STO_Questions_Release_2_-_20170518_-_Responses.pdf

Sample Task Order (STO) Release 2 Q&CP Answers

GENERAL NOTES (repeated from Sample Task Order (STO) Release 2 Q&CP Answers):

1) Please note that the titles and numbering of STO Performance Work Statement

(PWS) elements should correspond exactly to the Base Contract PWS titles and numbering. The details within each Task Order PWS provide task specific instructions necessary to clarify and execute the Base Contract PWS terms.

2) The Sample Task Orders are NOT awardable. The Government’s main objective as depicted in Section M of the RFP is to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the requirement and the technical approach taken to meet the Task Order requirements.

3) The purpose of the Question and Comment Period is to address any industry concerns with the content of the Sample Task Orders. The Question and Comment

Period is NOT intended to provide feedback, validation, or approval of any proposed approach or assumption being taken by any Offeror.

4) The purpose of the Sample Task Orders are addressed in section L.1.1.1 of the RFP, and are to provide Offerors with the ability to demonstrate their technical approaches to “specific and realistic requirements” representing situations that

“will occur post-award” (see L.1.1.1). The Sample Task Orders are presented in the form that would normally occur after ETSC Base contract award and during the

Task Order proposal submission period. Offerors are expected to respond to the level of detail provided in each STO. RFP Section L.1.1.1 states:

The phased approach serves multiple purposes:

a. For Offerors to create and submit the PgMP (Section L.4.1.1), PeMP (Section

L.4.1.2), and the TIP (Section L.4.1.3) that address the full ETSC scope for the applicable Lot without focus or bias on any Sample Task Order(s) (STOs) or focusing on certain aspects of the ETSC scope.

b. To enable Offerors, after submission of their full ETSC scope plans, to demonstrate their capability to focus those plans on specific and realistic requirements, representing the situations that will occur post-award.

c. To simulate the rapid response time required to execute Task Order (TO) requirements for the Prime and its subcontractors.

Questions:

2-1. Table L.4.0 requires offerors to provide Sample Task Order Proposals (STOPs) 3.2, 3.3, and

3.1 and STOP Resource Depictions 3.2, 3.3, and 3.1 under Divider 4 in Volume 1. This appears that the Government requires three separate tabs for the STOPS and a separate tab for the STOP

Resource Depictions.

Question:

Is it the Government’s intent that although the resource depictions are included in the individual

STOP page counts that they are provided under a separate tab than the STOP response within the binder? Or would the Government like the STOP Resource Depiction to be included as the last page of the appropriate STOP within the binder?

Government Response: A separate Tab for the Resource Depiction is not required. Submitting the STOP Resource Depiction as the last page of the appropriate STOP within the binder is acceptable.

2-2. 3.1.1 The Contractor shall conduct training and training assistance for military and civilian related subjects in non-austere and austere environments and in non-contingency and contingency environments.

a. The Contractor shall provide operator and instructor certification training for the SDF on the

SATT. The Contractor shall deliver training in English with translation to Arabic as necessary for no more than ten (10) students of the SDF at each training site for a period not to exceed three (3) weeks per class.

b. The Contractor shall provide Individual training for the SDF utilizing the SATT. The

Contractor shall deliver training in English with translation into Arabic as necessary for no more than ten (10) students of the SDF at each training site for a period not to exceed three (3) weeks per class.

c. The Contractor shall provide collective training for the SDF utilizing the SATT. The

Contractor shall deliver training in English with translation into Arabic as necessary for no more than ten (10) students of the SDF at each training site for a period not to exceed three (3) weeks per class.

d. The Contractor shall provide SATT training simultaneously in Rmeilan and Raqqa, Syria.

Question: The STO PWS identifies four separate types of training that the contractor is to provide (operator, instructor certification, individual training and collective training). Can the government confirm that these training classes will be conducted sequentially and not concurrently?

