AMDMT 4 - Questions and Answers after AMDMT 2 for SCoE ITSD II 20210330 FINAL.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 20 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W911S020R0001
About this file
This document contains answers to additional questions regarding a solicitation for instructor training support and development services for the Sustainment Center of Excellence and Combined Arms Support Command. The services include education and training for U.S. Army, foreign military, other services, and civilian personnel across multiple military occupational specialties and locations. Key details include an extension of the proposal due date to April 9, 2021; revisions to labor categories, pricing workbooks, and instructions; and clarification that pricing is for evaluation purposes and contractors should apply their own benefits packages and policies regarding fully burdened labor rates, overtime, and application of G&A to travel costs. The opportunity involves multiple Army organizations providing sustainment training and is open to 8(a) and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses with a combined ceiling of $200 million over five years.
View the file
Other files
Show all 32
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | Section/Page # | Question | Answer |
| 1 | The Government has effectively given small businesses seven and one-half business days to perform significant changes to our proposals, including proposing a Program Manager with a resume, a radical shift in the pricing strategies and submission, submitting new past performance questionnaires, and digesting over 270 questions & answers and their resultant changes in strategy. We are, in many ways, starting over. It took the Government 36 days to answer questions. |
I am requesting a 14-day extension to the proposal submission date to 14 April 2021. Honoring this request is imperative to provide small businesses the time required to deliver quality proposals and competitive pricing.
| The due date for proposals has been extended to 9 April. | |||
| 2 | Attachment 1a and 1b | (1) We noticed that the data in cells B3 through B7 is pulled from cell F97 for each ordering period during our review of the revised price workbooks. The formula in cell F97 on each ordering period tab is “=B97*D97”. The formula currently entered multiplies the number of hours times the bill rate for each line, but since F97 is supposed to provide the total for the ordering period, we assume the formula should be “=Sum(F5:F96)”. May we make this change so that the correct total is carried forward to the summary tab? | Formula revised. |
| 3 | (2) We have an additional question regarding the price workbooks. Both the SAIDIQ and MAIDIQ workbooks have identical labor categories, MOS codes, and estimated annual hours. With the correction of Section 2.CURRENT MILITARY OCCUPATIONAL SPECIALTIES, Tables 1 and 2 (pages 35-37), the MOS codes are separated by suite. For instance, the MOS codes associated with the labor category Technical Instructor/Writer (89A, 89B, 89D, 94A, 89E, 94A, 94D, 94E, 94F, 94H, 94P, 94M, 94S, 94R, 94T, 94Y, 948B, 948D) are identified within Table 1, 8(a) Suite, but are not included within Table 2, SDVOSB Suite, yet the identical labor category (and hours) is included in the pricing for the MAIDIQ (SDVOSB) workbook. Would you please clarify how we should complete the workbooks given the PWS and price workbooks' inconsistency? | Please see revised Attachments. | |
| 4 | Does the program manager's resume count against page count? | No. See revised Section L. | |
| 5 | 1. Tab 1b is the same as Tab 1a and only reflects the MOS LCATS required for 8(a) set aside. Request the government reissue Tab 1b with the correct MOS LCATs required for SDVOSB set aside. Is it intended for both workbooks to contain the same sample labor categories of should those be different between the two suites? |
From the amendment : “L.4.5.4.2. The labor categories listed in Attachment 1a or Attachment 1b, Pricing Workbook correlate to the labor categories listed by MOS in each suite.”
