Att_24_TRIOSS_RFP_Questions_and_Answers_26_APR_18.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 44 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Training Instructor Operator Support Services
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-18-R-0002
About this file
Att_24_TRIOSS_RFP_Questions and Answers 26 APR 18
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 | Substantive | 73 | L.6.2 | This is an IDIQ contract that has only 1 Task Order can we expect additional task orders? A) If not why is this a task order and not a consolidated PWS? B) If there is an expectation of future task orders like Exportable Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TC3-X) which is coming out of PEO STRI that is similar requirements in a MTT format how will pricing reasonableness be determined? There is the possibility of under pricing the current task order to ensure an award but with future task orders providing labor rates that are inflated or over priced to make up for the low amounts on TO #1 (MSTC). Recommend that in addition to submitting the pricing for TO #1 that as part of the TEP evaluation a set of 10 labor categories are created by the government that all bidders must provide their FBLR (CONUS) to prevent this technique to be used and to ensure that the government knows what they can expect price wise on future task orders. | Currently, the TRIOSS IDIQ has only 1 task order (TO), however, the Government anticipates this contract to be a performance based medical-related TADSS I/O service provider for Department of Defense, which could lead to future TOs . If a requirement meets the scope of the TRIOSS contract, the Government may add a new task order. The Government has considered the request for pre-established labor rates/categories, however, due to the unknown locations of future within scope work, it would not be advantageous to request this information. Each new requirement/change will be individually negotiated and price reasonableness will be assessed on future TOs. |
| Solicitation | Critical | 84 | M.4.5.2 | TRIOSS currently is a small business set-aside with a NAICS at $15 million. However in section L.6.4 defines “Relevant past performance is past performance that is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity to the TRIOSS PWS." Then in section M.4.5.2 of the evaluation criteria "relevancy 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 comparisons with respect to use or complexity; scope; 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, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation." Will the government please define relevancy due to scope not revenue. The current government contracting landscape has been financially constrained so there are many LPTA medical contracts ongoing. |
- This is of concern because we have went through the FAR and cannot find where a small business set-aside solicitation can further restrict bidders based off annual revenue between two amounts. This seems to be very restrictive limiting competition by having a small business set-aside mandating that a small company must have a revenue between $7M - $15M. Unless you have a large business as your subcontractor raising the prices in an LPTA effort just to be relevant or by simply using their past performance to be considered relevant. - The current MSTC effort reported spending by FY has not been over $1m annually within the last 3 years (FY2015 $870,268; FY2016 $929,661; FY2017 $930,747). If this information is incorrect can you please provide the correct amounts?
- Another point of reference is a comparable medical skills training contract second largest Army medical training (non R&D) which is below $3.5 million annually (Joint Special Operations Medical Training (JSOMTC) Support H92239-15-R-0003). Question A: How will larger contracts that have multiple task areas that may be over $7 million annually be evaluated to determination what portion of that contract was actual medical skills training revenue? An example is the Maneuver Center of Excellence IDIQ with 6 task areas, has over $10 million in annual revenue but under $200k was medical training. Question B: With the total evaluated price as the number one evaluation factor, knowing that the large businesses rates will be a lot higher than a team of small businesses that are fully capable will be. Is it the government’s desire for bidders to have a Large Business to be considered relevant?
Question C: If we have a University or Tech College on our team how do we evaluate their revenue? Would it be annual tuition of medical students? Since they do not have a contract how do you want us to present this subcontractor/teammate with past performance? A few recommendations for this would be
- Remove the $7 million contract value entirely and have relevant be the required training skills that will be performed under the TRIOSS contract not a revenue
- Change relevant to equal must be a “prime” of a medical skills training contract performing similar tasks to TRIOSS but do not apply a revenue requirement apply a capability
Section M.4.5.3. defines scope as range of operations covered. Past performance whose range of operations covered is similar or same to medical skills training in a simulated environment with a contract portfolio of $7M or more annually will be considered relevant.
- Current MSTC I/Os cost is in excess of $7M annually. This is the reduced cost after last years reduction of funding and corresponding reduction to 63 I/Os. The MSTC spending for the within the last 3 years has been as follows:
Lot Year 7 (May 2015 - April 2016) $11.4M Lot Year 8 (May 2016 - April 2017) $12.6M Lot Year 9 (May 2017 - September 2018) $8.1M
Answer to Question A: 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 comparisons with respect to use or complexity; scope; 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, and complexity to the services/products being procured under this solicitation.
Answer to Question B: It is the Offeror's responsibility to determine how to address the Government's requirement.
Answer to Question C: The past performance of a university or Tech College will be verified in CPARS. If they are not in the system, the Past Performance Questionnaire will be used to assess their past performance.
