Att_23_TRIOSS_RFP_Questions_and_Answers.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Training Instructor Operator Support Services
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-18-R-0002
About this file
Att_23_TRIOSS_RFP_Questions and Answers
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 97 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
TRIOSS RFP Clarification Form Training Instructor Operator Support Services (TRIOSS) Request for Proposal (RFP) Clarification Form
| Solicitation Name: | Training Instructor Operator Support Services (TRIOSS) |
| Solicitation Number: | W900KK-18-R-0002 |
| Offeror: | |
| POC: | |
| Title: |
| When completing the form, please be sure to identify the page/section/paragraph numbers for which you are providing feedback. |
| Comment Types: |
Critical: Comments of a very serious nature that will affect performance, schedule or quality. These are the “show-stoppers.”
Substantive: Comments of a less serious nature that have noticeable impact on the document’s quality or content. The document appears to be incorrect, misleading, confusing, or inconsistent with other sections.
Administrative: Comments that address minor items such as typographical, format, and/or grammatical errors.
| AREA | COMMENT TYPE | PAGE NUMBER | SECTION NUMBER | COMMENT | EVALUATION (Completed by the Government) |
| Solicitation | Critical | 74 | L.6.3.3 | The government requests, 'The Offeror shall submit a narrative describing the experience held by the Offeror’s team in the following four (4) areas: (1) Managing a workforce of 75+ Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) providing training…'. |
| Can the government confirm that the ‘75 FTE providing training’ doesn’t have to be on one contract? Can the government confirm that managing a workforce of 75+ FTE does not have to be restricted to providing ‘medical’ training? If unchanged, the requirement appears to be unclear and subject to broad interpretation. If unchanged, this requirement appears to unnecessarily restrict fair competition. It suggests that an offeror would be non-compliant if we managed a professional workforce of any size if they weren't in the ' medical training or training' discipline. It also suggests an offeror would be non-compliant if we managed a workforce of 74 FTEs providing military weapons training or some other type of training besides only medical. | The Government can confirm that managing a workforce of 75+ Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) does not have to be on one contract. The Government can confirm that managing a workforce of 75+ Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) does not have to be restricted to providing medical training. The Government requires the Offeror to describe their experience managing a workforce of 75+ Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) providing training. It is the Offeror's responsibility to determine how to address the Government's requirement. | |||||
| Attachment | Critical | All | TO#1, Appendix A | |||
| TO#2, Appendix A | TRIOSS Appendix A for both TO1 and TO2 each respectively define labor classifications and historical headcounts of 81 and 63 FTEs; total of 144 FTEs. Are these the headcounts that the government wants the offeror to use for pricing or does the government want the offeror to bid the labor categories and headcounts we feel are necessary to successfully perform the work? | The historical head counts were provided for reference. It is the Offeror's responsibility to determine the appropriate number of FTEs necessary to fulfill the TRIOSS requirement. | ||||
| Solicitation | Administrative | 71 | L.6.1.3 | Table 2 of the cross reference matrix sample includes a 'Government Specification' column. Since there are already columns for Section L&M, PWS, and CLIN would the government consider deleting that column? Anything that goes into the Gov Spec column should already be captured in one of the columns. | The soliciation has been updated to remove "Government Specification" colum under section L.6.1.3. | |
| Solicitation | Substantive | 83 | M.4.5.2 | In section M.4.5.2 under “Relevancy” the government states: Past performance will be considered relevant if it was for providing medical skills training in a simulated environment with a contract portfolio of $7M or more annually. Relevancy discussions could also include end-item comparisons with respect to use or complexity; size and scope of the effort; continuity of key management and technical personnel; and continuity of teaming arrangements and subcontractors. The Government will evaluate all recent performance information obtained to determine if it is the same or similar in nature, size, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation. Please clarify on what the government considers relevant. Will past performance citations only relevant to ‘providing medical skills training in a simulated environment’ be considered or will the government consider past performance citations with similar size and scope that might not be ‘medical skills training in a simulated environment’ be considered? The relevancy paragraph is conflicting on whether the government will consider past performance citations if they aren’t ‘medical skills training in a simulated environment’. | Past performance will be considered relevant if it was for providing medical skills training in a simulated environment with a contract portfolio of $7M or more annually. Past performance citations to non-medical skills training in a simulated environment, as comparison, will be considered relevant with respect to use or complexity; scope; continuity of key management and technical personnel; and continuity of teaming arrangements and subcontractors. | |
| Solicitation | Administrative | M.3.1 | Is the offeror intended to submit a copy of the compliance matrix included at Attachment 12? And if so, where would the government want it to be inserted? | The Compliance Matrix was added for reference only. | ||
| Solicitation | Critical | 74, 75 | L.6.3, L.6.4; M.2.2, M.4.4, M.4.5 | As a Joint Venture (JV) preparing a response to this solicitation, please clarify the definition of "Offeror" specifically related to past performance. What past performance is required for JV entities based on the corporate makeup? Is past performance to come from the JV partners ONLY or as a COLLECTIVE to include major subcontractors? We carefully chose our major subcontractors based on their past performance and credentials on medical training across the services; each has extensive experience and relevant past performance, whose past performance provide major risk reduction for overall program success. The answer to this question will essentially inform our Bid/No Bid decision, therefore, we would appreciate receiving an answer as soon as possible. | The Government requires three (3) to five (5) past performance examples of any entity. It could be a single offeror and/or Joint Venture and/or team member and/or major subcontractor. If the JV does not have shared past performance, relevant contract efforts from any or all partners in the JV may be evaluated. | |
| Past Performance | Substantive | 83 | M.4.5.2 | "Past performance will be considered relevant if it was for providing medical skills training in a simulated environment with a contract portfolio of $7M or more annually." The small business size standard for TRIOSS is $15 million annual receipts. Would the government consider reducing the contract portfolio size below $7M annually to allow small businesses to detail relevant past performance that is in-line with a small business portfolio? | The Government has considered this request, however, the contract portfolio of $7M or more annually under the corporate experience requirement shall remain unchanged. | |
| Corporate Experience | Substantive | 74 | L.6.3.3 | "Managing a workforce with a training throughput of at least 2,500 students per year." Would the government consider reducing the training throughput number so that small businesses can detail relevant corporate experience on smaller size contracts? | The Government has considered this request, however, the 2,500 student throughput under the corporate experience requirement shall remain unchanged. | |
| Past Performance | Substantive | 82 | M.4.4. Factor 4 Technical-Corporate Experience | “Managing a workforce of 75+ FTEs providing training.” Given that this is a small business set-aside currently in a $15M NAICS, will the Government consider reducing this number from 75+ to 35+? | The Government has considered this request, however, the 75+ FTE corporate experience requirement shall remain unchanged. |
Sheet1
| Solicitation |
| Basic Contract PWS |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS |
| Appendix |
| Attachment |
| N/A |
| Critical |
| Substantive |
| Administrative |
| N/A |
File details come from the government source that posted it.