Conformed_Copy_to_Amendment_0005.pdf

CODE

(Hour)

PAGE(S)

until 12:00 PM local time 09 Sep 2016

X

A X B X C

D

EX

X G F 172 - 178

179 - 190 X H 191 ronald.l.moton.civ@mail.mil

RATING PAGE OF PAGES

7. ISSUED BY

(Date)

IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.

Previous Edition is Unusable 33-134 STANDARD FORM 33 (REV. 9-97)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.214(c)

1 195

(If other than Item 7)

15A. NAME 16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO

AND

ADDRESS

SIGN OFFER (Type or print)

OF

OFFEROR

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

15B. TELEPHONE NO (Include area code) 17. SIGNATURE15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS

IS DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER

SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE.

18. OFFER DATE

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED ORDER

UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

2. CONTRACT NO.

W911S0 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO

See Item 7

9. Sealed offers in original and 5 copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if handcarried, in the depository located in

CAUTION - LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All offers are subject to all terms and

Place Specified in Block 7 conditions contained in this solicitation.

10. FOR INFORMATION

CALL:

A. NAME (NO COLLECT CALLS)

RONALD MOTON 757-501-8155

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

SOLICITATION/ CONTRACT FORM

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/ COSTS

1 - 22 23 - 24

X I CONTRACT CLAUSES

DESCRIPTION/ SPECS./ WORK STATEMENT X

PACKAGING AND MARKING

25 - 46 J LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

X K

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND

OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA 49 - 51 X

SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror) 52 X M

L INSTRS., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

is inserted by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

(See Section I, Clause No. 52.232-8)

14. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments

AMENDMENT NO. DATE

to the SOLICITATION for offerors and related documents numbered and dated):

FACILITY

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD

X

(X) SEC. DESCRIPTION (X) SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S)

PART I - THE SCHEDULE

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print) 27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 28. AWARD DATE

EMAIL:TEL: (Signature of Contracting Officer)

CODE CODE

B. TELEPHONE (Include area code) C. E-MAIL ADDRESS

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED 20. AMOUNT 21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION:

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)( ) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)( ) (4 copies unless otherwise specified)

23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7) CODE 25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

53 - 62

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

MICC - FORT EUSTIS

705 WASHINGTON BLVD,

SUITE 126

FORT EUSTIS VA 23604-5327

FAX:

TEL:

FAX:

TEL:

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

SOLICITATION

63 - 171

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NO.5. DATE ISSUED

29 Jul 2016

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID (IFB)

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

[ X ]

3. SOLICITATION NO.

W911S0-16-R-0005

Section SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SCHEDULE

Responses to Solicitation Questions Reference: Technical Exhibit A, Paragraph 7.1.2.

Question 1: Technical Exhibit A describes the position of “Project Leader”. Is that the same position as listed in Attachment 6 as “Program Lead”?

Response: Yes, they are the same position. Attachment 6, Program Lead has been revised to reflect Project Leader.

Reference: Paragraph 1.7.1 Question 2: This paragraph requires a Program Manager (PM) for each task order. Please clarify the term to be used for task orders: “Program Manger”, “Program Lead” or “Project Leader” as it appears that the terms and used interchangeably in different areas of the RFP.

Response: There is a requirement for a Program Manager and Alternate for each base contract who will oversee all services performed. A separate Program Manager or Alternate is not required for each task order. Paragraph 1.7.1 of the PWS has been revised. Further, the Project Leader, as stated in para 7.1.2., manages projects and studies. For Task Orders (TO’s) requiring work in studies and analysis, or models and simulations, five years of experience managing projects involving the usage of models and simulations is required.

Reference: Attachment 6 Question 3: Please clarify the hours for the Program Manager. Based on the position descriptions in the solicitation, there should be only one Program Manager, with Project Leaders assigned to manage each task order. This appears to require 5 Program Managers based on a 2,080 hour FTE year.

Response: The estimated annual hours for the Program Manager have been revised to 2080 per year on Attachment 6.

Reference: Paragraph L.1.5.

Question 4: Is it acceptable to deliver proposals?

Response: Yes, proposals can be hand delivered to the location identified in Section L.1.5.

Reference: Paragraph 7.4 and 7.5 Question 5: Paragraph 7.4, Current Training Development Services Requirements (see page 55) and Paragraphs 7.5, Current Training Support Services Requirements (see page 60), each list examples of services that may be required.

In each instance the requirements are the same, the exception of the first listed requirement (7.4.1 Training Developer (Instructional Design/Systems Integration), and 7.5.1, Warrior Sustainment Exercise Control Cell (ECC) Specialist). Please confirm that this is correct.

Response: No, it is not correct. Technical Exhibit D has been revised. Paragraphs 7.4.2. through 7.4.26 have been deleted.

Reference: None Question 6: Will the government allow a qualified company to submit as a Prime contractor and as a member of a Joint Venture for both suites?

Response: Yes, an offeror can submit a proposal as a Prime contractor in one suite and a member of a Joint Venture in the other suite.

Reference: None Question 7: Will the government please confirm that a Joint Venture does NOT have to be verified by the Department of Veterans Affairs Center for Verification and Evaluation?

Response: There is no requirement that the awardee be verified by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs.