The Government has considered the revenue change request, however, the contract portfolio of $7M or more annually under the past performance requirement shall remain unchanged.
| Solicitation | Substantive | 82 | M.4.4 | This is a Small Business Set Aside most small businesses do not have or are managing a workforce of 75+ FTEs providing training and still a small business. In addition the MSTC task order has a staffing requirement of only 63 personnel so why the requirement of 75+ FTEs. This again forces small businesses to have a large business as a teaming partner to meet this corporate experience requirement but will drive up the price instead of the government seeking true total small business teams that have the capability and capacity to perform at the same level with extremely lower rates. Recommend that the number of FTE's be removed and change the language to state "Managing a certified workforce that provides medical training currently to a Department of Defense customer". | The Government has considered this request, however, the 75+ FTE corporate experience requirement shall remain unchanged. The Government anticipates 4 new MSTC locations to be fielded sometime throughout this contract POP. |
| Basic Contract PWS | Critical | If the prime does not have any past medical training experience but has performed work with over 75 FTEs and the subcontractors have medical training experience will that be considered technically acceptable or will that be considered a violation under the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule since the prime has little to no technical experience in medical training? | Per the Corporate Experience factor, managing a workforce of 75+ Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) does not have to be on one contract nor does it have to be restricted to providing medical training. The Government requires the Offeror to describe their experience managing a workforce of 75+ FTEs providing training. It is the Offeror's responsibility to determine how to address the Government's requirement. Your example could be a violation of the Ostensible Subcontractor Rule if the relationship between the prime and subcontractor does not meet the SBA size determination due to affiliation. To consider whether the relationship between a prime contractor and a subcontractor violates the rule, SBA considers all aspects of the relationship, including the terms of the proposal (such as contract management, technical responsibilities, and the percentage of subcontracted work), and agreements between the prime and subcontractor. | ||
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.3 | How many waivers have been issued over the life of the current contract? | One waiver. The individual had all required certifications but did not have a military background. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.3 | How many waivers have been issued for current contract workforce? | One waiver. The individual had all required certifications but did not have a military background. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.3 | What are the location of the staff working with a waiver? | This information is not rot required for a Contractor to propose on the TRIOSS solicitation. |
| Appendix | Administrative | 1 | Att_8_TRIOSS_Cost-Price_Workbook | Body of document refers to TO2. Should it be TO 1? | The document references should state TO 1. Att_8_TRIOSS_Cost-Price_Workbook has been updated to reflect the correct TO reference. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Administrative | 3 | Att_2_TRIOSS_TO_1_MSTC_PWS | Body of document refers to TO2. Should it be TO 1? | The document references should state TO 1. Att_2_TRIOSS_TO_1_MSTC_PWS has been updated to reflect the correct TO reference. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Critical | 4 | 1.3.1.2 | Section 1.3.1.2 states "National Registry of Emergency Medical Technician (NREMT) training (all levels)." With the scope of practice for a 68W at the EMT-Basic level can the government please clarify the requirement to provide NR EMT (all levels) which includes AEMT and Paramedic if that is above the scope of practice. | As explanation for the government's requirement, combat medics (68W) are trained and operate at a scope of practice that exceeds that of the NREMT Emergency Medical Technical Basic (EMT). Most of the skills and knowledge required to perform as a Combat Medic far exceeds any civilian based certifications. In order to establish a standardized base-line competency level and provide validation through a third-party certification, the Army uses the NREMT certification as a part of their Military Occupation Specialty Qualifications. All 68Ws are required to obtain and maintain NREMT certification as at least an EMT-B. However, many 68Ws exceed the minimum requirement and maintain certifications as higher levels. Additionally, some Combat Medics with additional skills identifiers (and duties) are required to maintain NREMT certification as a National Registered Paramedic (NRP). The sustainment and proficiency training to be provided is expected to exceed that of civilian EMTs. The requirement remains unchanged. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 4 & 7 | 1.3.1.2 & 3.4.7 | Section 1.3.1.2 and 3.4.7 states "Additional training provided at the MSTC includes Combat Life Saver (CLS) initial training and sustainment training to non-medical personnel." With the recent (March 2018) release of DoDI 1322.24 MRT stating TCCC replaces CLS as a training requirement for deploying service members, will the government be removing CLS as a requirement in the PWS and how with this new DoDI mandate affect the student load or training requirements annually? | TCCC (TC3) has already been implemented without issue TC3 (replaced CLS) This training does not have to be performed at a MSTC unless there is room in the schedule. Train the Trainers will assist with this training. The requirement remains unchanged. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Critical | 4 | 2.7.3 | How are we to price the potential surge requirements with the rates are fixed and there are no hourly rates or surge CLIN provided. Recommend the government remove this requirement or modify the pricing schedule to accommodate the surge pricing. | Surge requirements will be handled via the contract modification process (CMP) referenced under the Base PWS section 4.1. Each CMP will be individually negotiated. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.4 | With the recent (March 2018) release of DoDI 1322.24 MRT stating TCCC replaces CLS as a training requirement for deploying service members, how with this new DoDI mandate affect the student load or training requirements annually? | TCCC (TC3) has already been implemented without issue TC3 (replaced CLS) This training does not have to be performed at a MSTC unless there is room in the schedule. Train the Trainers will assist with this training. The requirement remains unchanged. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Critical | 8 | 3.4.10 | Section 3.4.10 states NREMT Nationally Registered Paramedic (NRP) level in support of EMT Sustainment Course, as well as CLS courses. However section 1.3.1.2 Scope and 3.4.5 Training Foci state the primary requirement is for the 68W sustainment training and non medics. Can the government please clarify who the students will be for the NRP Sustainment Course? | Some Advanced Combat Medics hold positions and duties that require the scope of practice to exceed that of the standard Combat Medic. With the higher level of required skills and knowledge, it is necessary to have an elevated base-line competency level. Therefore, these Combat Medics are required to obtain and maintain certification as Nationally Registered Paramedics (NRP). NRP recertification includes additional requirements that can only be obtained through specific NRP sustainment courses. CLS courses can be taught by Instructors with any level of NREMT certification of EMT or higher. The requirement remains unchanged. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Critical | 5 | 3.4.1 | ll | The Government cannot answer this question with the information provided. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Critical | Who will be providing medical oversight and direction to the I/Os that are performing under this MSTC effort? | The Course Coordinators (CC's). | ||
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Critical | If the I/Os are falling under the medical director at AMED for training and practice how will the government manage the insurance liabilities since the medical director is not an employee of the company? | AMED is the proponent for the Medical community and they develop and are responsible for all training requirements, SOP's, medical training scenarios, and certification requirements for the MSTC's. But, they do not supervise or manage the I/O's. On-site directions come from the CC. The Government is not responsible for assessing or managing insurance liabilities. Offerors assess and manage their own insurance liabilities. | ||
| N/A | Critical | N/A | N/A | The CBAs provided identify the vacation accrual rates however, to provide accurate pricing, seniority listings for each CBA are required. In order to provide accurate pricing, will the government provide the seniority listings for each CBA? | The Government will not provide this list prior to proposal. A list will be provided to the awardee IAW FAR part 52.222-17. |
| Attachment | Critical | N/A | N/A | Attachment 12, TRIOSS Wage Determinations ad CBA Locations references Ft. Hood to have a CBA. However, it is not listed among the attachments in the RFP like the rest of the CBA’s. Please provide the Ft. Hood CBA. | The Government will post Attachment 22 entitled "Att_22_CBA-2017-9994-Ft.Hood_TX". |
| Solicitation | Substantive | 72 of 83 | Section L.6.2.1 | Section L.6.2.1 states (excerpt): The Offeror’s proposal shall include the completed TRIOSS Contract Data Rights List (CDRL) Rights Spreadsheet, Attachment 9. Question – Is the contractor required to include data within the “cost” column of Attachment 9, given that CDRLs are not separately priced and CDRLs are not included in TEP? | The Contractor is required to include data within the “cost” column of Attachment 9. |
| Solicitation | Substantive | 4 0f 83 | CLIN 003 and subsequent travel CLINS on the SF33 and Attachment 8 | CLIN 003 and subsequent travel CLINS on the SF33 do not match the CLIN 003 (and subsequent travel CLINS) amount indicated in Attachment 8. We suspect this was a clerical oversight with no material impact to the RFP. Government will likely include actual travel budget amounts on final issued SF33. Please confirm. Should the contractor input the Attachment 8 amounts on the submitted SF33 for consistency? | The Government will update the solicitation and Attachment 8 to input the correct amounts. The Contractor should not change the travel amounts on Attachment 8. |
| Solicitation | Substantive | 5 of 83 | CLIN 005 and subsequent CDRL CLINS | For CLIN 005 and subsequent CDRL CLINS, should the contractor input “NSP” on the SF33? If not, then what amount should be included on the SF33 since CDRLs are not separately priced? | The Contractor should input NSP for the CDRL line items. |
| Solicitation | Substantive | 6 of 83 | CLINs 0006 and 0007 and subsequent option CLINs | How is the contractor to estimate cost input (for SF33) for CLINs 0006 and 0007 and subsequent option CLINs? | The Contractor should not include a cost for the Contract Management Proposal (CMP) CLINs. |