Government Response: The response to the STO should be proposed by each Offeror in accordance with each Offeror’s planned approach. Any assumptions or planned activities should be identified in the proposal. The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific Offeror approach.

2-3. The Government’s answer to questions 3, 20, 81, 82, 254, 414, and 574 that the “Offerors should use a start date of 90 days after STO proposal submission” equates to a STO start date of

29 August 2017 for the F&O Lot.

The Government requires in Section L.6.8 that the offerors shall only utilize the proposed FFP fully burdened labor rates in the ERW that was provided in the Phase 1 proposal submission.

The rates and supporting information required in Sections L.6.7.4 and L.6.7.5 are based on the

Government’s defined contract start date of 16 April 2018 provided in the answer to question

324 of Amendment 3. Therefore, the Government’s defined start date of the STOs is outside of and prior to the Government’s defined IDIQ contract period. There are no rates for year 2017 to price the STOs.

Since August 29th is outside of the priced contract years, please confirm which contract year rates (from the ERW) industry is to utilize to price the sample task orders.

Government Response: The Government expects that Offerors will use the Base Order Period pricing.

2-4. Government’s response to question 88 states the Proposed Spare Parts List is due at the time of STOP.

Government’s response to question 430 states Sample Task Orders are not to be awarded and thus do not include CDRLs.

Please clarify if the Proposed Spare Parts List is required with STOP submission.

Government Response: Any spare parts list is a function of the Offeror’s proposal. As such, any list provided would be submitted with the proposal and match those due dates; however, no

Data Item Descriptor (DID) is required for this task. The Sample Task Orders are NOT awardable.

As a result, the Government’s main emphasis as depicted in Section M of the RFP is to assess the technical approach taken to meet the Task Order requirements.

2-5. Would the government confirm that the contractor will not be responsible for set-up/configuration/maintenance or repair of the SATT devices?

Government Response: ETSC Full and Open Lot STO 3.1 PWS section 1.3 states, “The

Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) will perform system installation and New Equipment

Training (NET) at both OCONUS locations under a separate agreement.” The response to the

STO should be proposed by each Offeror in accordance with each Offeror’s planned approach.

Any assumptions or planned activities should be identified in the proposal. The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific Offeror approach.

2-6. If the contractor elects to self-arm, will the Government provide the firearms?

2-7. The Government is requesting a Proposed Spare Parts List.

The Government stated in Q&C #88 of its 3 May Q&C responses to questions for STOs 3.2 and

3.3 that "The suspense is the same as the suspense for STOP submission", which will be a hard copy and CD submission. However, the CDRL (A00A) from the Base PWS/RFP under which this Proposed Spare Parts List corresponds to states in block 16 (for block 14): "The Proposed

Spare Parts Lists has a DID (DI-ILSS-80134A Proposed Spare Parts List) which states: " THE

CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE DATA BY EMAIL TO THE ACC-ORL

CONTRACTING OFFICER OR THE DESIGNATED TASK ORDER CONTRACTING

OFFICER AND THE CONTRACTING OFFICERS REPRESENTATIVE. THE EMAIL

SUBJECT LINE SHALL INCLUDE THE CONTRACT NUMBER, CDRL DATA ITEM

NUMBER, AND REPORTING PERIOD (E.G. W900KK-17 - D-0001, DO 0001, CLIN 0002,

CDRL A001, 1 MAY 2014)."

Please clarify the Government's requirement for the Proposed Spare Parts List which based on the numbers and types of MOUT equipment and the data requirements of the DID, would exceed the page limit for the STO. Recommend the Proposed Spare Parts List be printed and delivered as an appendix with the STOP submission and included on the CD.

Government Response: No Data Item Descriptor (DID) is required for this task. The Sample

Task Orders are NOT awardable. As a result, the Government’s main emphasis as depicted in

Section M of the RFP is to assess the technical approach taken to meet the Task Order requirements.

2-8. It was stated in the previous STO QCP responses that “Offerors shall assume that the term

“fiscal years” is synonymous with contract years for the purpose of STO pricing.” No start date was provided for the ID/IQ contract years. The government has instructed offerors for STOs that they “should use a start date of 90 days after STO proposal submission.”

A) For pricing purposes should the offeror assume the ID/IQ contract Year 1 also begins 90 days after STO proposal submission?

B) In this case for a STO with a 9-month Period of Performance, should all offerors be using their Year 1 ceiling rates only?

Government Response:

A) Yes.

B) The Government expects that Offerors will use the Base Order Period pricing.

2-9. For a substantial number of questions previously submitted for STOs 3.2 and 3.3, the

Government’s answer has been: “The response to the STO should be proposed by each Offeror in accordance with each Offeror’s planned approach. Any assumptions or planned activities should be identified in the proposal. The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific Offeror approach.”

As the listing of Assumptions being used in the STO Proposals can be quite lengthy, would the

Government consider either 1) excluding the assumptions list from the STOP page limitations, or

2) adding a reasonable number of pages to those limitations?

Government Response: The Government expects any assumptions made by the Offeror to be articulated in the proposed technical solution. Any assumptions are to be included in the

Offeror’s technical solution within the page count totals located in section L.1.1.1.

2-10. As Reads: “This TO PWS identifies requirements for Outside Continental United States

(OCONUS) Instructor/Operator (I/O) training and certification on Army and other non-standard training aids.”

Question: As it appears that this TO only identifies requirements for the Small Arms Tactical

Trainer (SATT), would the Government please clarify whether there are “other non-standard training aids” that are to be addressed in this STOP?

Government Response: The SATT is considered a “non-standard training aid.” ETSC Full and

Open Lot STO 3.1 PWS section 1.3 states the scope of the STO:

Training/Education and Training Assistance (PWS 3.1):

a. SATT Operator Instructor Level Certification Training for the SDF.

b. SATT Individual and Collective Training for the SDF.

c. Course material will be delivered in English and course instruction will be provided in

English with translation to Arabic as necessary.

d. The training will be conducted simultaneously and autonomously at two sites in-country (Rmeilan and Raqqa).

2-11. Syria is on a list with a group of other countries to which, under ITAR 126.1, the US is prohibited from exporting defense articles and services.

Since the ITAR specifically prohibits the export of a defense service to Syria, please clarify what coordination the Army has done with the Department of State with respect to the FMS Case in question.

SY-B-XXX is not a designator of an actual case nor does such document exist.

The Sample Task Order is not awardable. As a result, the Government’s main emphasis as depicted in Section M of the RFP is to assess the technical approach taken to meet the Task

Order requirements.

The response to the STO should be proposed by each Offeror in accordance with each Offeror’s planned approach. Any assumptions or planned activities should be identified in the proposal.

The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific Offeror approach.

2-12. None of the ETSC labor categories maps to force protection type of work. Should the force protection services be considered and proposed as ODCs?

be identified in the proposal. The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific Offeror approach. For the purpose of STO pricing for the ETSC Phase II portion of the Cost Volume, the Offerors shall assume that those associated support personnel

(e.g., linguists, translators, and role players) are already accounted for under the ODC- Ancillary

Materials and Support line.

2-13. Should contractors include weapons, night vision goggles and other protection equipment under Ancillary Materials?

Government Response: No. Weapons, night vision goggles and other protection equipment are not considered Ancillary Materials.

2-14. Can the contractor assume that the locations specified for the training sessions will be under US Forces control during the training sessions?

2-15. What SATT systems are used (Cubic EST, the Meggitt EST II/III, or some other manufacturer’s system)?

2-16. Would the government please consider providing Period of Performance dates, or a start date, for pricing purposes?

2-17. Are the SATT located in or near any US base like the airbases at Kobani and Rmeilan?

2-18. Is housing, life and medical support available collocated with any US forces?

2-19. What are the command/host nation restrictions on use of force protection forces?

2-20. Will our trainers be able to receive SATT NET training from the OEM prior to deployment, or do they get training in-country at the beginning of the period of performance?

2-21. Do personnel have to have security clearances?

Government Response: The Government does not specify any clearance requirements in the

ETSC Full and Open Lot STO 3.1 PWS.

2-22. Is close-out, redeployment and final closeout meeting with COR part of the 9-month PoP, or is that done afterwards?

The question stated uses terms not mandated as requirements within the ETSC F&O STO 3.1

PWS. Asking whether unassigned tasks must be performed within the STO Period of

Performance is thus an unclear question. Recommend Offeror refer to:

- ETSC F&O STO 3.1 PWS. Paragraph 2.3.1.1.1 reads, “Phase-In/Phase-Out/Close-out –

Reserved.”

- ETSC F&O STO 3.1 PWS. Paragraph 1.5 provides the definition of Reserved:

“Reserved – Task(s) that may be applicable to the TO and may be invoked during the

Period of performance through a modification.”

- Regarding the term “redeployment,” the travel requirements may be found in ETSC F&O

STO PWS 3.1 Paragraph 2.4.5.

- Regarding the Offeror’s planned approach, the response to the STO should be proposed by each Offeror in accordance with each Offeror’s planned approach. Any assumptions or planned activities should be identified in the proposal. The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific Offeror approach.

2-23. Does written course material have to be translated into Arabic?

Government Response: Since course materials are being delivered in English (see ETSC F&O

STO 3.1 PWS paragraph 3.1.3), there are no translated documents required within this STO.

2-24. Para 2.2.2 calls for a 9-month period of performance with up to 120 days to start work: Is the actual in-country training requirement only 5 months, or is it some longer period of time?

2-25. The USG is anticipating the award of the ETSC IDIQ in April 2018. Question three states, “As the Period of Performance for the TO is twelve (12) months from TO award, can we assume that the STO is performed during the Base Year of the ETSC IDIQ, with a start date of April 16, 2018?” The USG response stated, “Offerors should use a start date of 90 days after the STO proposal submission.” Can the USG confirm it was their intent for the offerors to propose STO’s

PoP prior to the IDIQ award?

2-26. In section 2.2 .1, the Government states that “Force Protection will not be provided to the contractor by U.S./Coalition forces or other protection forces.” This is reiterated in section

4.1.2.3 Force Protection stating, “Under this TO, the Contractor will not be afforded

U.S./Coalition Force Protection in and about Syria; or at the Rmeilan and Raqqa Training sites.”

However, it then states “Under certain circumstances, as dictated by US-partner nation agreement, contractors may be required to utilize partner nation force protection, or be restricted from utilizing third-party force protection or personnel security duties for any reason other than individuals acting for their own individual self-protection, unless explicitly granted permission to do so by proper authority.”

Given the current real world environment of Syria and the existing threats in the astute and contingency environment:

A) In this scenario, will the Government clarify if the contractor will be afforded partner nation force protection as stated in 4.1.2.3 or is this a standard PWS language for Force

Protection non-specific to this STO?

B) In this scenario, if there will be no Force Protection afforded by U.S./Coalition Force

Protection or partner nation will the Government clarify if the contractor will be allowed to request and obtain authorization to utilize third party protection from the government’s proper authority as stated in 4.1.2.3?

C) In this scenario, will the Government clarify if the contractor will be required to arm personnel for the purpose of self-protection as stated in 4.1.2.3 and covered in 4.2.1.5.

The language within the questions are not consistent with the language of the STO. Refer to

ETSC F&O STO 3.1 to find the correct language.

Paragraph 2.2.1 Place of Performance states: “The Contractor shall perform training and training support services OCONUS. Under this TO, performance locations will be considered contingency operations in an austere environment where personnel force protection will not be provided by U.S./Coalition forces or other protection forces.”

Paragraph 4.1.2.3 states, “Under certain circumstances, as dictated by US-partner nation agreement, contractors may be required to utilize partner nation force protection, or be restricted from utilizing third-party force protection or personnel security duties for any reason other than individuals acting for their own individual self-protection, unless explicitly granted permission to do so by proper authority.”

A) The response to the STO should be proposed by each Offeror in accordance with each

Offeror’s planned approach. Any assumptions or planned activities should be identified in the proposal. The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific

Offeror approach.

B) The response to the STO should be proposed by each Offeror in accordance with each

Offeror’s planned approach. Any assumptions or planned activities should be identified in the proposal. The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific

Offeror approach.

C) The response to the STO should be proposed by each Offeror in accordance with each

Offeror’s planned approach. Any assumptions or planned activities should be identified in the proposal. The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific

Offeror approach.

2-27. The Government has identified in the PWS that no force protection will be afforded to the contractor by U.S./Coalition Force Protection or partner nation. If government requires/allows

Arming of contractor employees for purpose of self-protection in the contingency environment

Syria, can the Government provide information on who will provide the Arms, ammunition, and storage of arms when not in use.

Government Response: The initial quote within this question is not consistent with the language of the STO. Refer to ETSC F&O STO 3.1 to find the correct language.

Paragraph 2.2.1 Place of Performance states: “The Contractor shall perform training and training support services OCONUS. Under this TO, performance locations will be considered contingency operations in an austere environment where personnel force protection will not be provided by U.S./Coalition forces or other protection forces.”

Paragraph 4.1.2.3 states, “Under certain circumstances, as dictated by US-partner nation agreement, contractors may be required to utilize partner nation force protection, or be restricted from utilizing third-party force protection or personnel security duties for any reason other than individuals acting for their own individual self-protection, unless explicitly granted permission to do so by proper authority.”

In response to the question on “who will provide the . . .”: The response to the STO should be proposed by each Offeror in accordance with each Offeror’s planned approach. Any assumptions or planned activities should be identified in the proposal. The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific Offeror approach.

2-28. Question: Anticipated Training Effort. What is the total training load, instructor- to-student ratio, training iterations, dates of instruction, and hours of instruction per training class for the following:

SAF SATT Operator Instructor Level Certification (beyond the capability of training 10 students…require a total number of I/O students or at the very least total size SAF organization to be trained, i.e., Battalion or Brigade size)

SAF SATT Individual Training (beyond the capability of training 10 students…require a total number of I/O students or at the very least total size SAF organization to be trained, i.e., Battalion or Brigade size)

SAF SATT Collective Training (beyond the capability of training 10 students…require a total number of I/O students or at the very least total size SAF organization to be trained, i.e., Battalion or Brigade size)

2-29. In PWS 2.4.2 states that contractors must replace individuals removed/dismissed within 10 working days. Since CRC is usually a requirement for deployment it may take up to a few weeks to just get CRC arranged for individual contractor augmentation training. Will the USG clarify whether the 10 day window is to have personnel on site or is it to have personnel scheduled for CRC?

Government Response: The requirement is to have a person on-site within 10 days (see ETSC

F&O STO 3.1 Paragraph 2.4.2).

2-30. Will the USG provide information on the organization or end user of these systems?

Contractor understands that SAF is receiving the training but may not be the actual customer. Is it supporting the US Embassy? Is CENTCOM or the Syrian operations command under

CENTCOM the customer?

2-31.

Would the USG make available living quarters in Rmeilan and Raqqa?

Will US or other partner nations be co-located with contractor teams during execution?

2-32. Section L.6.8, Sample Task Order Proposal (STOP) Pricing Workbook, states “The Offeror shall complete and submit the Government provided STO Pricing Workbook. The STOP Pricing

Workbook must be fully editable, to include all formulas...”

Government’s Response to Q&A#608 states “The Government did not link the STO workbooks.

L.6.8 – Sample Task Order Proposal (STOP) Pricing Workbook states, “The Offeror shall complete and submit the Government provided STO Pricing Workbook. The STOP Pricing

Workbook must be fully editable, to include all formulas.”

The formula in the Government provided template Tabs 1b, 2b, and 3b for “Subcontract Labor

SUBTOTAL” does not include the value in the cell for “Prime profit (as applicable)”. Please confirm Offerors are to update the formula to account for the value in “Prime profit (as applicable)”. Or is it the Government’s intent for Offerors to not include a value in the “Prime profit (as applicable)” cell?

Government Response: The blank cell in cells 17B may be considered the same as the

Government providing an initial value of $0.00 in cells 17B for tabs 1b, 2b, and 3b.

2-33. Para 2.4.2 requires us to replace OCONUS employees within 10 days. The security situation between the Air Port of Debarkation (APOD) closest to the job sites in the PWS is beyond the control of the contractor.

Will Government accept arrival at the nearest APOD and initiation of movement to the job site as compliant?

2-34. Under a Letter of Offer and Acceptance SY-B-XXX for the country of Syria, the SDF will receive two 10-lane SATT systems to be located at two military bases within Syria (Rmeilan and

Raqqa). One system will be located at each military training center. The SATT systems will be used to enhance the training capabilities at the Platoon and Company levels.

Discussion. The SATT provides initial and sustainment marksmanship training, static unit collective and tactical training, and shoot/don’t shoot training. It supports three modes of training: marksmanship, squad/fire team collective, and judgmental use of force.

Question. Given SATT’s ability to include static unit collective gunnery, to include the use of surface indirect fires and close air support, will indirect fire skills training and Joint Forward Air

Controller skills training be required? Will mortar gunnery skills at the Company Collective

Level be required training? Will Call For Fire techniques be required training?

2-35. The Contractor shall perform training and training support services OCONUS. Under this

TO, performance locations will be considered contingency operations in an austere environment where personnel force protection will not be provided by U.S./Coalition forces or other protection forces.

Questions:

Will the location of training be within a secure perimeter?

Will Base Life Support and Base Operating Systems/Integration be provided? (BLS refers to Sustenance, Water, Ablution, Electricity, and a Communications Backbone; BOS/I refers to location mayoral functions and integration into extant systems and functions)

Do these locations meet CENTCOM Sandbook requirement for Force Protection and Life

Support specifically regarding expeditionary basing?

2-36. This TO will require Contractor personnel to travel to, from and within OCONUS locations as previously specified. All travel shall be proposed and invoiced IAW with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 31.205-46 Travel Costs and the Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR). All travel requirements shall be pre-approved by the cognizant Government COR/TO COR.

The contractor shall submit to the U.S. Government a detailed plan for travel of all personnel from CONUS to designated locations within Syria. The plan should include, in chronological order, all steps necessary to meet known international travel requirements in accordance with the period of performance start of work timeliness goals cited in section 2.2.2. This detailed plan shall be no more than three (3) pages in length and submitted as an Appendix to this TO.

This Appendix is considered an exclusion to the prescribed page count limitations stated in

RFP Table L.1.1.1.

Questions:

A) Given the nature of the contingency environment, would Government provide preferred

APODs and method of movement to Raqqa and Rmeilan (example: APOD Erbil and Rotary

Wing to Raqqa and Rmeilan via Military or Department of State provided aircraft)?

B) If MILAIR or Department of State Air is used must contractors reimburse expenses?

A) The response to the STO should be proposed by each Offeror in accordance with each

Offeror’s planned approach. Any assumptions or planned activities should be identified in the proposal. The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific Offeror approach.

B) Refer to JFTR with respect to reimbursable expenses. The response to the STO should be proposed by each Offeror in accordance with each Offeror’s planned approach. Any assumptions or planned activities should be identified in the proposal. The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific Offeror approach.

2-37. Under this TO, the Contractor will not be afforded U.S./Coalition Force Protection in and about Syria; or at the Rmeilan and Raqqa Training sites.