Reference: None Question 8: There are a number of qualified 8(a)/SDVOSB companies. If a company is certified as both 8(a) and SDVOSB, can it submit one proposal with two Sample Task Order Execution Plans [SDVOSB and 8(a)]?

Response: As stated is Section L.1.1., if an offeror chooses to propose on both suites, a separate proposal is required for each suite.

Reference: Solicitation Amendment 0002, Paragraph L.2.2.(a) Question 9: Are electronic PDFs acceptable to submit?

Response: As stated in L.2.1. and L.2.2. proposals shall be submitted in CD Rom and Hard Copy. Email or other electronic files will not be accepted. In addition, paragraph L.2.2.(b) has been revised to include adobe acrobat documents.

Reference: Solicitation Amendment 0002, Paragraph L.2.2.(d) Question 10: In addition noting the company name and whether it is an initial submission or revision, does the government have a specific (consistent) naming convention it prefers for electronic files?

The CD Rom should be marked on the outside as follows: Offeror Name, solicitation Identification (to include Suite Title (8(a) or SDVOSB), Volume No., Initial or Revision No. The files contained on the CD Rom should be named with the Titles provided in the chart listed in L.2.1.

Reference: Solicitation Amendment 0002, Paragraphs l2, L.2.1. Proposal Preparation Instructions. Past Performance Volume III. The Current page limit is 15.

Question 11: Will the government clarify if the summary page(s), consent letters, client authorization letters and organizational structure change history are/are not included in the Past Performance Volume 15-page limit? Is there a page limit for the summary page?

Response: The past performance volume page limit is 15 pages. However the consent letters, client authorization letters and organizational structure change history are not included in the 15-page limit.

Reference: Solicitation Amendment 0002, Paragraph g, Cross-Reference Matrix Question 12: Is a cross-reference Matrix for the Past Performance Volume truly necessary since information within this volume is not used to reference information anywhere else in the proposal? It would only reference Section L (Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Bidders), Paragraphs L.5.6 – Submission Requirements and Attachment 2 – Specific Relevant Contracts Sheet Format.

Response: A cross reference matrix is not required for Volume 3 – Past Performance.

Reference: Solicitation / Past Performance Question 13: Are offerors permitted to submit task orders as a single past performance record?

Response: Past Performance information shall be submitted in accordance with the criteria outlined under Volume 3: Factor 5 – Past Performance. Past Performance information for a task order can be submitted as a single past performance record.

Reference: Attachment 3 – PPQ Question 14: The PPQ only identifies a mailing address or physical address to return completed PPQ to the KO.

Please return this completed questionnaire to:

Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC) – Fort Eustis Attn: Ms. Cynthia L. Cherry Solicitation No.: W911S0-16-R-0005 {Identify Suite 1 - 8(a) or Suite 2 –SDVOSB} 705 Washington Blvd, Suite 126 (West Wing) Can the evaluators e-mail the completed PPQs to the KO/CS? If yes, what are the e-mail addressed used to e-mail the completed PPQs?

Response: Yes, the completed questionnaires can be emailed to the KO/CS. Attachment 3 has been revised to add the following email addresses: cynthia.l.cherry4.civ@mail.mil AND ronald.l.moton.civ@mail.mil.

Reference: RFP L.6.3.1.2. Total Evaluated Worksheet Question 15: Please clarify the use of Attachment 6, Total Evaluated Price Worksheet. The intent is for an apples to apples comparison of price such that all bidders are using the same hours. May offerors adjust the hours in the Total Evaluated Worksheet?

Response: The intent of the Total Evaluated Price Worksheet is to allow the Government to evaluate price. The offerors MAY NOT adjust the hours on the Total Evaluated Price Worksheet.

Reference: RFP L.6.3.1.2. Total Evaluated Worksheet

Question 16: Please clarify the use of Attachment 6, Total Evaluated Price Worksheet. Will an offer be non-compliant if the price in the Proposed Hourly Rate column for any of the labor categories is left blank or entered as zero? (Example: if a position is normally not billed as direct labor). Please clarify the use of Attachment 6, Total Evaluated Worksheet. Will an offer’s total evaluated price be adjusted upwards if the price in the Proposed Hourly Rate for any of the labor categories in unreasonably low?

Response: A labor hour price shall be provided for each labor category for the purpose of evaluation. If, at the time of task order proposal, an offeror chooses not to price a labor category because it is not normally billed as direct labor that will be acceptable. No adjustments will be made to the proposed hourly rates.

Reference: PWS 1.7.1.

Question 17: The paragraph talks about a Program Manager and Alternate for each Task Order. At the end, the paragraph states, “The contract manager or alternate shall be available anytime contracted employee personnel are performing services, identified in each TO, on the installation. This notification does not relieve the Contractor of any performance shortfall.” Is there also a requirement for a Contract Manager or is this a typo and it should be the Program Manger or alternate?

Response: This reference is in error. PWS Para 1.7.1. has been revised to read “Program Manager” vice “Contract Manager”.

Reference: Technical Exhibit A Question 18: Are there more than 2 Key Personnel that were identified (PM and Alternate PM)?

Response: At the MAIDIQ (base contract) level, the only key personnel identified by the Government is the Program Manager and Alternate. In accordance with L.3.1 the offeror may propose additional key personnel positions.

For the STOs key personnel requirements, if any, are contained within the STO PWS, and as stated in paragraph L.4.2.1., the offeror may propose additional key personnel positions.

Reference: None Question 19: Will the government consider allowing evaluations from CPARs, PPIRS, FAPIIS, and eSRS be submitted for Past Performance, and not limit submission from customers through Past Performance Questionnaires?

Response: The offeror shall submit past performance information in accordance with Section L.5., which includes Past Performance Questionnaires.

As stated in Section L.5.5. The Government reserves the right to obtain past performance information from other sources (other than that provided as part of the proposal) from sources such as CPARS, PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS, as well as other sources listed in that section. The offeror is not required to submit this information as the Government will obtain it at its discretion.

Past Performance Questionnaires are submitted directly to the Government from the Evaluator who signs the Questionnaire; therefore, they are not included in the page count Volume 3 - Past Performance.

Reference: None Question 20: In source selection, the government states that “If for any reason we cannot reach four (4) contractors in each suite, the government reserves the right to award more in the other suite (i.e. 5/3 or 6/2).” Request the government reconsider this approach, since the two suites provide different support to different MOS, training, and simulations. Will the government consider limiting the awards for a maximum of each suite to 4 awards to 4 qualified offerors in each suite?

Response: The initial paragraph of Section M, the following sentence has been removed If for any reason we cannot reach four (4) contractors in each suite, the government reserves the right to award more in the other suite (i.e. 5/3 or 6/2)“ Reference: Paragraph 1.4 Place of Performance & Attachment 1: Wage Determination Question 21: The solicitation states that the primary place of performance is at Fort Lee, VA, but it may also include other SCoE training sites located in various states such as Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, and Florida. However, under Attachment 1 Wage Determination, only WD 15-2546 for Virginia is listed. Are the offerors expected to use only the above-mentioned Wage Determination for all states throughout the life of the contract or should we apply the specific Wage Determination for each location?

Response: The Fort Lee wage determination was revised and additional wage determinations have been added for sites identified at PWS paragraph 1.4. When a task order is issued for services at another site, the appropriate DOL Wage determination will be incorporated by modification to the contract.

The additional wage determinations numbers are listed below:

Fort Lee, VA: Wage Determination No. 2015-2545, Rev No. 2, Date of Revision: 12/29/2015 Fort Eustis, VA: Wage Determination No. 2015-4341, Rev No. 2, Date of Revision: 12/29/2015 Fort Sill, OK: Wage Determination No. 2015-2525, Rev No. 1, Date of Revision: 3/01/2016 Fort Jackson, SC: Wage Determination No. 2005-2475, Rev No. 19, Date of Revision: 12/29/2015 Fort Gordon, GA: Wage Determination No. 2005-2135, Rev No. 18, Date of Revision: 12/29/2015 Fort Lenard Wood, MO: Wage Determination No. 2005-2311, Rev No. 18, Date of Revision: 12/29/2015 Eglin Air Force, FL: Wage Determination No. 2005-3033, Rev No. 17, Date of Revision: 12/29/2015 McAlester, OH: Wage Determination No. 2015-2433, Rev No. 17, Date of Revision: 12/29/2015 Reference: None Question 22: Please clarify. In a Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Department, Directors of the Defense Agencies, et al., dated 4 March 2015, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics stated that, “LPTA [Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable] is the appropriate source selection process to apply only when there are well-defined requirements, the risk of unsuccessful performance is minimal, price is a significant factor in the source selection, and there is neither value, need, nor willingness to pay for higher performance.”

Furthermore, “Well-defined requirements equates to technical requirements and ‘technical acceptability’ standards that are clearly understood by both industry and government, are expressed in terms of performance objectives, measures, and standards that map to our requirement documents, and lend themselves to technical evaluation on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Response: There is no question to respond to.

Reference: None Question 23: Please clarify. This is a performance-based acquisition that includes a Performance Work Statement (PWS) and an overview of general performance requirements, there appears to be nothing in terms of specificity and definition that would permit offerors to assess and propose a price relative to such technical requirements and acceptability standards and for the Government to evaluate same. Instead, offerors are largely being evaluated only in relation (staffing approach, technical approach) to a Sample Task Order that is not priced. This disconnect between technical acceptability and price would appear to leave the Government open to a large number of protests.

As the Estimated Annual Hours provided in the Total Evaluated Price Worksheets are, according to § L.6.3.1.8 of the solicitation, being used to evaluate price, the offerors’ pricing relative to the labor categories and hours provided by the Government would appear to bear no direct relation to performance within a Firm Fixed Price CLIN structure. Instead, in contravention of the spirit of FAR 3.5 and in complete disconnect from the STO and the work to be performed under contract Task Orders, offerors will be inclined to seriously low-ball the labor rates proposed in the TEP Worksheets.

Response: There is no question to respond to.

Reference: None Question 24: Please clarify. These “ceiling” (§ L.6.3.1.7) rates, from which the Government will likely expect further discounts, then have the potential to significantly increase the risk of unsuccessful contractor Task Order performance. Alternatively, the Government may potentially be faced with increased costs due to the number of hours proposed relative to these Task Orders in order to attenuate the risk of unsuccessful contractor Task Order performance. Furthermore, the Government is faced with increased costs in managing: (1) the labor categories provided; (2) new labor categories that may be proposed post-award; (3) the ceiling rates for each offeror; and (4) the discounts from those rates. The extra administration and complexity added to the Government’s contract management function takes the focus away from what most likely is its main concern: performance. The main objective of a FFP contract is to transfer risk to industry, with the assumption being that the FFP contract requirements are clearly defined and baselined. The current acquisition strategy for this Solicitation wants to attenuate that risk premium by further driving prices down and to add risk with the possibility that the technical and acceptability standards are deemed “unreasonable.”

Response: There is no question to respond to.

Reference: None Question 25: Please clarify. The pricing environment for this acquisition is further complicated by the provision that offerors may propose other labor categories on the STO or future Task Orders. For example, based on its assessment of the STO, an offeror may want to propose a staffing and technical approach that includes other labor categories that the offeror believes might be favorable to and favorably received by the Government, but such offeror, given the LPTA acquisition strategy, would not be inclined to propose such labor categories knowing that its TEP would be adversely affected. Alternatively, performance may be affected because most offerors, for the foregoing reason, will not be inclined to propose other labor categories even though those labor categories might prove advantageous to the Government. And again relative to FAR 3.5, offerors may know that other such labor categories may be necessary and/or advantageous to the Government but not propose them to preclude an increase to its TEP, all the while knowing that the best approach to this acquisition is to buy in at the lowest possible rates relative to the Government-provided labor categories and then to add labor categories at rates much more favorable to the offeror post-award.

Response: There is no question to respond to.

Reference: None Question 26: Will the Government consider amending its pricing/ acquisition strategy and requirements for this Solicitation to ensure that all offerors are required to… and are evaluated….?

Response: This question is not clear.

Reference: None Question 27: Should the Government proceed with its current pricing acquisition/pricing strategy for this Solicitation, how will the Government ensure that the MAIDIQ pricing is “realistic” and is actually used/bid throughout the life of the contract on all future Task Orders?

Response: See Section M Evaluations Factors for Award.

Reference: Paragraph L.5 Volume 3: Factor 5 – Past Performance Question 28: How many Past Performance references are required? Is there a limit to the amount of Past Performance one can submit within a proposal?

Response: There is no limit to the number of Past Performance information that are provided; however in accordance with paragraph L.2.1, Past Performance Volume has a page limit of 15 pages.

Reference: Paragraph L.6.3.1.4.

Question 29: According to L.6.3. “No pricing is required for the STO” Yet, L.6.3.1.4 states that offerors may propose other labor categories on the STO or future task orders.” Why propose other labor categories (a facet of pricing) if no pricing is required for the STO.

Response: Although there is no pricing for the STO, the offeror can propose labor categories for the staffing of the task order. This allows the Government to determine if an offeror has an understanding of the services to be performed and the skill sets needed for successful performance.

Reference: Part 5 – Specific Tasks 5.6 Contractor Manpower Report (CMR) Question 30: The Contractor must report ALL Contractor labor hours; can the Contracting Office provide us with the historic labor hours? We calculate it to be 1792 hours per person per year, taking into account the two-week holiday block leave (1.10.4).

Response: The Contractor Manpower Report is a post award reporting requirement, as referenced in paragraph 5.6, this information relates to actual hours performed on the contract. This contractor manpower report is reported annually no later than 31 October.

Reference: FAR 52.204-8 Annual Representations and Certifications Question 31: Does the prime alone have to complete the Representations & Certifications, or does each sub have to fill out the section as well?

Response: The prime is required to complete FAR 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications.

Subcontractors are not.

Question 32: As per standard 8(a) and SDVOSB workload law, 51% of the workload must be completed by the prime 8(a) or SDVOSB business. However, for SCOE, is it 51% over the life of the contract or 51% per task order?

Response: Your question is in regard to the Limitations on Subcontracting. For services, expenditures on subcontracts may not exceed 50% of the amount paid to the concern under the contract. For total or partial set-aside contracts, the period of time used to calculate compliance with the limitations on subcontracting will be the base term and then each subsequent option period. For task orders issued under total or partial set-aside contracts, the contracting officer can also require the firm to comply with the limitations on subcontracting for each order.

Note, as of 30 June 2016, SBA established a new exemption for amounts spent on “similarly situated entity” subcontractors.

Reference: 8(a) STO Question 33: To assess each competitor’s ability to provide fully-qualified personnel for the Key Positions in this STO, can the Government require all offerors to submit resumes as part of the STO response?

Response: In accordance with L.4.2.1, the offeror shall provide a list of proposed key positions, the rationale for why the offeror has designated the position as “key”, and the qualifications that will be required for these key persons (i.e. degree, certifications, licenses, relevant experience). Resumes for key personnel are not required for the STOs as the STO is for evaluation purposes only and no services will be performed as a result of the STO. As stated in paragraph M.6.2.1. The Government will evaluate whether the offeror’s staffing approach identifies key personnel positions and adequate qualifications to perform the required services covered in the STO PWS.

Reference: 8(a) STO Question 34: Current Level of Effort. Can the Government clarify the contractor level of effort (man hours per year) currently executing this work and whether the current LOE is projected to increase or decrease given changes in Army end strength?