| Solicitation | Substantive | 26 of 83 | Section F., F.1. | Period of Performance, Base Year, references CLIN 0009. There doesn’t appear to be a CLIN 0009. Please confirm. | The Government will update the solicitation to reflect the correct CLINs. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 8 of 9 | Section 3.4.13 subparagraph c) | STD: The I/Os at each MSTC location, shall be responsible for performing PMCS (daily maintenance) on all equipment. Repair and replacement of training equipment, beyond routine daily maintenance, is supported by Contractor warranties through the various Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). Question – Should this read “LCCS contractor warranties …”? Who establishes the warranties? Who is responsible for procuring warranties and Service Contracts that may be required? Please clarify the TRIOSS contractor’s responsibilities with regard to warranty implementation. | The TRIOSS Contractor is not responsible for warranties or warranty implementation. All warranty requirements are supported by a different contract and Contractor. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 1 of 9 | Title Page | Title of TO 2 MSTC PWS is “TRIOSS Task Order Two (T.O. 1)” … subsequently, the naming convention appears to be, consistently, “TO 2”. Please clarify nomenclature for MSTC Task Order for consistency. | The Government will update the MSTC TO PWS to reflect the correct TO nomenclature. |
| Basic Contract PWS | Critical | 24 of 28 | TRIOSS Base PWS section 3.3.1.1 | TRIOSS Base PWS section 3.3.1.1 (In Progress Reviews) states: The Contractor shall host In Progress Reviews (IPRs) to brief the status of transition efforts. Performance Standards STD: The Contractor shall conduct IPRs every 30 days between PAC and Phase-In Start; every seven days during the Phase-In period. Question: How long does the Government envision that it will take to transition from PAC to Phase-In? Our estimate is that the Phase-In should begin almost immediately after PAC. The assertion of conducting IPRs every 30 days seems to imply that the Government presumes an extensive period between PAC and Phase In. Please clarify. | The Government envisions Phase-In to start immediately after PAC. The Base PWS section 3.3.1.1 has been updated. For CDRL B002, the Government updated BLK 16 verbiage for BLK 12 to 20 days prior to any IPR, PAC, and PMR. For CDRL B003, the Government updated BLK 11 to N/A. The BLK 16 verbiage for BLK 12 changed to 10 days prior to any IPR, PAC, and PMR. For CDRL B004, the Government updated BLK 11 to N/A. The BLK 13 language was also changed to N/A. The BLK 16 verbiage for BLK 12 was changed to 10 days after any IPR, PAC, and PMR. |
| Attachment | Substantive | Page 1 of 2 for each Exhibit | Exhibit F, I & J | CDRL B006, B009 and B010 indicate in Block 16 (first submission) BLOCK 12: TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER FULL CONTRACT PERFORMANCE. Question – what is the Government’s definition of Full Contract Performance? Is this after completion of the offerors proposed or actual phase-in period? | For CDRL B006, the Government corrected the first submission and subsequent submission dates to be 20 days after each training event. For CDRL B009, the Government updated the BLK 16 verbiage. The Government changed the BLK 12 information to 45 calendar days after contract award. The BLK 16 verbiage for BLK 13 was changed to Subsequent Submission due 10 days after any personnel change. For CDRL 010, the Government deleted the information in BLK 12 and updated BLK 16 to remove block 12 verbiage. |
| Basic Contract PWS | Substantive | 25 0f 28 | TRIOSS Base PWS, Section 3.3.3 | TRIOSS Base PWS, Section 3.3.3 states: g) STD: The contractor shall provide to the Government their quality control documentation within 45 days after contract award and submitted to the PCO and COR. CDRL 010 indicates first submission 20 days after full contract performance. Question – please verify when the CDRL is due for submission | For CDRL 010, the Government deleted the information in BLK 12 and updated BLK 16 to remove block 12 verbiage. |
| Solicitation | Substantive | 77 0f 83 | L.6.4.7. & Attachment 11 | L.6.4.7. Completed questionnaires must be received no later than the specified proposal due date. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to request timely delivery of the completed questionnaires to the proper email address. Comment: Attachment 11 TRIOSS Past Performance Questionnaire instruction page indicates the suspense date for return of completed questionnaire is 2 May 2018 and page 5 indicates 9 May 2018. Please Clarify. | The document references should state 9 May 2018. Att_11_TRIOSS_Past_Performance_Questionnaire has been updated to reflect the correct date. |
| Attachment | Substantive | Worksheet | Attachment 8 | The quantity listed for "Option to Extend Service IAW clause 52.217-8" is 0.50 and the Unit is MO. Should the quantity be changed to 6? | Per Section M.4.1.4, the Option to Extend Services six month extension price will be calculated by the U.S. Government by taking 50% of each of the option year four CLIN prices. The Unit amount shall remain unchanged. |
| Attachment | Critical | WDs worksheet | Attachment 12 | Line 20 lists CBA-2017-9994 for Bell County, Fort Hood TX. However, Amendment 1 is missing this CBA. Attempts to download it from www.wdol.gov are unsuccessful. Request the government to provide the entire CBA to include any amendments. | The Government will post Attachment 22 entitled "Att_22_CBA-2017-9994-Ft.Hood_TX". |
| Attachment | Critical | MOA | Attachment 17 | The attachment only includes the MOA to CBA-2016-8673. Request the government provide the entire CBA. | CBA 2016-8673 has been added to the MOA under Attachment 17. |
| Attachment | Substantive | Worksheet | Attachment 8 | The government's plug number for Travel CLINs indicates a significant amount of travel for MSTC instructor/operators. Request the government provide the number of anticipated trips per year, estimated duration and the purpose? This information is necessary to defining our indirect rates and management infrastructure. | Under the MSTC TO, the Government estimates no more than 6 trips per year. |
| Solicitation | Critical | 69 | L.6 | The solicitation limits the Technical Volume to 35 pages. In order to properly respond to all PWS requirements in the IDIQ PWS and the MSTC TO PWS will require more than 35 pages. Will you increase the page limit accordingly? | The Government has considered this request, however, the 35 page Technical Volume requirement shall remain unchanged. |