Force protection may be afforded to Contractor employees, based on the U.S., NATO, and coalition military threat assessments, policies, procedures and host nation laws and established agreements. The level of force protection shall be assessed and may cover a wide range of safety, defense, and protection activities. Force protection measures adopted by escorting military teams will be flexible and designed for effective performance under changing threat conditions without prior coordination with the Contractor.

Questions:

Two sentences contradict. (1) Is Force Protection Provided? (2) How are training locations secured? (3) Who provides over watch of contractors providing required training?

(4) What partner Nation security agreement exists? (5) Does partner nation policy govern rules for the use of Force? (6) Will US Contractors be governed by US ROE and the right to self-defense?

(7) Who determines Contractors use of security sub-contractors for Force Protection?

For (1): The two sentences do not contradict. Refer to ETSC F&O STO 3.1 paragraph 4.1.2.3 which states, “Under certain circumstances, as dictated by US-partner nation agreement, contractors may be required to utilize partner nation force protection, or be restricted from utilizing third-party force protection or personnel security duties for any reason other than

For (2) through (7): The response to the STO should be proposed by each Offeror in accordance with each Offeror’s planned approach. Any assumptions or planned activities should be identified in the proposal. The Government cannot prescribe detailed information that would lead to a specific Offeror approach.

2-38.

Discussion: Paragraph 1.3 Scope states: “The Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) will perform system installation and New Equipment Training (NET) at both OCONUS locations under a separate agreement.”

Question: Can the Government provide information on the New Equipment Training (NET) provided by the SATT Manufacturer?

2-39.

Discussion: Paragraphs 3.1.1 a thru c require the contractor to “deliver training in English with translation into Arabic”. Likewise, 3.1.3 requires the contractor to the same - - “deliver training in English with translation into Arabic”. However, the 3.1.3 performance standard AQL states

“fluent in regional dialects”.

Question: Will the Government specify the regional dialects used by SDF personnel that our interpreters must be fluent?

2-40.

Discussion: Paragraph 4.1 Security states: “the Contractor shall comply with applicable partner nation and area commander access and general protection/security policies and procedures.”

Question: Can the Government provide information on the current partner nation and area commander access and general protection/security policies and procedures?

2-41.

Discussion: Paragraph 4.1.2.3 Force Protection states: “Under certain circumstances, as dictated by US-partner nation agreement, contractors may be required to utilize partner nation force protection, or be restricted from utilizing third-party force protection or personnel security duties for any reason other than individuals acting for their own individual self-protection, unless explicitly granted permission to do so by proper authority.”

Question: Does the U.S. have an existing partner nation agreement with the SDF? If so, does the

US-partner nation agreement require us to use partner nation force protection?

2-42.

protection, or be restricted from utilizing third-party force protection or personnel security duties

Question: Does the Government know if other contractors have been explicitly granted permission to use third-party force protection or personnel for security duties under the existing

US-partner nation agreement.

2-43.

protection, or be restricted from utilizing third-party force protection or personnel security duties

Question: Does the US-partner nation agreement restrict us from using third-party force protection or personnel for security duties?

2-44.

Discussion: Paragraph 4.1.2.5 Arming states: “Contractor personnel may be authorized to possess firearms in accordance with the Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA) between the U.S. Government and Syria; and per all applicable U.S., partner nation, and theater laws and regulations.”

Question: Does the SDCA between the U.S. Government and Syria authorize contractors to possess firearms?

2-45.

Discussion: The performance requirements under the STOs, particularly, STO 3.1, will unquestionably fall within and be subject to ITAR laws and requirements. Due to the nature of the performance requirements under the ETSC numerous TOs may include Contractor support which could require training to and/or in the presence of Foreign Persons. Providing training in a situation where Foreign Persons may be present, if the below language is not included in the

Contract, will require an ITAR License issued by the State Department. ITAR Licenses reflect the countries of the specific training audience and therefore would need to be revised or reissued every time the training audience changed. The time required by the State Department to issue an

ITAR license can be lengthy and in the interim training capabilities may be significantly constrained. Penalties for ITAR violations apply to both Government and Contractor personnel.