Response: The Program Ceiling for this requirement is estimated at $200,000,000 over a five-year ordering period.

Reference: SDVOSB STO Question 35: Key Personnel Requirements. Can the government clarify whether there are any Key Personnel requirements for this STO beyond the PM and alternate?

Response: The Government has not identified any Key Personnel requirements for the SDVOSB STO. However, if the offeror approach includes proposed key personnel, the offeror shall, in accordance with paragraph L.4.2.1, provide a list of proposed key positions, the rationale for why the offeror has designated the position as “key”, and the qualifications that will be required for these key persons (i.e. degree, certifications, licenses, relevant experience).

The Program Manager and Alternate are key, in accordance with the MAIDIQ PWS, paragraph 1.7.1. for the base contract only. This requirement is not for all task orders. Paragraph 1.7.1. has been revised to clarify this point.

Reference: Paragraph L.7.3 Question 36: Government mentioned the use of ORCA. As ORCA is no longer in use, was it the Government’s intent to reference SAM (System for Award Management)?

Response: The reference is incorrect and should be SAM (System for Award Management). Paragraph L.7.3. has been revised.

Reference: Paragraph L.6.3.1.4 Question 37: Would the Government allow offerors to add additional labor categories with zero hours associated with them to enable us to use those labor categories on future task orders, if needed?

Response: It is not necessary to add additional labor categories for use on future task orders. After award of the MAIDIQ’s, should an offeror wish to propose an alternate labor category as part of a response to a Request for Task Order approval, the offeror would identify the labor category and pricing as part of their proposal for the Task Order. The Government will, in turn, evaluate the proposed category and price at that time.

Reference: Paragraph L.5 Question 38: Will the Government accept final CPARs in lieu of Past Performance Questionnaires?

Response: The offeror shall submit past performance information in accordance with Section L.5., which includes Past Performance Questionnaires.

As stated in Section L.5.5. The Government reserves the right to use obtain past performance information from other sources (other than that provided as part of the proposal) from sources such as CPARs, PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS, as well as other sources listed in that section. The offeror is not required to submit this information as the Government will obtain it at its discretion.

Reference: Technical Exhibit A; 7.1. Program Manager

Question 39: We are speaking with several highly-qualified retired senior Army NCOs that would be great for this position but they do not have the required education level. Will the Government accept years of experience as a substitute for the required Bachelors or Associates Degree?

Response: No. The qualifications for a Program Manager are A Bachelor’s Degree in either Management, Business Administration, Computer Science, Mathematics, Engineering or related discipline with five (5) years of experience in management of projects or in evaluating doctrinal literature, programs, JCIDS process and concept analysis OR an Associate's Degree in a related discipline with eight (8) years of experience in the management of similar projects or programs******* Reference: Attachment 2 – Relevant Contract Question 40: There are discrepancies between the first section of this document (instructions to complete sheet) and the second section (sheet format). Would the Government please rectify these discrepancies and remove duplicative requirements, i.e. items #2 and 5 on the sheet format?

Response: Attachment 2 – Specific Relevant Contract Sheet has been revised.

Reference: Paragraph C-5.2

Question 41: “Train to the industry standard as it conducts classroom / laboratory / seminar / conference / discussion / lecture / demonstration / practical exercise per class training schedule.” What specific “Industry Standard” is the Government referencing?

Response: This reference has been revised. Industry Standard in this context means to: develop and capture common training standards from a range of disciplines that are used across the military and civilian sectors, which provides structural and technological concepts to enhance and ensure that specific and relevant training is conducted IAW the PWS.

Reference: Att3/PPQ, Letters of Consent Question 42: These references all request the offeror to identify {Identify Suite 1 - 8(a) or Suite 2 –SDVOSB}. If the offeror (and selected subcontractors) are bidding on both suites, will the Government except “{Suite 1 - 8(a) AND Suite 2 –SDVOSB}” as our identification of the suite? We understand that the proposal title page must identify the specific suite as the content (STOEP) differs.

Response: Yes, that would be acceptable. In regard to Letters of Consent, a copy must be included in each proposal (Para L.1.1 requires a separate proposal be submitted for each suite). As for the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), ensure that both suites are clearly listed on the PPQ itself.

Reference: Paragraph 5.8, the government will provide seats on a “space available” status for the following courses.

In accordance with the Director of the Army Staff Memo, dated 3 March 2014, the contractor shall reimburse the Government for registering and attending training.

5.8.1 Advanced Basic Instructor Course (ABIC)

5.8.2 Support Cadre Training Course, (SCTC)

Question 43: Do either of the courses listed at paragraphs 5.8.1 & 2 require periodic refresher training or, once course is successfully completed, is the training requirement permanently met?

Response: Periodic refresher training is not needed for either course.

Reference: Paragraph L.2.2(a) Question 44: Paragraph L.2.2(a) states; Offerors shall submit an original and copies of its proposal. Volumes I and II require 5 hard copies. Please confirm that of the 5 hard copies, 1 should be denoted as the Original and the other 4 as the copies.

Response: Correct. If 5 hard copies are stated, that would equate to 1 Original and 4 Copies. Paragraph L.2.2.

states, Offerors shall submit an original and copies of its proposal in the formats and quantities identified herein.