| Please see revised Attachments. | ||||
| 6 | 2. Plus we request a one week extension to adjust our proposal and the pricing volume to conform to amendment 2. | The due date for proposals has been extended to 9 April. | ||
| 7 | The Q&A released on 19 MAR 2021 contained 272 questions. The questions cover a wide range of proposal-related requirements. Based on this large volume and range of questions, and the efforts needed to make proposal revisions, I am requesting a two week extension for the deadline to ensure adequate time to finalize a compliant and compelling proposal. | The due date for proposals has been extended to 9 April. | ||
| 8 | pg. 72, ITO L.4.4.2.1 | "Each task order performed under an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract shall be considered a separate past performance reference unless the Offeror can demonstrate that the Offeror received more than one task order award consecutively for the same requirement that required the same level of performance." | ||
| This RFP statement directly conflicts with the Governments answers to industry questions on lines 127 and 150 that appear to allow IDIQ contracts to be considered past performance. Furthermore, the premise of the industry question was contradicted with the Government response to questions 153,163,164,168-170 which gives a TO range from $60,000 to $8M. Will the Government please de-conflict the RFP and questions 127 and 150. | See revised L.4.4.2.1. | |||
| 9 | pg.26, 7.1 | Based on the questions and answers, the government does not appear to want to cross walk the government issued labor categories to specific WD categories; however, to avoid potential protest, would the government provide education, experience and descriptions for all labor categories? This information is necessary to ensure vendors are costing and providing properly qualified personnel to meet the government’s requirements. | The Government does not intend to restrict offerors' ability to propose. | |
| 10 | Att 1a/1b, cell F97 | The Government formula appears to be incorrect in Cell F97 (all tabs). Will the Government issue a modified costing sheet, or are vendors allowed to modify the formula? | Formula revised. | |
| 11 | Att 1a/1b, column A | The Labor Categories in Column A are the same in both the MAIDIQ and SAIDIQ attachments. The MOS tables in the PWS indicates each set aside has different LCats in which we would be responsible for costing. Can the government please correct Attachment 1a & 1b respectively to reflect the MOSs listed in the PWS? | Please see revised Attachments. | |
| 12 | Att 1a/1b, column E | The government is issuing the estimated Annual Hours in column B and it is noted that cell A2 indicates the hours are for evaluation purposes; however, Row 99 of the Q&A makes it sound like vendors should change the estimated annual hours for each labor category based on company benefits packages or how an employee may be categorized (SCA vs. exempt, etc.) Can the government confirm that the hours in column B can/should adjusted by vendors based on individual company guidelines, per the guidance in Row 99 of the Q&A? | No. Do not change column B. These are estimated for pricing purposes only as actual hours, not FTEs. | |
| 13 | Similar to the previous question, vendors may be required to change the hours in column B if an employee is designated as an SCA employee based on the DOL’s required benefits package. Can the government confirm vendors should change column B to actual productive time per labor category? | No. Do not change column B. These are estimated for pricing purposes only as actual hours, not FTEs. | ||
| 14 | Att 1a/1b, column C | Can the government confirm that “Base Labor Rate” means the amount an employee gets paid per hour? | Yes. | |
| 15 | Since the government increased the number of labor categories from 12 labor categories to 96, will the government consider issuing a two-week extension to April 14th, to allow vendors time to properly research compensation and benefits for each of these specific categories in the defined locations? This will ensure proper costing analysis takes place. | The due date for proposals has been extended to 9 April. | ||
| 16 | After looking through the Government’s RFI responses, we noticed that the IDIQ Program Manager’s resume and letter of commitment (LOC) are required in Volume II – Factor 1 (L.4.2). We were wondering if the Government would confirm whether they are part of Volume II’s page count or exempt from page count? | No. See revised Section L. | ||
| 17 | Table L.1 | Table L.1 states, in part, “Compliance with DD Form 254 (Attachment 3a and 3b) *Please review Attachment 3a for informational purposes and provide appropriate responses demonstrating compliance in Attachment 3b.” |
Attachment 3a appears to be an old (dated 2018), partially completed DD Form 254. Attachment 3b is a blank fillable DD Form 254. Neither form has instructions.
The Government did not list this requirement in Section L.4.1. There are no evaluation criteria for Volume I in Section M, Basis for Award.
