Solicitation_Responses.pdf

Solicitation: W911S0-16-R-0005

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., an offeror who 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?

Response: 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.

mailto:cynthia.l.cherry4.civ@mail.mil mailto:ronald.l.moton.civ@mail.mil

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 L.2.1. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Question 21: In the Past Performance Volume, will the government consider the page count be limited to the

Summary Page and the Specific Relevant Contracts, and not counting the Consent Letters, Client

Authorization Letters, and Organizational Structure Change towards the page count for this volume?

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: Paragraph 1.4 Place of Performance & Attachment 1: Wage Determination

Question 22: 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: 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. 2015-2546, Rev No. 2, Date of Revision: 12/29/2015 (incorporated in

RFP)

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 23: 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 24: 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 25: 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 26: 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 27: 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 28: 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.5.6. Past Performance Submission Requirements

Question 29: The Past Performance Volume requirements shown at L.5.6 does not include a Cross Reference

Matrix. Could the MICC please confirm that a Cross Reference Matrix is unnecessary and not needed for the past Performance Volume?

Response: As stated in Question 12 - A cross reference matrix is not required for Volume 3 – Past

Performance.

Reference: Technical Exhibit D, Training Development Services

Question: 30: Technical Exhibit C, Instructor and Instructor/Writer Services gives qualifications for positions

(years of experience, years of education, and course familiarity), yet Technical Exhibit D, Training

Development Services, does not. Technical Exhibit D 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 D?

Response: Technical Exhibit D has been revised to reflect Training Developer (Instructional Design/System

Integration) Paragraph 7.4.1. Paragraphs 7.4.2 through 7.4.26 have been removed.

Reference: Paragraph L.5 Volume 3: Factor 5 – Past Performance

Question 31: 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 is provided; however in accordance with paragraph L.2.1, Past Performance Volume has a page limit of 15 pages. In addition, see

Question 19 for additional information on Past Performance submissions.

Reference: Paragraph L.6.3.1.4.

Question 32: 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 33: 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 34: 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.

Reference: None

Question 35: 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 36: 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 37: 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 38: 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, in accordance with the MAIDIQ PWS, paragraph 1.7.1. are 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 39: 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 40: 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 41: 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 CPRAs, 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 111 - Past Performance.

Reference: Technical Exhibit A; 7.1. Program Manager

Question 42: 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: The qualifications for a Program Manager are listed in Technical Exhibit A, paragraph 7.1. The candidate must meet the qualifications listed. There are not exceptions allowed for experience without a minimum of an Associate’s Degree.

Reference: Attachment 2 – Relevant Contract

Question 43: 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.

Question 44: The Past Performance Questionnaire Form instructions in Attachment 3 only include mail instructions. May the PPQ respondents submit the completed PPQs via email? If so, to what email address(es) should they send the completed response?

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: Paragraph C-5.2

Question 45: “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: 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 46: 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 rquire4s 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.

Question 47: 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 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)

mailto:cynthia.l.cherry4.civ@mail.mil mailto:ronald.l.moton.civ@mail.mil

Question 48: 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: Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic (91B). . . . . . . Perform wheeled vehicle recovery operations. Contractors will be in two locations: Wheel Maintenance Training Department (WMTD) and Armament and Electronics

Training Department (AETD). The Course Management Plan of the course they are contracted to deliver.

Response: Periodic refresher training is not needed.

Reference: Paragraph L.2.2(a)

Question 49: 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 50: 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 51: 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. will be revised for clarification.

Reference: Paragraph L.2.2.(d)

Question 52: 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: 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: Paragraph L.3.1 and PWS 1.7.1.

Question 53: 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 54: 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 55: 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 7.4

Question 56: Current Training Development Services Requirements (see page 55) and Paragraph 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, with 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: It is not correct. Technical Exhibit D has been revised. Paragraphs 7.4.2. through 7.4.26 have been deleted.

Question 57: 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 58: 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 59: 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 60: Will the Government allow offerors to add subcontractors post award?

Response: Yes based on KO approval. Proposed subcontractor effort over ($) shall be submitted to the KO for evaluation of capabilities for the particular subcontracted effort.

Reference: Technical Exhibit A; Under Technical Exhibit A, Personnel Qualifications

Question 61: “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 62: Can the Government please confirm that the class size for the BEMT is 42 students?

Response: 42

Question 63: 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: Not stated in the PWS

Reference: None

Question 64: 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 65: 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 66: If not what percentage of them are available?

Response: N/A

Reference: None

Question 67: Of the 25 how many are instructor/writers?

Response: All

Question 68: 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

Question 69: What does the acronym CMES stand for?

Response: Contract Man-Year Equivalents (CMEs)

Question 70: Of the 5 how many are instructor/writers?

Response: All

Question 71: 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 72: Does this paragraph describe just one course or multiple courses?

Response: Only 91B

Reference:

Question 73: If multiple courses what are they, their length, schedule, contact hours and Instructor to student

(I:S) ratios?

Response: N/A

Question 74: Are Soldiers (students) taking the exam and receiving 609 certification?

Response: Yes

Reference: Paragraph 9.1.1 and 9.1.1.1 SDVOSB Sample Task Order

Question 75: Are Soldiers (students) taking the exam and receiving 609 certification?

Response: Yes

Reference: Paragraph 9.1.1. and 9.1.1.1

Question 76: 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)

Reference: None

Question 77: 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 78: Will the Government please clarify the level of preventive maintenance the contractor is expected to perform?

Response: Operator-level maintenance to maintain operability.