Responses_to_Industry_Questions_RFQ_W911S0-16-T-0021__8_Sep_2016.docx

Government Responses to Industry Questions

RFQ W911S0-16-T-0021

1. In relation to the place of performance, is there any clarification on the requirement in regards to whether the government will require on-site personnel? The labor rates may differ from the contractors facility location, and to provide the most competitive bid, can we provide on-site and off-site labor rates?

RESPONSE: The government will require all personnel other than the Program Manager to be on-site at Fort Eustis, VA government facility.

2. PWS 4.5 states that there are short-duration courseware related tasks. Does the government anticipate instructional design related tasks or is task specifically referring to programming courseware (CBT)?

RESPONSE: Both with predominance being very advanced diagnosis of programmed DL to include provision of guidance on how to fix found errors or if necessary the ability to fix that bad DL.

3. The government previously provided DATR__Pricing_Schedule.xlsx, which listed the Direct Labor cats and hours for the effort. Was this document intentionally replaced with a sheet that provides less detail in terms of hours required and rates?

RESPONSE: On 30 AUG 16, amendment 1 was posted to Fedbizops for combined synopsis/solicitation RFQ: W911S0-16-T-0021. A new Revised Pricing Worksheet has been developed and is attached with combined synopsis/solicitation amendment 1. See amendment 01 attachment labeled, Section B – Pricing Worksheet DATR_Attachment 2.

4. In addition, the previously released pricing sheet also included an hour estimate. Does the government anticipate that the Level of Effort associated with this effort correlates with the previously supplied information?

RESPONSE: Yes

5. What is the anticipated number of courses to transition?

RESPONSE: The anticipated future number of DL courses to be rescued is unknown until they need repair or migration. In the past twelve months, there were 39 DL courses that required repair or migration; and 85 courses in the past 36 months.

6. How many issues have been identified for DATR?

RESPONSE: This question is vague the Government cannot formulate a response based on such a broad question.

7. The DATR_Pricing Schedule spreadsheet identifies a Direct Labor Position of Project Manager. However, PWS Section 1.6.10 does not include a position description/qualification requirement for a Project Manager.

RESPONSE: On 30 AUG 16, amendment 1 was posted to Fedbizops for combined synopsis/solicitation RFQ: W911S0-16-T-0021. Contractors will use key personnel identified in PWS section 1.6.10 to formulate their pricing for this requirement. The DATR_Pricing Schedule has been replaced by Section B – Pricing Worksheet DATR_Attachment 2.

8. Does the Government consider the Project Manager position to be included in Key Personnel?

RESPONSE: See PWS section 1.6.10.2 (updated PWS) that identifies key personnel that includes the Project Manager.

9. And will the Government provide a position description/qualification requirement for the position of Project Manager?

RESPONSE: Updated PWS section 1.6.10.2, that identifies position description/qualification requirements for the Project Manager.

10. I did not find a revised DATR_Pricing_Schedule in the Amendment 1 documents. The attached spreadsheet shows a "Project Manager" position and that is the position that I'm questioning not the "Program Manager" position. Is there a new version of the attached spreadsheet that needs to be used for the cost buildup for the solicitation?

RESPONSE: The initial DATR_Pricing_Schedule worksheet should not be used to build cost for the solicitation. On 30 AUG 16, amendment 1 was posted to Fedbizops for combined synopsis/solicitation RFQ: W911S0-16-T-0021. A new Revised Pricing Worksheet has been developed and is attached with combined synopsis/solicitation amendment 1. See amendment 01 attachment labeled, Section B – Pricing Worksheet DATR_Attachment 2.

11.Given that industry questions pertaining to this RFQ are being accepted on September 7th, will the government consider an extension for submission of offers to allow industry more time to react to the government’s response?

RESPONSE: The Government will not consider extending quotation due date. Quotations shall be submitted to the Government NLT 10:00 AM EDT, September 12, 2016 by email to the following addresses:

12.Reference Key Personnel (para 1.6.10) – Program Manager: Part of the description annotates “The Program Manager (PM) shall possess an active Project Management Institute Project Management Professional certification, Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act Level III certification in Program Management, or other recognized Information Systems program management certifications.”

QUESTION 12a: Can years of experience be substituted for Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act Level III certification in Program Management, since this would be restrictive to previous DoD military or civilian personnel?

RESPONSE: No, years of experience cannot be substituted for Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act Level III certification in Program Management.

13. Reference Place of Performance (para 1.6.5) QUESTION 13a: How many work stations will the government authorize and provide as GFE/GFM at Fort Eustis?

RESPONSE: The Government will provide GFE/GFM for Key Personnel.

QUESTION 13b: Is it the government’s preference that contractor personnel perform the majority of their duties on the government site?

RESPONSE: Contractor personnel shall perform their duties at Fort Eustis, VA government site.

14. Reference Addendum_FAR_52_212-1_Instructions_to_Offeror_(Amendment_01) and Addendum_FAR_52_212-2_Evaluation_Factors_-DATR_(Amendment_01):

QUESTION 14a: Both documents reference Recency Assessment but Instructions refer to the past 3 years and but the evaluation uses past 5 years, please clarify?

RESPONSE: Recency has been changed to reflect three (3) years on Addendum_FAR_52_212-1_Instructions_to_Offeror_Amendment_02 and Addendum_FAR_52_212-2_Evaluation_Factors_-DATR Amendment_02.

15. Reference addendum_FAR_52_2121_Instructions_to_Offeror_(Amendment_01):

States “The Past Performance evaluation will review the recent and relevant past performance, as defined in this RFQ, of the Offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners or joint venture partners proposed to perform at least 51% of the requirement based on the total proposed price.”

QUESTION 15a: Since the Prime or a JV are the only teammate that can perform 51% of the contract value, could this % be reduced to 30% to include a major subcontractor on the team?

RESPONSE: No, small business must perform 50% of work in order to be considered a prime.

16.Reference Addendum_FAR_52_212-1_Instructions_to_Offeror_(Amendment_01) Para. D) Volume III Price: States “The Offeror shall complete and submit all tabs in the Pricing Worksheet – “Proposal Summation”, “Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs” base and all option years, Contractor Manpower Equivalents (CMEs) and their associated fully burdened rates) that will be used by the Offeror and its subcontractor and partners to perform each function / service within the PWS for location and period of performance.”

QUESTION 16a: In reviewing the MS Excel file, we do not see the tabs associated with “Contractor Manpower Equivalents (CMEs) and their associated fully burdened rates). Can you please provide update Pricing Worksheet or clarification?

RESPONSE: Contractor Manpower Equivalents (CMEs) language has been removed from Addendum_FAR_52_212-_Instructions_to_Offeror_(Amendment_02) Para. D) Volume III Price

17.While we recognize that the change to the pricing submission was likely intended to provide the government the opportunity to evaluate offerors’ management and staffing approach in connection with pricing.

QUESTION 17a: Can the government provide additional details related to whether it has found it beneficial to have full-time support for these positions within their organization?

RESPONSE: It was beneficial to have full-time support for these positions within organization.