change.

Q&C 406:

Reference: Per section 6.7.2, the Government requires an FPRA…OR…FPRR…OR the details required in 6.7.3 through 6.7.5.

Question: If the offeror has an FPRR that addresses indirect rates only, does this fulfill this requirement? If not, would the details required in sections 6.7.3, 6.7.4 and 6.7.5 all be required, or just those related to direct labor in section 6.7.3?

Answer: Yes. As stated in section L.6.7.2 of the RFP: “If the Offeror does not have an

FPRA/FPRR, the Offeror shall provide the direct and indirect rates that were developed.”

The Government is seeking supporting information on Offeror’s proposed rates.

Q&C 407:

Reference: L.2.4 Electronic File Packaging

The Offeror shall submit each proposal Volume on a separate Compact Disc (CD) or

Digital Video Disc (DVD). CDs/DVDs shall be appropriately marked with the Offeror’s name and address, Volume identification, and distribution restrictions. These markings shall be identified on every CD/DVD Volume copy along with “Copy X of Y”. All files on each CD/DVD shall be directly supported by MS Office 2013 and free of any virus or malware. All original files on each CD/DVD shall be directly supported by MS Office

2013 and free of any virus or malware. All files shall be clearly identified with a filename appropriate to the content (e.g., Volume-

1_Technical_Proficiency_and_Program_Management_ Appendix-A). For all Volumes except Volume III, Cost/Price, an Adobe Acrobat Portable Document Format (PDF) version of all electronic documents shall be included as a control copy. If the hard-copy proposal differs from the electronic version, the hard copy will take precedence. All

CDs/DVDs shall be appropriately marked “UNCLASSIFIED” or “UNCLASSIFIED

PROPRIETARY” with appropriate instructions on handling. The CD/DVD cover shall also be marked, “SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND

3.104.”

Question: Can any signed documents (such as TA, SF33/Amendments, SF295/294, disclosure statements, etc) can be submitted as pdf?

Answer: Please reference L.2.2, L.2.3, and L.2.4 for instructions on submissions. While the Government does not seek to give specific procedural guidance to Offerors on how to build their volumes, the Government anticipated that Offerors would take hard copy files, scan them as necessary, and paste them and/or create PDF files from them, and thus be able to readily comply with the requests for hard copy, MS Office compliant copies, and

PDF copies.

Q&C 408:

Reference: L.6.9

In accordance with Clause 52.222-46 - Evaluation of Compensation for Professional

Employees, the Offeror and its subcontractors or other firms within its JV structure shall provide a digital copy of its Professional Compensation Plan for those professional services (as defined by 29 CFR 541) to be utilized under this contract. This Plan should, at a minimum, set forth the process and procedures for salaries and fringe benefits afforded to its professional employees and it process for ensuring uninterrupted high-quality work. Individual compensation disclosure is not required. For example, submission of general compensation practices copied from the Offeror’s Employee

Handbook and submitted with this Volume is sufficient.

Question: Professional services contemplated for the ETSC IDIQ are part of a broad scope stipulated in the ETSC PWS and exact requirements are not known until Task

Order RFPs are released. Please confirm that it is not the Government’s intent for the

Offeror to submit Professional Compensation Plans for all subcontractors that constitute the Offeror’s proposed team, and provide guidance as to which subcontractors, if any, should submit Professional Compensation Plans (i.e. those Subcontractors being utilized for ERW submittal IAW RFP Section L.6.3).

Answer: Please reference L.1.1.1 Definitions TIP, L.4.1.3 TIP, M.2.1.3 TIP, and PWS

2.3.1.4.

Q&C 409:

Reference: Q&C #220 provides “The Offeror is to provide ceiling rates applicable to the offeror Team, but is not required to provide individual rates for each subcontractor…”

Q&C #224 provides “only one ceiling rate per labor category is permitted”. Q&C #263 provides that “Sub-rates are offered as an option to the Offerors, but are not mandated”.

Q&C #260 provides that the Subcontractor Rates in the ERW Tab 3 should not be loaded with Prime Burdens and Profit. L.6.8 provides “Offerors shall ONLY utilize the proposed

FFP fully burdened labor rates identified in Tab 3, Table 1 of the Offeror’s consolidated

ERW”.

Question:

a. It is clear that the subs are not required to submit their own ERW, but are the subs required to submit Professional Compensation Plan IAW Section L.6.7.9?

b. If the subs are required to submit a Professional Compensation Plan, must it be in a separate sealed package, or can it be part of the Prime's volume?

Answer:

a. Yes. Please reference L.6.7.9

b. Yes. Please reference FAR clause 52.222-46.

Q&C 410:

Reference: Mod 3 block 11

Question: Is it the Governments intent that one original and one copy (as laid out in section L) satisfies this requirement? Or does the Government want two copies of Mod 3 in each copy of Volume V?

Answer: Please follow the submission guidelines in Section L.1.1.1.