| Attachment | Critical | 6 | 3.4.4, 3.4.8, Appendix A | The MSTC TO PWS requires a training throughput of at least 2500 68W students annually (paragraph 3.4.4). To achieve this throughput while adhering to the required instructor to student ratios (paragraph 3.4.8) will require at least 4 instructors per site. Historically only six of the 21 MSTC sites have had 4 or more instructors (Appendix A) which would imply that the other sites are not meeting the throughput requirement. Please explain this discrepancy. | Currently, all the MSTC locations are meeting the throughput requirements. |
| Solicitation | Critical | 72 & 79 | L.6.2.4 and M.2.1 | Because the basis for award is the "Lowest Price Technically Acceptable" offer, and Pricing for the Phase-In Period is part of the Total Evaluated Price, the incumbent has a distinct price advantage. In order to promote greater competition and to give all Offerors a "fair playing field", request the government does NOT include the Phase In Price, (CLIN 0001) in the Total Evaluated Price, or provide a government surrogate number for that CLIN that all Offerors are required to use. | The TRIOSS requirement was removed from the WarFighter FOCUS contract. The incumbent was a large business so there should be no competitive advantage for the current small business offerors. The Government has considered this request, however, the Phase-in Pricing requirement shall remain unchanged. |
| Solicitation | Critical | 1 | Att 3/Q&A | The Government gives the historical FTE count (Att 3) and states in Q&A that “It is the Offeror's responsibility to determine the appropriate number of FTEs necessary to fulfill the TRIOSS requirement." Due to the FFP nature of this contract, non-incumbent Offerors will need additional workload data in order to properly scope the work effort based on customer requirements and their individual solution. Will the government provide Student throughput, type of courses, historical maintenance and supply data so offer can correctly determine FTE requirements and develop their solution?. If no additional workload data will be provided to Offerors other than historical FTEs by site, it appears that the incumbent has a clear advantage because they do have the historical workload data and program knowledge that could allow them to bid less than the FTEs in Att 3. | There are no requirements for maintenance (other than -10 PMCS) or supply/logistics for I/O PWS requirements. TRIOSS PWS states student throughput and certification of MEDICS to become fully qualified NREMT's. |
| Attachment | Administrative | 1 | Attachment 11 | Documents states two due dates 02 May 2018 and 09 May 2018. Both should be 09 May 2018. | The document references should state 9 May 2018. Att_11_TRIOSS_Past_Performance_Questionnaire has been updated to reflect the correct date. |
| Solicitation | Critical | 83 | M.4.5.2. | Does the statement “Past performance will be considered relevant if it was for providing medical skills training in a simulated environment with a contract portfolio of $7M of more annually.” require the bidder to provide a single past performance citation that is currently over $7M annually or a combination of more than one past performance citations that are currently over $7M annually? | Contractors have the ability to propose a single past performance citation that is currently over $7M annually or a combination of more than one past performance citations that are currently over $7M annually. |
| Solicitation | Critical | 83 | M.4.5.2. | Since the anticipated FTE count has been reduced more than 50%, does the government intend keeping the $7M annual Past Performance requirement for Relevancy. |
| The Government intends to keep the $7M annual Past Performance requirement for Relevancy. | |||||
| Attachment | Critical | Att 21, 22 and 23 | CBA Attachments | It appears CBAs 2016-8625 (Ft Bragg), 2016-8626 (Ft Campbell) and 2016-8673 (Schofield) are either incomplete or do not contain the most current information, Please provide the most recent and up to date CBAs for these three locations. Ft Bragg 2016-8625 expired 2/28/2018, Ft Campbell 2016-8626 expired 5/31/2017, and Schofield 2016-8673 is an MOU update to the existing CBA, but the actual CBA is not included as an attachment. | The Government has updated the CBAs for Ft. Bragg and Scofield. The CBA for Ft. Campbell has expired and a new CBA has not been submitted. |
| Attachment | Critical | All CBA Att 16 - 22 | CBA Attachments | Most CBAs end before the first year of the contract. Request the government instruct all Offerors to use the Base Year CBA rates in the development of their pricing for the option periods in order to insure that all Offerors provide the same compensation (salary and benefits) as the current incumbent is paying (not less), and to use as a baseline for future REA adjustments. Doing so would eliminate the concern of Offerors proposing less than the current compensation dictated in the CBA in the out years to reduce their price (LPTA) , and then requesting an REA after CBA negotiations that increases the overall cost to the government after award. | The TRIOSS requirement was removed from the WarFighter FOCUS contract. The incumbent was a large business so there should be no competitive advantage for the current small business offerors. It is the Offeror's responsibility to determine how to address the Government's requirement. |
| Appendix | Substantive | 1 | Att_3_Appendix A | Appendix A doesn't provide job descriptions of the required labor categories. Also the CBA attachments don't provide any job descriptions. Please provide a mapping of Labor Categories required per Appendix A and respective WD and CBAs or alternatively provide job descriptions for the labor categories anticipated in this Appendix and job descriptions of Labor Categories included in the CBA attachments to allow us mapping them ourselves. | The labor category is Instructor/Operator (I/Os), however, it is the Offeror's responsibility to determine how to address the Government's requirement. |
| Attachment | Administrative | NA | Attachment 12 | Which WD/CBA will apply for Ft. Atterbury, IN site? | WD 2015-4787 for Johnson County, Greenwood, IN apply to Ft. Waterbury. |
| Attachment | Administrative | NA | Attachment 12 | Please provide applicable CBA-2017-9994 with International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 2427 applicable for Ft. Hood, TX site. | The Government will post Attachment 22 entitled "Att_22_CBA-2017-9994-Ft.Hood_TX". |
| Attachment | Administrative | NA | Attachment 16, Attachment 3 | Attachment 16 CBA contains 9 labor categories; whereas historical staffing in Attachment 3 suggests only 2 FTEs for Ft. Benning site. For an accurate mapping with applicable CBA labor category, please provide job titles for the historical FTEs. | The labor category is Instructor/Operator (I/Os), however, it is the Offeror's responsibility to determine how to address the Government's requirement. |
| Attachment | Administrative | NA | Attachment 17, Attachment 3 | Attachment 17 CBA contains 5 labor categories; whereas historical staffing in Attachment 3 suggests only 3 FTEs for Schofield Barracks, HI site. For an accurate mapping with applicable CBA labor category, please provide job titles for the historical FTEs. | The labor category is Instructor/Operator (I/Os), however, it is the Offeror's responsibility to determine how to address the Government's requirement. |
| Attachment | Administrative | NA | Attachment 17 | Attachment 17 CBA doesn’t include any data for applicable fringe benefits. Is there an addendum to this CBA agreement that we should consider for bidding fringe benefits for this CBA positions? | Attachment 17, CBA 2016-8673, has been updated to include this information. |
| Attachment | Administrative | NA | Attachment 18, Attachment 3 | Attachment 18 CBA contains 3 labor categories; whereas historical staffing in Attachment 3 suggests 4 FTEs for Ft Campbell, KY site. For an accurate mapping with applicable CBA labor category, please provide job titles for the historical FTEs. | The labor category is Instructor/Operator (I/Os), however, it is the Offeror's responsibility to determine how to address the Government's requirement. |
| Attachment | Administrative | NA | Attachment 19, Attachment 3 | Attachment 19 CBA contains 4 labor categories; whereas historical staffing in Attachment 3 suggests only 2 FTEs for Camp Riple, MN site. For an accurate mapping with applicable CBA labor category, please provide job titles for the historical FTEs. | The labor category is Instructor/Operator (I/Os), however, it is the Offeror's responsibility to determine how to address the Government's requirement. |
| Attachment | Administrative | NA | Attachment 20, Attachment 3 | Attachment 20 CBA contains 5 labor categories; whereas historical staffing in Attachment 3 suggests only 2 FTEs for Camp Shelby, MS site. For an accurate mapping with applicable CBA labor category, please provide job titles for the historical FTEs. | The labor category is Instructor/Operator (I/Os), however, it is the Offeror's responsibility to determine how to address the Government's requirement. |
| Attachment | Administrative | NA | Attachment 21, Attachment 3 | Attachment 21 CBA contains 7 labor categories; whereas historical staffing in Attachment 3 suggests only 5 FTEs for Ft Bragg, NC site. For an accurate mapping with applicable CBA labor category, please provide job titles for the historical FTEs. | The labor category is Instructor/Operator (I/Os), however, it is the Offeror's responsibility to determine how to address the Government's requirement. |
| Solicitation | Administrative | 72 | L.6.2.1, L.6.2.4 | Per L.6.2.1, the offeror's proposal shall include the completed TRIOSS Contract Data Rights List (CDRL) Rights Spreadsheet, Attachment 9; however, Per L.6.2.4, Contract Deliverables Requirements List (CDRL) CLINs 0005, 1004, 2004, 3004 and 4004 are Not Separately Priced (NSP). Please clarify the information required on a completed TRIOSS Contract Data Rights List (CDRL) Rights Spreadsheet Attachment 9. | The Contractor shall complete the Cost column on the TRIOSS Contract Data Rights List (CDRL) Rights Spreadsheet under Attachment 9. |
| Solicitation | Administrative | 70 | L.6.1.2 | does the master table of contents and list of abbreviations/acronyms only go in volume I? or should they be included in every volume? | Per L.4.6 of the solicitation, Each volume of the proposal shall consist of a Cover Page, Table of Contents, a List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, a List of Figures and Tables and Summary Section. Offerors are advised that the content of Cover Pages, Tables of Contents, Lists of Acronyms and Abbreviations, Lists of Figures and Tables, and Summary Sections are for reference purposes only and will not be evaluated by the Government. The Summary Section of each volume shall contain a brief abstract of the volume and shall not exceed one page. |
| N/A | Substantive | N/A | N/A | Are all previous questions/answers still valid (Applies to all areas where previous questions were asked by Industry) | All previous questions/answers still valid. |
| Solicitation | Critical | Section I - Contract Clauses; Clauses Incorporated by Reference; 252.204-7012 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information and Cyber Incident Reporting (Oct 20165) | Will the Government please identify the Unclassified Technical Controlled Information and Controlled Defense Information for TRIOSS that is covered under Clause 252.204-7012 (October 2016 version) Safeguarding of Unclassified Controlled Technical Information? | Per DFARS 204.7301, Controlled Technical Information (CTI) is defined as “technical information with military or space application that is subject to controls on the access, use, reproduction, modification, performance, display, release, disclosure, or dissemination. “Technical information” is defined to mean “recorded information, regardless of the form or method of the recording, of a scientific or technical nature". Examples of technical information include research and engineering data, engineering drawings and associated lists, specifications, standards, process sheets, manuals, technical reports, technical orders, catalog-item identifications, data sets, studies and analyses and related information, and computer software executable code and source code. | |
| Basic Contract PWS | Substantive | 22 | 3.2 | Can the USG provide an example of Exercise support in relation to the Base PWS. | Examples of exercise support are Army Mission Readiness Exercises, Emergency Deployment Readiness Exercises (EDRE), Squad/Platoon/Company/Battalion/Brigade/ Division-level Situational Training Exercises (STX) lanes training, etc. The Contractor shall facilitate and support training exercises for varying sizes (small team to Brigade level), complexities, and conditions. |
| Basic Contract PWS | Substantive | 22 | 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4 | "RFP defined rates under the provided SCA labor categories appears to eliminate all but the Site Lead position from developing exercise concepts. Is it the governments intention to use this cost structure on a LPTA contract to isolate this work to this one position?" | The historical head counts and SCA labor categories were provided for reference. It is the Offeror's responsibility to determine the appropriate number of FTEs necessary to fulfill the TRIOSS requirement. |
| Basic Contract PWS | Substantive | 25 | 3.3.3 | The USG provided the previous response. Is this still the case? Previous USG Response was "There is no requirement for a QCP with your proposal. If you choose to submit, the USG has no preference as to how you submit". | The Government's response is still valid. |
| Basic Contract PWS | Substantive | 26 | 4.2 | Is it the USG intention to provide housekeeping, custodial services, rodent control, and grounds maintenance for Contractor-occupied facilities required for I/O support of training? | Yes. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.5 | Can the USG please provide length (number of hours) TC 8-800. | Actual course length can vary by location based on guidance from the local Commander and demographics of the students. Minimum hours of instruction is 48-hrs. This does not include the skills validation testing. Each student is required to complete 4 testing scenarios with a time limit of 30-min each. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.5 | Can the USG please provide number hours of lecture for TC 8-800: (24-1), number of hours Hands on (6-1), number of hours invasive procedures (1-1). | Actual breakdown will vary by location based on guidance from the local Commander and demographics of the students. The minimum requirements are: Practical Exercise (PE) and skills practice will make up majority of scheduled time (=/>60%). Practical Exercise (PE) hours must be greater than Lecture (L) hours. Invasive procedures will vary. The 1:1 ratio is required for safety purposes and only for the actual invasive procedure itself. The PE group can be have six students, however, the Instructor must observe one student only while performing the procedure (one student at a time). |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.5 | Can the USG please provide who the proponent is for TC3 and length (number of hours) TC 3 | US Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) is the overall proponent for all medical training. US Army EMS Programs Management Division (Army EMS) is the delegated proponent for all 68W training. Minimum requirements for TC3 course is 24hrs of instruction. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.5 | Can the USG please provide number hours of lecture TC3: (24-1), number of hours Hands on (6-1), number of hours invasive procedures (1-1). | Actual breakdown will vary by location based on guidance from the local Commander and demographics of the students. The minimum requirements are: Practical Exercise (PE) and skills practice will make up majority of scheduled time (=/>60%). Practical Exercise (PE) hours must be greater than Lecture (L) hours. Invasive procedures will vary. The 1:1 ratio is required for safety purposes and only for the actual invasive procedure itself. The PE group can be have six students, however, the Instructor must observe one student only while performing the procedure (one student at a time). |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.5 | Can the USG please provide length (number of hours) CLS. | Actual schedule will vary by location based on guidance from the local Commander and demographics of the students. Minimum training hours is 24. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.5 | Can the USG please provide number hours of lecture CLS: (24-1), number of hours Hands on (6-1), number of hours invasive procedures (1-1). | Actual breakdown will vary by location based on guidance from the local Commander and demographics of the students. The minimum requirements are: Practical Exercise (PE) and skills practice will make up majority of scheduled time (=/>60%). Practical Exercise (PE) hours must be greater than Lecture (L) hours. Invasive procedures will vary. The 1:1 ratio is required for safety purposes and only for the actual invasive procedure itself. The PE group can be have six students, however, the Instructor must observe one student only while performing the procedure (one student at a time). |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.5 | Can the USG please provide length (number of hours) EMT sustainment or 68W Sustainment. Not TC 8-800 | Actual schedule will vary by location based on guidance from the local Commander and demographics of the students. Nationally Registered EMTs are required to obtain 72-hrs of continuing Education every 2-yrs. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.5 | Can the USG please provide number hours of lecture for EMT Sustainment (24-1), number of hours Hands on (6-1), number of hours invasive procedures (1-1). | Actual breakdown will vary by location based on guidance from the local Commander and demographics of the students. Practical Exercise (PE) and skills practice will make up majority of scheduled time (=/>60%). Invasive procedures will vary. The 1:1 ratio is required for safety purposes and only for the actual invasive procedure itself. The PE group can be have six students, however, the Instructor must observe one student only while performing the procedure (one student at a time). |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.5 | Can the USG please provide length (number of hours) AEMT sustainment. | AEMT courses are no longer provided at the MSTC |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.5 | Can the USG please provide number hours of lecture AEMT:(24-1), number of hours Hands on (6-1), number of hours invasive procedures (1-1). | AEMT courses are no longer provided at the MSTC |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.5 | Can the USG please provide length (number of hours) Paramedic Sustainment. | Actual breakdown will vary by location based on guidance from the local Commander and demographics of the students. Nationally Registered Paramedics are required to obtain 72-hours of continuing education every 2-yrs. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.5 | Can the USG please provide number hours of lecture Paramedic Sustainment:(24-1), number of hours Hands on (6-1), number of hours invasive procedures (1-1). | Actual breakdown will vary by location based on guidance from the local Commander and demographics of the students. Practical Exercise (PE) and skills practice will make up majority of scheduled time (=/>60%). Invasive procedures will vary. The 1:1 ratio is required for safety purposes and only for the actual invasive procedure itself. The PE group can be have six students, however, the Instructor must observe one student only while performing the procedure (one student at a time). |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.6 | The referenced Capability Production Document (CPD) was not provided in the RFP documents. Can the USG please provide the most current CPD? | TRIOSS I/O requirement is in the PWS. The CPD is an all inclusive document for a MSTC. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.6 | The current CPD states " The MSTC Program provides five contract personnel per fielded system to conduct training, administrative, and logistical functions". Is this the staffing model that the USG intends for industry to bid in support of 2,500 throughput? | TRIOSS I/O requirement is in the PWS. The CPD is an all inclusive document for a MSTC. |
| MSTC Task Order 01 PWS | Substantive | 6 | 3.4.7 | Can the USG please provide the referenced AIPD guidelines? | The AIPD referenced CLS guidelines have been attached under Attachment 25. |
| Attachment | Substantive | N/A | Attachment 12 | Attachment 12, DOL SCA Schedule: Please clarify "Revision" | The current revision numbers can be found at https://wdol.gov/sca.aspx |
| Solicitation | Critical | 83 | M.4.5.2 | Relevancy: 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. |
Question - Please define "a contract portfolio".
| Is this a combination of all past performances provided? Does each contract submitted for past performance need to meet the $7M annual value? | Contractors have the ability to propose a single past performance citation that is currently over $7M annually or a combination of more than one past performance citations that are currently over $7M annually. | ||||
| Solicitation | Critical | 82/83 | M.4.5.1 | The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance and assign a past performance rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” for each past performance submission provided. |
| Please confirm that 'each past performance submission' refers to the individual citation. | Per section M.4.5.1, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance and assign a past performance rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” for each past performance submission provided. A past performance rating will be assigned for the collective, relevant submissions of the Offeror, in accordance with the definitions provided in Section L.6.4 and Section M. | ||||
| Solicitation | Critical | 83 | M4.5.1 | A past performance rating will be assigned for the collective, relevant submissions of the Offeror, in accordance with the definitions provided in Section L.6.4 and Section M. |
| Question - What does 'collective, relevant submissions' mean? If 5 past performance citations are provided and only 2 are evaluated as 'relevant', how is the Past Performance Volume rated? Acceptable or Not Acceptable? | Per section M.2.2.Table A-2, Acceptable past performance is as follows "Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.". Unacceptable past performance is as follows "Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort." | ||||
| Solicitation | Critical | 83 | M.4.5.2 | Only submissions assessed as recent and relevant, as defined in this solicitation, will be evaluated for past performance as “acceptable” or “unacceptable”. |
| Question - What is a submission? Is it the entire Volume or individual past performance citation? If a submission is an individual citation and it does not meet the relevancy evaluation criteria, is the Volume then evaluated as Unacceptable? | Offers that do not meet stated requirements will be considered unacceptable and therefore ineligible for award. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance and assign a past performance rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” for each past performance submission provided. A past performance rating will be assigned for the collective, relevant submissions of the Offeror, in accordance with the definitions provided in Section L.6.4 and Section M. | ||||
| Solicitation | Critical | 83 | M.4.5.2 | Relevancy: 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. |
Question - Relevancy, although answered in the previous Q&A, is still defined in the solicitation as providing medical skills training. Will the solicitation be changed to reflect medical or similar non-medical skill training? Do all past performances need to relate to medical skills training? Past performance whose range of operations covered is similar or same to medical skills training in a simulated environment with a contract portfolio of $7M or more annually will be considered relevant.
Solicitation Critical 80 M.2.2 NOTE: In the case of an Offeror…
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it.