Adding the following language will allow for the Government/Contractor team to provide immediate performance and support to changing training audiences while also allowing both

Government and Contractor personnel to remain in full compliance with ITAR laws and requirements IAW Clause 5152.227-5002(a) of the solicitation.

“Defense services performed under this contract are pursuant to Title 22 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) 126.4(a).”

Question: Will the Government add the requested language to the IDIQ Contract upon contract

Award?

Government Response: This question and comment period has been issued specifically for questions related to ETSC F&O STO 3.1. This question exceeds those boundaries.

2-46.

Discussion: STO Q&C #20 provides that for STO Responses “Offerors should use a start date of 90 days after STO proposal submission”. With a 31 May 2017 proposal submission date this would equate to a start date of 29 August 2017. However, ERW Rates were developed consistent with Government guidance provided with Amendment 0003 Q&C #304 to use “a notional award date…[of]… 16 April 2018”. Accordingly, the ERW Rates submitted in Phase I are reflective of a POP start date on or after 18 April 2018 and therefore would not be applicable to a POP start date to any period prior to 18 April 2018.

Question: For the purposes of normalizing the pricing between all Offerors will the

Government confirm pricing for the STOs should reflect the Base Year ERW Rates only? If not, would the Government please provide POPs for the STOs which start on or after 18 April 2018 which would fall within the applicable POP of the ERW Rates?

2-47. Within the STO QCP Response distributed to Offerors on 3 May 2017, Question # 175 states:

“175. SECTION L.4.0, Page 136, Section #L.4.0.

Reference table L.4.0 shows the STOP as two items: the STOP and the STOP Resource

Depiction.

Does the Government expect or allow these items to be provided as two separate files?

Government Response: Submit two separate files in accordance with the guidance in Tables

L.1.1.1, L.4, and L.6.”

A. If the STOPs and STOP Resource Depictions are to be submitted as two separate files, and under separate tabs, can the Government confirm that the STOP Resource Depictions are excluded from the page count allocations of each STO response?

B. If submitted as separate files, can the Government confirm that both documents should be included together in the hard copy submission of Volume I- Technical Proficiency and

Program Management (One Original and One Copy), or should then be submitted in separate binders, for a total of four (4) binders?

A. The Government stated in the answer to Question 175 – “Submit two separate files in accordance with the guidance in Tables L.1.1.1, L.4, and L.6.” The Government did not state, “and under separate tabs.” The Government confirms that the STOP Resource

Depictions are included (not excluded) in the page count allocation for each STO response.

B. The Government confirms that both documents should be included in the hard copy STO submissions accordance with the guidance in Tables L.1.1.1, L.4, and L.6.

2-48. Is the duration of training in Syria three weeks total (for instructor/operator, individual and collective), or three weeks for each type of training, for a total of nine weeks of training in Syria at each site?

2-49. “Under this TO, the Contractor will not be afforded U.S./Coalition Force Protection in and about Syria; or at the Rmeilan and Raqqa Training sites. Force protection may be afforded to

Contractor employees, based on the U.S., NATO, and coalition military threat assessments, policies, procedures and host nation laws and established agreements.”

These two sentences appear to be contradictory. Please clarify whether force protection will, or will not, be provided to contractor employees in Syria.

Government Response: The two sentences do not contradict. Refer to ETSC F&O STO 3.1 paragraph 4.1.2.3 which states, “Under certain circumstances, as dictated by US-partner nation agreement, contractors may be required to utilize partner nation force protection, or be restricted from utilizing third-party force protection or personnel security duties for any reason other than

2-50. “Contractor personnel may be authorized to possess firearms in accordance with the

Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement (SDCA) between the U.S. Government and

Syria.”

The SDCA between the U.S. Government and Syria does not exist. Should offerors make assumptions about the contents of this hypothetical agreement?