Will the Government please post instructions with Attachment 3a and Section L.4.1 and provide evaluation criteria for Volume I?
| See revised instructions. | ||
| 18 | The past performance questionnaire document in the recent amendment of SCoE ITSD opportunity lists the submission date as March 3, 2021 (see attached screenshot below). Please advise if a new PPQ will be posted with a correction or if we should proceed with the current version and use the correct submission date of March 31, 2021. | Please proceed with current version and use updated deadline for proposal receipt of 9 April. |
| 19 | During our review, we are kindly requesting the government provide a further two-week extension to the solicitation deadline so vendors can prepare compliant and acceptable quotes incorporating these changes & clarifications. |
| The due date for proposals has been extended to 9 April. | ||
| 20 | Will the Government please allow a one-week extension for the proposal submission date as answers to questions have a significant impact on offerors updates to the Pricing and Technical Volumes for submission? | The due date for proposals has been extended to 9 April. |
| 21 | Will the Government please remove column C (Base Labor Rates) of the Pricing workbook? | No. |
| 22 | Will the Government please confirm if line 13 (Technical Instructor/Writer (88H, 88K, 88L, 880A, 881A, WOBC, WOAC-915A) of Attachment 1a is meant to be Joint Base Langley-Eustis? | Pricing requested here is for Ft. Lee; however, TO will provide specific location information. |
| 23 | Will the Government accept already submitted PPQs based on the original solicitation Attachment 4 provided to offerors? | Yes. |
| 24 | If offerors are required to resubmit attachment 4 PPQ based on the same reference initially provided, will the Government please update A25the document to reflect the new required due date? The current date lists March 3, 2021. Additionally, will the Government extend the due date by at least one week to allow the request to be submitted and completed by the Contract Reference POCs? | The due date for proposals has been extended to 9 April. |
| 25 | Will the Government verify the LCATs in the 8(a) SAIDIQ Pricing Workbook are accurate per the MOSs to be potentially assigned on the 8(a) SAIDIQ? For example, QM Instructors for the 92-series MOSs are listed in the 8(a) SAIDIQ Pricing Workbook, but not listed in the RFP Technical Exhibit 3 Table 1 as a potential MOS for the 8(a) SAIDIQ. | Please see revised Attachments. |
| 26 | Regarding the Government’s answer to Question 107, DCAA rules require that we consistently allocate costs across all programs and contracts. Our DCAA disclosure statement establishes our General & Administrative (G&A) rate that we consistently apply across all program and contracts, to include all ODCs. To not allow G&A expense on this contract as we are required to apply to all other programs will directly conflict with DCAA requirements and generate a loss for the company on all travel or other ODCs. Can you clarify allowable costs to be applied to ODCs and allow contractors to apply G&A to those ODCs in order to maintain compliance with DCAA requirements? | See revised CLIN 0002, which allows contractors to apply G&A to Travel. |
| 27 | The Government added a column to the Attachment 1b spreadsheet showing Estimated Annual Hours for every labor category in column B (based on 1920 hours or multiples thereof) and is requesting a number of FTE to be populated in column C. Per the Government’s Q&A response to item 99, stating, “The annual hours used by offerors in proposals depends on the benefits packages unique to those offerors”; which column shall take precedence, as 1920 hours in column B may not actually equate to 1 FTE in column C in all cases? | Please see revised Attachments. |
| 28 | G&A and Travel Handling are ordinary expenses related to the effort expended by Small Business contractors to account for administration of the end-to-end travel process from seeking approvals to booking/rebooking to accounting and billing. |
The Government’s response to Item 107, a question relating to CLIN 0003 ODCs, was to update the language in Solicitation Section B, CLIN 0002 - SCoE Travel stating “Travel costs shall not include profit or G&A or other indirect costs.” a. Would the government consider revising the language in the CLIN 0002 Travel to match that in CLIN 0003 ODCs?
b. Would the Government consider a capped amount for G&A and Travel Handling?