Reference: Paragraph L.2.2.(a) Question 45: Paragraph L.2.2(a) states; Offerors shall submit an original and copies of its proposal. However, Volumes III, IV, and V only require a CD ROM and no hard copies. Shall the Offeror denote those CD ROMs as the Originals?

Response: Per Amendment 0002, Paragraph L.2.1. all volumes require One CD-ROM as well as hard copies. As only one CD-ROM is needed for each, it will be considered the original CD-ROM; and for each hard copy, one will be considered the original and the second (or more) will be considered copies.

Reference: Paragraph L.2.2. (d) Question 46: Paragraph L.2.2(d) states; Printing shall be easily readable (12-pitch type or 10 point proportional spacing). May Offerors use a font size smaller than 12 point for graphics, tables, and matrices as long as they are clear and legible?

Response: Yes. See Paragraph L.2.2.(K). Paragraph L.2.2. is revised for clarification.

Reference: Paragraph L.2.2.(d) Question 47: File names should be “Company Name – Initial” for the first submission. File name of later submissions (if necessary), shall be “Company Name – Revision X’ with X indicating the number of the revision.

Should the file name also include the Volume Number and Title?

Response: No.

Reference: Paragraph L.3.1 and PWS 1.7.1.

Question 48: Section L.3.1 states; Resumes for the Program Manager and Alternate Program Manager, a list of other positions the Offeror considers key, the rationale for that designation and the qualifications that will be required of these key positions (i.e., degree, certifications, licenses, relevant experience). PWS Section 1.7.1, Page 7, states; The Contractor shall designate, in writing, a primary and an alternate Program Manager under each TO.

Request the government provide clarification as to proposing key personnel for other than the sample task order.

Response: At the MAIDIQ (base contract) level, the only key personnel identified by the Government is the Program Manager and Alternate.

For the STOs key personnel requirements, if any, are contained within the STO PWS, and as stated in paragraph L.4.2.1., the offeror may propose additional key personnel positions.

Reference: Paragraph L / Factor 5 Past performance Question 49: Past Performance is required on the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed. How do we address a teaming partner that is a new corporate entity with no relevant past performance?

Response: The offeror shall identify the teaming partner with no relevant past performance and state such. Such teaming partners will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph M.7.3.

Reference: Paragraph L.7.2 Question 50: Paragraph L.7.2. Tab B, Standard Form (SF) 33 states the Offeror is cautioned that the SF 33 must contain an original signature in block 17 of the form. However, Tab B is part of Volume V General, which only requires a CD ROM submitted. Since this is an electronically volume only and no hard copies are required, please confirm Offerors may use an e-signature in block 17 of the SF33.

Response: Amendment 0002 states that Volume V (General) requires two (2) hard copies.

Reference: Paragraph 1.5.12 Dress Code Question 51: Request the Government define “business casual” as there are several interpretations of this phrase.

Response: Business casual clothing for men means a shirt with a collar such as a casual shirt, a polo shirt or a golf shirt worn with pants whether khakis, Dockers, or similar brands. For women, it means casual skirts, dresses, pants and blouses. Both men and women may wear sweaters, vests, casual jackets, and accessories. Suits, ties, and dress shirts are not required in this environment.

Reference: Para C-1.6.1, 8(a) STO Question 52: It says, “Fee/profit on travel is not authorized.” Can the Government clarify that offerors will not be restricted from requesting reimbursement of general and administrative (G&A) associated with the internal processing of travel documents?

Response: Fee/profit is not authorized on travel. However, a contractor can charge a handling fee that is proposed and accepted by the Government.

Reference: Technical Exhibit 2, SDVOSB STO Question 53: Technical Exhibit 2 contains “observation and assessment sheets” for Instructors, Small Group Instructors/Facilitators, and Test Administrators. Can the Government provide the current contractor level of effort in terms of man hours per year for each of these functions, as well as any other contractor positions required to execute this work?

Response: The SDVOSB STO is a sample task order. Although based on the type of services expected to be performed under this MAIDIQ, there is no historical workload data available. Technical Exhibit 2 is provided for informational purposes to depict what may be required on an actual task order.

Reference: None Question 54: Will the Government allow offerors to add subcontractors post award?

Response: Yes based on KO approval.

Reference: Technical Exhibit A; Under Technical Exhibit A, Personnel Qualifications Question 55: “Complete Training Quality Reports and complete reports on students identified as receiving deficient training.” Does this refer to deficient training delivered by the military and contract instructors of the SCoE which would require contractor instruction quality control mechanisms, or does it refer to student demonstration of master of training topics?

Response: It is referring to student training Reference: None Question 56: Can the Government please confirm that the class size for the BEMT is 42 students?

Response: Yes. 42 is the class size.

Question 57: Request the Government clarify the last line of this paragraph “the Course Management Plan of the course they are contracted to deliver.” The phrase seems to be out of context or incomplete.

Response: This statement is accurate.

Reference: None Question 58: Of the total contact hours how many are classroom (1:25 ratio) and how many are demonstrations and practical exercises (1:6 ratio)?

Response: Varies based on time of instruction or practical exercises.

Reference: None Question 59: Reference states” The number of Federal Government Personnel employees expected to support this requirement will be 25”. Does this mean that the 25 personnel are always available to support the class as instructors/writers?

Response: Personnel are projected to be available.

Reference: None Question 60: If not what percentage of them are available?

Response: N/A

Question 61: Of the 25 how many are instructor/writers?

Response: All Question 62: Based on TE 4 it appears that there are approximately 143 92B courses per year. While we recognize that may change in the future is that a currently correct number of courses annually?

Response: Yes Reference: None Question 63: What does the acronym CMES stand for?

Response: Contract Man-Year Equivalents (CMEs) Question 64: Of the 5 how many are instructor/writers?

Response: All Question 65: TE 4 indicates that there are as many as 143 iterations of the 91L course in a Fiscal year. Is this correct?

PWS 9.1.1. Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic (91B).

Response: Yes Reference: None Question 66: Does this paragraph describe just one course or multiple courses?

Response: Only 91B Reference:

Question 67: If multiple courses what are they, their length, schedule, contact hours and Instructor to student (I:S) ratios?

Response: N/A

Reference: Paragraph 9.1.1 and 9.1.1.1 SDVOSB Sample Task Order Question 68: Are Soldiers (students) taking the exam and receiving 609 certification?

Response: Yes Reference: Paragraph 9.1.1. and 9.1.1.1 Question 69: In the solicitation CME is identified as contract man-year equivalent. What does the acronym CMES in the Sample Task represent?

Response: Typo - Contract Man-Year Equivalents (CMEs). CME was removed from the SDVOSB STO.

Reference: None Question 70: May we have a copy of a training schedule or POI that would show classroom time and shop time to delineate classroom and practical exercise events?

Response: No. It will be provided at the task order level.

Question 71: Will the Government please clarify the level of preventive maintenance the contractor is expected to perform?

Response: Operator-level maintenance to maintain operability.

Reference: Technical Exhibit E, Training Support Services Question 72: Technical Exhibit C, Instructor and Instructor/Writer Services gives qualifications for positions (years of education and course familiarity), yet Technical Exhibit E, Training Support Services, does not. Technical Exhibit E only gives a description of task area scope/jobs. Could the Contracting Office provide more detailed qualifications and requirements for the positions in Technical Exhibit E?

Response: Technical Exhibit E has been revised.

Reference: Paragraph C-1.4 (Scope) and Para C-5.1 8(a) STO Question 73: Can the Government clarify what positions in the 8(a) STO are Key Personnel positions? For example, Para C-1.4 (Scope) in the STO says, “Simulator operators are key positions.” More specifically, what positions listed in STO paragraph C-5.1 are key? Then in Para 1.7.1 of the IDIQ PWS it says, “The Contractor shall designate, in writing, a primary and an alternate Program Manager under each TO.”

Response: Paragraph C has been revised.

Reference: 8(a) STO and SDVOSB STO Question 74: As regards the Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) provided with each STO, can the Government clarify why the remedies specified are so different? Both STOs are for course instruction, but the remedies in the SDVOSB STO are articulated considerably differently.

Response: This STO is representative of what is mission critical in support of their respective mission.

Reference: None Question 75: Will the Government provide the qualifications for position: “Technical Writer/Editor”?

Response: The Technical Writer/Editor will be removed from Attachment 6.

Reference: Paragraph 9.1.1 STO Question 76: The Government has included a statement “(37 CMES TO INCLUDE 3-BEMT/32-WHEEL/2- RECOVERY). Is it the Government’s intent that offerors propose 37 CMEs for the requirement as outlined in Section 9.1.1 Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic (91B)? If so, then will the Government confirm that the number of Federal Government Personnel employees expected to support this requirement will be 25? If the number is indeed 25 then the instructor/writer to student ratios do not support the 37 CMEs requirement.

Response: Ratios have been revised and references to CMEs have been removed.

Reference: Paragraph 9.1.1.1 STO Question 77: The Government has included a statement “(16 CMES TO INCLUDE 1-BEMT/14-WHEEL/1- RECOVERY). Is it the Government’s intent that offerors propose 16 CMEs for the requirement as outlined in Section 9.1.1.1 Optional Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic Instructor/Writer Support (91B)? If so, then will the Government confirm that the number of Federal Government Personnel employees expected to support this requirement will be 5?

Response: These are projections.

Reference: Technical Exhibit A Question 78: Will the Government provide the qualifications for positions: “Training Site and Equipment Support” and “Operations Training Support” that are included in the Total Evaluation Price Worksheet?

Response: Technical A was revised.

Reference: None Question 79: On the SDVOSB Sample Task Order, Paragraph 9.1.1 references the Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic (91B) MOS with a class size of 42 students, an instructor to student ratio of 1:25 for conferences, and a 1:6 ratio for demonstrations and practical exercises (PE). The Government also states that the Contractor shall provide sufficient Instructor/Writers to support up to 7 classes occurring simultaneously. In red lettering the Government states (37

CMES TO INCLUDE 3-BEMT/32-WHEEL/2-RECOVERY).

Likewise, Paragraph 9.1.1.1 includes a class ratio of 1:25 for classroom training and 1:6 for Practical Exercises, with a total of 42 students per class, and goes on to reference (16 CMES TO INCLUDE 1-BEMT/14-WHEEL/1-

RECOVERY).

Response: Ratios have been revised and references to CMEs have been removed.

Reference: None Question 80: Can the Government please confirm that the Instructor/Writer to student ratio for the BEMT conference is 1:25?

Response: 1:42, See Revised Attachment 5.

Question 81: Can the Government please confirm that the Instructor/Writer to student ratio for the BEMT during demonstration & PE is 1:6?

Response: 1:12, See Revised Attachment 5.

Reference: None Question 82: Can the Government please confirm that the class size for the Recovery is 42 students?

Response: 18, See Revised Attachment 5.

Reference: None Question 83: Can the Government please confirm that the Instructor/Writer to student ratio for Recovery in conference is 1:25?

Response: (Recovery): No, the ratio for Recovery (Wheeled) is 1:18 for Conference, 1:3 PE. See Revised Attachment 5.

Reference: None Question 84: Can the Government please confirm the Instructor/Writer to student ratio for Recovery for demonstration & PE is 1:6?

Response: (Recovery): No, the ratio for Recovery (Wheeled) is 1:18 for Conference, 1:3 PE. See Revised Attachment 5.

Reference: None Question 85: Can the Government please confirm that the training schedule provided as Technical Exhibit 4 (School code 91L, Course title 610-91B10) is the same Training that depicts the Recovery course requirements requirement?

Response: No, the Recovery Course is a standalone course. See revised Attachment 5.

Reference: None Question 86: If Technical Exhibit 4 does not cover the Recovery Instructor class/course schedule, can the Government please provide that class and course schedule?

Response: Yes, see revised PWS.

Reference: None Question 87: Can the Government please confirm that the level of effort referenced in the paragraphs is appropriate for Instructor/Writers for BEMT, Wheeled Vehicle, and Recovery?

Response: See Revised Attachment 5.

Reference: Paragraph 1.5.12 Dress Code Question 88: Is there a classroom or field uniform requirement?

Response: Dress codes in the classroom or training environment are based on hazard and safety factors in accordance with technical manuals that will be provided to the successful offerors.

Reference: Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic (91B). The course schedule provided at Technical Exhibit 4 of this PWS identifies the courses to be instructed. The number of Federal Government Personnel employees expected to support this requirement will be 25. The maximum number of students per class is 42. The instructor/writers to student ratios are 1:25 for conference and 1:6 for demonstrations and practical exercises (PE), which encompass much of the course. The contractor shall provide sufficient instructor/writers to support up to 7 classes occurring simultaneously.

(37 CMES TO INCLUDE 3-BEMT/32-WHEEL/2-RECOVERY)

Question 89: How many contact hours are there per Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic (91B) course?

Response: Contact hours 2377.95 per the POI which will be provided to the successful offeror.

Reference: None Question 90: Paragraph states “up to 7 classes occurring simultaneously” yet TE 4 shows as many as 37 classes in session at one time. (e.g. FY 16 has 86 through 122 would be in residence within the same time frame). Is the number 7 correct?

Response: Yes.

Question 91: Does TE 4 detail this particular course or this course and other courses as well?

Response: Wheel, BEMT, and Recovery are in Revised Technical Exhibit 3.

Reference: Paragraph 9.1.1.1 Optional Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic Instructor/Writer Support (91B). Additional 91B class Instructor support may be required for a not to exceed quantity of 3 additional courses running simultaneously.

The number of Federal Government Personnel employees expected to support this requirement will be 5. Per class, the Instructor will be responsible for 42 students. The ratio of the class is 1:25 for classroom training and 1:6 for Practical Exercises, with a total of 42 students per class. All instruction shall be in accordance with approved POI and using training materials provided by the Government. (16 CMES TO INCLUDE 1-BEMT/14-WHEEL/1-

RECOVERY)

Question 92: Is there just one optional course or several different?

Response: There is no optional course. This paragraph references optional labor (support) Reference: None Question 93: If different courses request the Government provide the name, duration, contact hours, student load and instructor to student ratios for each.

Response: Reference the previous response Reference: None Question 94: Of the total hours in each course how many are classroom and how many are demonstrations (1:25) and practical exercises (1:6)?

Response: Varies by lesson plan which will be provided to the successful offeror Reference: None Question 95: Reference states “The number of Federal Government Personnel employees expected to support this requirement will be 5”. Does this mean that the 5 personnel are always available to support the class as instructors/writers?

Response: Personnel are projected to be available Reference: None Question 96: If not what percentage of them are available?

Response: Personnel are projected to be available Reference: None Reference: None Question 97: Paragraph states “3 additional courses running simultaneously “yet TE 4 does not indicate the schedule for these classes. What is the schedule for these classes?

Suite 2 Technical Exhibit 4 – Class Schedules.

Response: Reference Attachment 5.

Reference: Solicitation 5.5.2.1 Question 98: This paragraph identifies contract man-year equivalent. How many hours equate to a contract man-year under this contract?

Response: 2,080 hours Reference: Paragraph L.2.2.(k) Question 99: Paragraph L.2.2(k) states; Letter size and spacing requirements for illustrations and tables can be at the discretion of the Offeror but must be easily readable. Does letter size and spacing refer to the actual paper size (8 ½ x 11 vs. 11 x 17) or to the font size used in illustrations and tables?

Response: Font Size.

Reference: Paragraph 9.1.1 and 9.1.1.1.

Question 100:…