| See revised CLIN 0002, which allows contractors to apply G&A to Travel. | ||
| 29 | In the Government’s response to Item 207, the IDIQ Program Manager’s resume and letter of commitment is to be submitted according to PWS 1.7.1., Section L.4.2, and Section M Factor 1. It is our assumption that the PM resume and commitment letter to be provided as part of Volume 2 – Staffing, Recruitment, and Retention Plan shall not count towards the page count for the volume. Will the Government please confirm? | No. See revised Section L. |
| 30 | This solicitation has asked for Fully Burdened Labor Rates to set ceiling prices for Task Order level price competition. In Q&A Item 30 the Government responded, “A column for base labor rates has been added.” Will the Government remove the base labor (or salary) rate from the spreadsheet as this is not relevant to a ceiling rate price evaluation? | No. |
| 31 | In Q&A Items 43 and 108 the Government responded, “If overtime is required, specifics will be addressed at the TO level.” FAR 52.222-4 Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards - Overtime Compensation states: (a) Overtime requirements. No Contractor or subcontractor employing laborers or mechanics (see Federal Acquisition Regulation 22.300) shall require or permit them to work over 40 hours in any workweek unless they are paid at least 1 and 1/2 times the basic rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 hours. Though FAR 52.222-4 only applies to laborers or mechanics, there are some labor categories in the updated spreadsheet that could fall under FAR 52.222-4 jurisdiction. If the pricing template establishing ceiling rates does not allow for overtime rates, how can a Task Order solicitation receive price competition for labor categories requiring overtime? | Government answer remains the same. |
| 32 | Question 1: Why do these workbooks not reflect the distinctive Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs) for the two suites listed in Table 1 – 8(a) Suite and Table 2 – SDVOSB Suite on pages 35-37 of the Solicitation? | Please see revised Attachments. |
| 33 | Question 2: Why do the workbooks require that FTEs be provided for each labor category? How are we to know what the Government’s requirements for FTEs are/will be? | FTEs are determined by each contractor based upon their own benefits packages. |
| 34 | Question 3: Does the Government expect that the FTEs to be entered for each labor category are to be reflective of the Government-provided Estimated Annual Hours for each labor category, and if so, how is such information valuable in terms of evaluating price for each offeror, and if not, how is an offeror expected to reconcile the many “MOSs within suite as needed” with the Estimated Workload Data provided in Technical Exhibit 6 (page 43 of 80 .pdf; page 2 [sic] of 80 Solicitation header) that reflects 502,364 Estimated Total Hours for both suites? | Please note that numbers provided are for pricing/proposal purposes only. |
| 35 | Question 4: Why would an offeror for the SAIDIQ 8(a) suite need to propose rates for the QM Instructors (lines 89 through 92 of the SAIDIQ_8A Workbook when the MOSs supported by such instructors are not reflected as current MOSs within the 8(a) Suite as per Table 1 (page 35 of 81 of the Solicitation)? | Lines 89-92 have been removed from SAIDIQ worksheet and now only appear on SDVOSB worksheet. |
| 36 | Question 5: Given that the Suite Workbooks appear to be same in terms of labor categories to be priced and given that the two Suites do not appear, based on Tables 1 and 2 of the Solicitation (pages 35-37), to support the same MOSs, can the Government provide a crosswalk of the labor categories in the respective Suite Workbooks to the MOSs reflected for each Suite in Tables 1 and 2 on pages 35-37 of the Solicitation? | The Government does not intend to restrict offerors' ability to propose. |
| 37 | Question 6: Given that the MAIDIQ Suite has a maximum ordering amount of $200M (page 2 of 80 of the Solicitation) and the SAIDIQ Suite has a maximum ordering amount of $100M, how can the Government evaluate Suite Workbooks reflecting the same requirements relative to those maximum ordering amounts in accordance with the Evaluation Factors for Award of Section M? | See revised Section B. The ceiling for the entire requirement is $200M. |
| 38 | The CLINs have one line item number for labor for 60 months. How do offerors use annual escalation without having individual annual CLINs? | The Government expects offerors to include escalation in pricing workbooks. |
| 39 | Also, for CLINs 0002, 0003, and 0004, are these “plug numbers” for each contract year or the entire contract period? | Entire Contract Period |
| 40 | Request of a one (1) week extension to SCoE Instructor Training Support and Development, RFP #W911S0-20-R-0001-0002. | The due date for proposals has been extended to 9 April. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .