Question_and_Answers_W91247_15-R-0007-_15_Dec_2015.pdf

W91247-15-R-0007 SATMO IDIQ Education and Training

Amendment 0003

Question 1: Has there been any movement on the Risk Mitigation RFI posted for the SATMO IDIQ. Will those companies that submitted information IAW the RFI receive any feedback.

Government Response: The current SATMO Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) have been extended until 26 March 2017. All responses received that were submitted in accordance with the instructions of the RFI were incorporated into the Justification and Approval, posted on FedBiz Ops.

Question 2: RFQ SF 33, Page count and page enumeration in upper right corner of SF, and page enumeration in Section II Table of Contents. The RFP has only 89 pages, however the total page enumeration in the upper right corner of the “page (1 of 97)” is incorrect and the page enumeration in II. Table of Contents is incorrect.

Government response: See Amendment 0003 The page enumeration has been corrected.

Question 3: Section 1.2.2, The government states: “The example subtasks and explanations listed below are representative of SAT missions that USASATMO has accomplished in the recent past.” Historical data is available to the government and the incumbents only on: (a) number of task orders issued, (b) duration of issued task orders, (c) countries supported by the issued task orders, and (d) number of personnel required by the government for each task order.

Government Response: See Amendment 0003 Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 1.2.2 verbiage has been removed.

Question 4: Section 1.6.16.1 (Phase-in) and Section 1.6.16.2 (Phase-out), Section

1.6.16.2 provides for “an observation period shall occur, at which time team management personnel of the incoming Contractor may observe operations. This will allow for orderly turnover of facilities, equipment, and records and will help to ensure continuity of services.” Section 1.6.16.1 provides for no similar observation period for the awardee to observe the current incumbent.

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, PWS Section 1.6.16.1 has been revised.

Question 5: Section 2.2 Acronyms and Part 6, Applicable Publications, The government specifies ITAR, International Traffic In Arms Regulations in the acronym table and in the table in Part 6. Nowhere in the RFP does the government identify contractor obligations for ITARS TAA or licensing requirements, yet provides the definition of ITARS in the table of acronyms.

Government Response: See Amendment 0003 Section L. B Volume II Factor 1 Management Approach, Section M B. Award (a) Factor 1, and section 1.6.8.1.14 of the PWS. SATMO does not have any ITAR requirements. However, all contractor training provided to support SATMO requirements involves providing goods and services to foreign partner countries. The Department of State (DOS) has ITAR requirements that must be met for goods and services provided to foreign partner countries. ITAR/export control is between the contractors and DOS during the performance of the actual Task Orders (TO). If a contractor does not meet ITAR requirements, the contractor, not the government, will face the fines and/or criminal liability if found in violation of ITAR. All SATMO training to foreign partner countries requires contractors to follow ITAR/export control regulations, and we want contractors to describe in their proposal if they already do that or at least have the ability to do that in the future.

Questions 6: Section L, D. Volume IV Past Performance, (1) General and Section M, B.

Award, Factor 5 Past Performance, in section L, the government states: “…similar in size, scope, complexity…” In Section M, the government states: “…same or similar in nature, size, magnitude and complexity…” Sections L and M use different terminology to describe the past performance evaluation criteria.

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, revised section M (d) Factor 4-Past Performance of the RFP to match section L of the RFP.

Question 7: Section L, D. Volume IV Past Performance and Section M, B. Award, (4), iii, (c) Factor 5 Past Performance., In Section L the government states, “Recent and relevant past performance shall be discussed for the prime contractor and any subcontractors proposed to support this contract. A list of no more than three (3) of the Offeror’s most recent and relevant past performance information on projects…” In Section M, the government states, “This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. In Section L, the government permits the offeror to provide up to 3 past performance, representing the Team’s relevant capabilities on education and training. In section M, the government provides no guidance on how it intends to aggregate the three separate Team past performances (potentially from three separate members on the team) into an aggregate assessment.

The government has not provided any historical SATMO references on a) number of task orders issued, (b) duration of issued task orders, (c) countries supported by the issued task orders, and (d) number of personnel required by the government for each task order in order for offerors to effectively evidence for evaluation/assessment our relevant OCONUS education and training capabilities.

Government Response: It is the offeror’s responsibility to provide past performance in accordance with Section L of the RFP. The Government will evaluate past performance in accordance with section M.

Question 8: Section L, B, (b) Factor 2 Training Approach, The government states:

“The offeror shall specifically identify a broad range of training to foreign students that closely mirrors US military standardized training that the offeror has or shall be able to conduct to include philosophy and methodology in accordance with the PWS”, Does the government’s expect the offeror to provide “...philosophy and methodology…” to execute each of the tasks/task areas specified in “Part 5 Specific Tasks”? The government provides sufficient detail on the procedures to assess/evaluate the Sample Task Orders (STOs), but provides no guidance on how the government plans to assess/evaluate an offerors approach to support the PWS tasks (Part 5 Specific Tasks).

Government Response: Volume II- Factor 2 Training Approach of the RFP: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s training approach to the specific tasks in Section 5 of the PWS and the Sample Task Orders’ (STOs) requirements.

Question 9: Section M, A Basis for Award (1), For award of the IDIQ, the government states: “The Government will award the contract to a contractor whose proposal represents the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) proposal after evaluation and in accordance with the solicitation.”, At Industry Day, Colonel Walker, Commander, SATMO reiterated numerous times how contractor personnel served as SATMO, US Army, and as ambassadors of the USA to foreign countries. He additionally related the critical role in vendor screening and maintaining deployed personnel, and the importance of a corporate experience base to train and sustain our deployed teams. These factors clearly reinforce the importance of a best-value / trade-off solution at both the IDIQ and task order level. However, at Industry Day, the government briefed that IDIQ award would be LPTA and TO award would be best value/trade off or LPTA. LPTA, by definition and reinforced many times by ACC requires successful bidders to meet the minimum established criteria. The LPTA criteria appears to be counter to the goals of this program.

Government response: The Basis for Award is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable

(LPTA).

Question 10: Section M, B. Award (1), The government states: “The Government anticipates making up to five (5) IDIQ contracts to satisfy the SATMO Education and Training requirement; the Government has reserved up to three (3) of the contracts for small businesses” At Industry Day, the government reiterated that they intend to make three (3) awards to small business and two (2) awards to large business. We believe that the government has invested an over-reliance on small businesses. International contract support requires a comprehensive knowledge of local laws/Combatant Command constraints and coordination requirements for every country supported/visited. In almost all cases, small businesses do not have the corporate infrastructure, in-place ITARS coordination, and financial capabilities (or access to legal and financial SMEs) to ensure the contract support team is fully compliant with host nation, Department of State, and Combatant Command requirements for in-country support. In addition, even large businesses do not have the expertise required to work in every country that could potentially be supported by SATMO. The plan to award three small businesses and two large businesses as award puts this program at great risk. In order to ensure the Government has enough private industry partners to adequately meet the Government’s requirements and generate competition, we recommend that the government decrease the small business awards from 3 to 2 and increase the large business awards from 2 to 4.

Government Response: No changes will be made to the acquisition approach.

Question 11: Section H, paragraph E. and Sections L & M, This paragraph states, IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2)(F), Exceptions to the Fair Opportunity Process, the TOCO will conduct market research to determine if at least two (2) small businesses can perform the work required. For a small business to be eligible, at least 50 percent of the cost of contract performance incurred for personnel would have to be expended for employees of the small business concern. If the TOCO determines that there are at least two (2) small business concerns capable of performing the task, the TOCO will solicit responses only from small business concerns. Limiting competition to small business awardees places an unacceptable risk on the Government-the complexity of providing support in multiple OCONUS countries is exacerbated about what a small business may not know that delays the ability to start on time. Based on the sensitive nature of FMS cases, the Government should select the solution offered that mitigates risk in performance the best? At times, it may be a small business, and other times a large business.

Government response: No changes will be made to the acquisition approach at the Task Order level.

Question 12: Sample Task Egypt Section 1.6.8.2.14, The government states:

“Contractors who have not been deployed on this mission to Egypt for this task during the past six months must attend and accomplish approximately two weeks of pre-deployment activities, which consists of one week of Continental United States (CONUS) Contractor in-processing and pre-SATTOC online training, followed by one week of Security Assistance Team Training Orientation Course (SATTOC) at Ft Bragg.”

Are the pre-deployment activities responsibilities invoiced as part of the FFP bill to the government or government provided?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, STO 3 has been deleted from the

RFP.

Question 13: Sample Task 1, Section 5.3.2, The government states “Performance in Peru will primarily be conducted at PSOF Headquarters in Lima, Peru but the TAFT may be required to operate at other locations on a temporary basis to accomplish training objectives.” How many additional locations, and is transportation (ground and/or air) government (Peruvian or US) provided or contractor provided? How ITARS are license time delay (4-6 weeks minimum…and up to months in some cases) included into the government’s timeline for TO support?

Government Response: Para 4.3.3. of STO 1 requires the Contractor to procure and provide vehicles necessary for the Contractor’s own use. Any training conducted at other locations shall be within driving distance with contractor personnel returning to living quarters every evening. ITAR requirements are the contractor’s responsibility.

ITAR timelines will be considered when the government is preparing to award Task Orders.

Question 14: Sample Task Section 1.6.11.2.2, 5.5.1, and 5.6, The government uses two different formats to identify personnel and potential dual hatting of responsibilities:

In section 1.6.11.2.2 and 5.5.1, the government states “Chief of Nursing / Clinical Officer/ Team Chief, RN” separated by slash (/) In section 5.6, the government states “Director of Critical Care Units, Deputy Team Chief, RN “ (separated by commas(,)) When position titles are separated by slash (/) does the government infer these are different positions that have common pre-requisites or are these one position that have dual/triple hatted titles? When position titles are separated by comma (,) does the government infer these are different positions that have common pre-requisites or are these one position that have dual/triple hatted titles?

Government response: See Amendment 0003, STO 3 has been removed from the

RFP.

Question 15: Section B, Section B.1, This Section States, “The total ceiling for the Security Assistance Training Management Organization (SATMO) Education and Training, Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract is $120,000,000.” Does this ceiling represent the ceiling for the entire MAC IDIQ, or the ceiling that will be awarded to each prime? Specifically, what is the expected value of work that will pass through this MAC over the seven year POP?

Government response: The $249M is for the entire program. If the Government chooses to extend by bilateral modification, in accordance with section B.1 of the RFP, only the program ceiling available will be carried over.

Question 16: Section B, All CLINS, The draft reflects $120,000 as a placeholder value for each CLIN. Will the final RFP provide the actual values Government will use for issuance of the contract?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003 Section B quantities have been removed from the Contract Line Item Numbers. The program ceiling for the life of IDIQs is $249M.

Question 17: Section 1.6.8.1.6.1 and 1.6.8.1.7, The draft RFP states,” Contractor personnel performing work under this contract that require access to Army installations, facilities and controlled access areas shall complete AT Level I awareness training within 30 calendar days after award of contract or effective date of incorporation of this requirement into the contract, whichever is applicable.” The next paragraph states, “The Contractor shall brief all personnel performing work under this contract on the local iWATCH program [training standards provided by the requiring activity Anti-Terrorism Office (ATO)]. This local developed training will be used to inform employees of the types of behavior to watch for and instruct employees to report suspicious activity to the COR. This training shall be completed within 30 calendar days of issuance of task order unless specified differently at the TO level. Any new hires after initial issuance of TO will have 60 calendar days to complete the iWATCH Training. Results shall be reported to the COR NLT 45 calendar days after completion of training. ” The RFP states that personnel must comply with these requirements within 30 days of contract award, but personnel will not be identified until task orders are issued and awarded.

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, PWS Section 1.6.8.1.6.1 and

1.6.8.1.7 has been revised.

Question 18: Section L, E. (2) (c) (ii), this paragraph states, “Each price matrix shall include a fully loaded CAP rate (maximum rate that will be charged per labor category) for the base year and each option year. CAP rates must include proposed escalation and consider the entire contemplated place of performance for the Contract. The CAP rates shall be inclusive of the impact of overtime, shift pay differential and all other considerations that may be required to satisfy requirements hereunder.” We understand the guidance provided, but require clarification on where other costs will be captured on task order competitions, such as relocation costs, Housing Allowances, Cost of Living Allowances, Hazardous Duty Pay, etc.

Government Response: The CAP rate shall be provided in accordance with Section L and M of the RFP and Attachments 1 – CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix and other costs will be submitted in accordance with H.2 Ordering, G, TO Pricing, (2) Other Direct Costs

Question 19: Section H, paragraph H.6.D, This paragraph states, All Contractors are required to complete a DD254 (Attachment 11) as part of their proposal in Volume I- RFP Documents and General Information, TAB C.” Please clarify this guidance. DD Form 254s are completed by the Government and issued with the awarded contract.

Why does this requirement have the contractors preparing a DD Form 254 and submitting it?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, H.6.D of the RFP. DD Form 254 may be required at the TO level.

Question 20: Section I, Clauses Incorporated by Reference, This section references FAR 52.222.41 Service Contract Labor Standards. Para H.14 states, “In accordance with FAR 22.1003-2, Geographical coverage of the Act, the Service Contract Act of 1965 is not applicable to contracts and/or TO perform outside the United States.”

Government Response: See Amendment 0003 reference to FAR 52.222-41 has been deleted.

Question 21: Section I, Clauses Incorporated by Reference, This section references Utilization of Small Business Concerns (52.219-8) and Small Business Subcontracting Plan (52.219-9 Alt II), Based on the nature of the OCONUS work to be performed on this contract, we do not believe there is a requirement for a small business utilization plan. Please clarify if there will be a requirement for a small business utilization plan and rationale. If there is not a requirement, recommended deleting these two FAR clauses.

Government Response: References to FAR 52.219-8 and 52.219-9 Alt II have been deleted.

Question 22: Section I, 252.216-7006, this section states, “Any supplies and services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of delivery orders or task orders by the individuals or activities designated in the contract schedule. Such orders may be issued from 27 September 2015 through 26 March 2024.”

Government response: See Amendment 0003 Section I of the RFP, Clause 252.216- 7006 has been revised.

Question 23: Section L, paragraph B. (3), this section states, “Content. The proposal information described in paragraphs L.4.B (3) (a) through L.4.B (3) (f) below relate to the overall ID/IQ contract.” These references paragraphs do not exist. Please correct.

Government response: See Amendment 0003 Section L of the RFP has been revised.

Question 24: Section L, Clauses Incorporated by Reference, This section references “Certified Cost or Pricing Data.” In two other locations in the draft RFP, it states that Certified Cost or Pricing Data is not required. Please de-conflict the guidance.

Government Response: See Amendment 0003 as FAR Clauses for Certified Cost and Pricing Data has been removed in Section I.

Question 25: Section L, There is no guidance where to file Teaming Agreements, Recommend they be submitted with the Price Volume.

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, Section L.4.B (2) of the RFP, Teaming Arrangements shall be submitted in Volume II Tab D.

Question 26: Is it possible to provide historical PWS’s? The historical PWS’s provide invaluable information on the scope and magnitude of potential future task orders. The information would be used to build an ID/IQ with requisite capabilities to compete at the task order level.

Government Response: Historical PWS’s will not be provided as STOs are estimated to be approximately of similar scope and magnitude to potential future task orders.

Question 27: In Part 4 para 4.3 the government states that: Secret Facility Clearance: If required by the Task Order, the Contractor shall possess and maintain a SECRET facility clearance from the Defense Security Service. The Contractor’s employees, performing work in support of this contract shall have been granted a SECRET security clearance from the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office.

The DD 254 will be completed as required for such Task Orders. However in Section H, para H6 the government states: General: This contract is not classified. However, it is anticipated that some TOs will require access to or generation of classified material. A general Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254) has been included in this contract. The DD 254 will contain the appropriate Security guidance and designate the Cognizant Security Office within the Defense Security Service (DSS). Will the Government Issue a DD254 for the contract that shows the need for a Secret Level Facility?

Government Response: See response to question 19.

Question 28: In Section H, para D the government states: All Contractors are required to complete a DD254 (Attachment 11) as part of their proposal in Volume I-RFP Documents and General Information, TAB C. In addition, Contractors shall conform to all security requirements as specified in detail in the DD Form 254 included within each TO (if required). Internet site http://www.classmgmt.com contains a complete booklet with instructions on how to prepare and submit a DD Form 254 to obtain security clearances of Secret or higher. If a security clearance is required, interim coverage may be obtained from the DoD. Surveillance of DD 254 requirements will be executed at the TO level. Can the government further explain the purpose for the contractor generated DD254, is the contractor filling their own information for the government or are we filling out as the contractor is the prime and sending to a subcontractor?

Government Response: See response to Question 19.

Question 29: The government states in various sections for the draft RFP that travel requirement pricing is not required for inclusion into proposals, pls define the categories of items that are covered under travel. In E. Volume V – Price the government states:

(a) If electronic files are compressed, they must be self-extracting archives (no software required to decompress). If files contain links, the links must be intact and maintained through all revisions. Additionally, spreadsheets must be easily traceable. None of the files submitted shall have any read/write/password protection. Include all formulas in your spreadsheets and please include any notes deemed necessary to add clarity to the spreadsheets.

(b) However in the draft RFP the government has supplied a “Sample task order price proposal”, is the offoer to use the sample task order price proposal supplied by the government or items described in (a) above. ?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, Section L Factor 5- Price has been

Question 30: Tab A–Executive Summary; what is the meaning of “Offeror must also detail conceptual approach towards discounting at the TO level”?

Government Response: Removed from RFP

Question 31: Tab C- Price Matrix-Attachment 1; Does Capacity Rates (CAP) mean the same as Ceiling Rates?

Government Response: CAPs are the maximum fully burden labor rates that will not be exceeded on future TO responses.

Question 32: Tab C-Price Matrix-Attachment 1; “The price matrix shall be a comprehensive list of the Labor Categories proposed in the Task Orders described in Tab D and in the format attached at Attachment 1”. Based on this statement and http://www.classmgmt.com/

Table 3 (scenario pricing) located on Page 79, Can we assume that the prices contained in responses to the STO’s are the only prices required on Attachment 1- Price Matrix?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, Section L and M Factor 5 -Price of the RFP has been revised in its entirety.

Question 33: Tab C (ii); what is meant by the statement “CAP rates must consider the entire contemplated place of performance for the contract?

Government Response: See Section H.3 of Amendment 0003, verbiage has been added.

Question 34: Tab C (ii); “CAP rates shall be inclusive of the impact of overtime, shift pay differential and all other considerations that may be required to satisfy requirements hereunder”. Isn’t this requirement open to a large number of different interpretations, thereby resulting in a wide range of prices irrelevant to the intended requirement?

Government Response: The offeror needs to factor in all considerations that would be applicable to propose a CAP labor rate.

Question 35: Tab C-(iii); “The price matrix shall be a comprehensive list of labor categories and fully burdened rates proposed in the Task Orders described in Tab D and in the format attached at attachment 1”. Attachment 1 Column 1 appears to contradict other areas of the RFP by requiring all labor categories that may be required to be used in the performance of this contract. This statement is confusing because it appears to require a list of positions and their qualifications labor categories not contained in the Sample Task Orders. This requirement also defeats the purpose of the IDIQ contract in that several awards will be made to allow for potential competition on the Task Order level. Development of a list to cover all potential requirements is time consuming and will result in pricing positions that may never be used as the current price analysis evaluation contained in Factor 6 Price, which indicates that price analysis will be performed only on the STOs and potential escalation. Therefore, does the government require additional categories and qualifications of personnel that may or may not be utilized during the life of this contract be priced on Attachment 1?

Government Response: No, additional labor categories will be added in accordance with section H.3 of Amendment 0003.

Question 36: Tab D “For purposes of proposal evaluations offerors shall NOT propose any travel costs in its Proposal”. Does travel also include Per Diem?

Government Response: Offerors should not propose per diem or travel in their pricing proposal.

Question 37: PWS (Peru). Paragraph 1.6.11.2. “The PM shall have experience in managing programs, training and oversight for projects of similar size and scope and have a senior service college military educational level”. Does attendance of Defense System Management College at Ft. Belvoir Program Management Course satisfy the noted requirement?

Government Response: No, Program Management Course at Ft. Belvoir is a Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Course.

Question 38: 1.6.1.1. Quality Control Program, in the overreaching IDIQ RFP the USG states that "The Contractor shall provide their final written Quality Control Plan (QCP) no later than (NLT) 30 days after contract award. The QCP shall be in writing and shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer (KO) and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) via electronic mail or U.S. Postal Service. Format will be Microsoft Word document. Any changes to the QCP will be provided to the KO and COR within 5 working days." However in the STO's the USG states "The Contractor shall provide their final written Quality Control Plan (QCP) to the Contracting Officer (KO) and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) within ten (10) working days of contract award, and the Quality Control Plan shall submitted to the KO and the COR within five (5) working days when changes are made thereafter." Which is it? 30 days or 10 days?

Government Response: PWS 1.6.1.1. Of the RFP “The Contractor shall provide their final written Quality Control Plan (QCP) at the TO level no later than (NLT) 30 days after issuance of the TO unless otherwise specified in the TO”. This is an example of how it can be different at the TO level.

Question 39: 1.6.8.1.1., The Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring all personnel performing work under this contract possess and maintain current certifications as indicated in PWS 1.6.6: security requirements during the execution of this contract. Paragraph 1.6.6 deals with security clearance requirements and not certifications, is this a typo?

Government Response: In Amendment 0003 section 1.6.6 “security certifications” has been revised to “security clearance”.

Question 40: 1.6.8.1.4, Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring all personnel performing work under this contract possess and maintain current Information Assurance Technician (IAT) Level I professional certification during the execution of this contract. Is this done in SATTOC?

Government Response: This is a short online course that will not be conducted during

SATTOC.

Question 41: 1.6.12.1.1., The Contractor shall develop, maintain, and provide to the COR an updated roster which shall include names and positions of all Contractor personnel as well as indicating which employees were issued CAC or other forms of government identification cards. The Contractor shall submit initial roster to the COR within 10 calendar days after commencement of base period of performance. Is this for the task orders or the IDIQ?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, Section 1.6.12.1.1 has been revised to state at the TO level.

Question 42: 1.7.3., If contract personnel are pronounced medically unfit to return to duty, the vendor shall replace them within specified timeframe at the TO level (30 calendar days, unless otherwise specified in the TO level) after notification, with the same or similar qualifications and skills.

Government Response: No question was asked this is just a restatement of PWS Section 1.7.3 of the RFP.

Question 43: 1.7.4.2. Documentation that the contractor member has no chronic lung problems, high blood pressure or known alcohol/drug problems. Do you mean contractor personnel?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003 section 1.7.4.2 of the PWS has been revised.

Question 44: 1.8.1. In addition to any organizational conflict of interest provision, Contractor employees assigned to this project will be required, prior to working, to sign a non-disclosure statement for the Government agreeing not to share any information or data with other contractor personnel not assigned to the project or, if assigned to the project, who has not signed a non-disclosure statement. The signed non-disclosure statements shall be furnished to the Contracting Officer prior to contract performance. Does the USG provide this document or is this a Contractor Furnished item? If its contractor furnished, who may we contact in your department to get guidance?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003 of the revised Section 1.8.1 of the

PWS.

Question 45: 1.10.2. If there are no DoD personnel on the team, the task order may designate that one Contractor employee serve as Team Chief. The Team Chief shall be required to meet the qualifications for the specialty at the equivalency of the military grade/DoD civilian grade. Additionally, the SAT Chief shall perform the following functions: Is the Team Chief and the SAT Chief the same person, or are we supposed to price them separately? Moreover, is Contract Manager, Program Manager, Task Order Manager, SAT Chief, Team Leader the same person or do we price them separately as well?

Government Response: In all documents, Contract Manager and Task Order Manager have been replaced with Program Manager. SAT Chief has been replaced with Team Chief.

Question 46: 1.10.3. Quality Control and Curriculum Maintenance. The Contractor shall be responsible for establishing, maintaining, and monitoring the quality control of the services provided. Contractor employees shall conduct training in accordance with the quality control plan using the learning materials provided and the instructional methodologies listed in the course control documents. Please give clarity to this paragraph.

Government Response: PWS Section 1.6.1.1. of the RFP, directs the contractor to create and provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP). PWS Section 1.10.4 “Quality Control and Curriculum Maintenance” of RFP requires the contractor to follow the guidance in the contractor provided and Government approved QCP.

Question 47: 1.10.6. Identification of Contractor Employees. 1.10.6.1. The Contractor shall provide each employee with identification (ID) badge made of nonmetallic material, easily readable and including employee's name, Contractor's name, functional area of assignment, and recent color photograph of the employee. Do we need to address these 5 items in each TOEP or can simply address in the master IDIQ response?

Government Response: Addressing in the master IDIQ response will be adequate.

Question 48: 1.10.6.2. Display of ID Badges. Contractor personnel shall wear the ID badge at all times when performing work under this contract at a Government site, including while attending Government meetings and conferences that may take place outside the Government facility. Unless otherwise specified in the Task Order, each Contractor employee shall wear the ID badge in a conspicuous place on the front of exterior clothing and above the waist except when safety or health reasons prohibit such placement.

1.10.6.3. Answering Telephones. Contractor personnel shall identify themselves as Contractor employees when answering Government telephones.

1.10.6.4. Utilizing Electronic Mail. When prime Contractor or subcontractor personnel send e-mail messages as a part of contract performance (or otherwise relating to contract matters), each sender shall include his/her name (both first and last names), E-mail address and the name of the individual's employer. This applies to the above 1.10.6.1, 1.10.6.2, 1.10.6.3, 1.10.6.4 Do we need to address these 5 items in each TOEP or can simply address in the master IDIQ response? Moreover, it's not realistic to be able to address the specific nature (i.e. non-metallic ID badge - above the waist) without simply restating it, paraphrasing or IAW company policy/SOP's which according to Paragraph B (Technical Submissions) would deem us unacceptable.

Government Response: See response to question 47.

Question 49: H.1. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT, The MCFB, is the contracting activity for this contract. As the contracting activity, the MCFB will centrally manage the basic contracts, and will delegate authority to solicit, award and administer TO pursuant to the H.2, Ordering, below. The SATMO KO has the ultimate responsibility for administration of the basic IDIQ contract. TOs will be awarded and administered by the Task Order Contracting Officer (TOCO). Is MCFB KO and SATMO KO the same person?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, Section H.1 of the RFP has been

Question 50: H.12. ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI), (1) Unequal access to information: Access to "nonpublic information" as part of the performance of a TO provided under the contract or work performed under a separate Government contract could provide the Contractor a competitive advantage in a later competition. Such an advantage could easily be perceived as unfair by a competing vendor who is not given similar access to the relevant information. If the requirements of the Government procurement anticipate the successful vendor may have access to nonpublic information, the successful vendor should be required to submit and negotiate an acceptable mitigation plan. Alternatively, the "nonpublic information" may be provided to all vendors. What if a bidder has either previously performed or is currently performing the task contemplated in the STO?

Government Response: The STOs are samples and have not been previously performed in their entirety. All STOs have been verified, STO 3 was removed;

therefore, none of STOs have been previously conducted. While STO’s may have some similarities to tasks performed in the past, none of the STOs, as currently written, have been previously performed. Notwithstanding, in the event an offeror believes it has an OCI, the offeror must comply with all requirements of FAR 9.5 and should submit a mitigation plan.

Question 51: E. Volume V – Price, (c) Tab C - Price Matrix- Attachment 1, the price matrix will be incorporated into the resultant contract. This matrix will be used in the pricing and negotiation of task orders regardless of the task order type. The price matrix will have Capacity (CAP) rates that reflect the maximum rates that will be paid for each labor category and be fully burdened to include profit. The price matrix shall be a comprehensive list of the Labor Categories and Fully Burdened Labor Rates Proposed in the Task Orders Described Tab D and in the format attached at Attachment 1. DCAA approved rates? CAS? How many pools?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, Factor 5 – Price has been revised.

It is the offeror’s responsibility to formulate their fully burden labor rates IAW Section L of the RFP.

Question 52: Page 51 of 89, The Contractor represents that it ( ) is, ( ) is not a small business concern under NAICS Code 611512- assigned to contract number TBD.

Wrong NAICS code…this is for Flight training. Shouldn't it be 611699?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, FAR Clause 52.219-28 has been revised.

Question 53: Page 78 of 89, B. Proposals shall be submitted via email to Contract Specialist, serena.a.davidson.civ@mail.mil; and courtesy copy the Contracting Officer at casie.m.savage.civ@mail.mil by the closing date and time identified on the SF 33.

This is conflicting to the above. "U.S. Army aviation and missile research development and engineering center (amrdec) safe access file exchange (safe):"

Government Response: See Amendment 0003 Section L.2 (B) Proposal Submission Instructions of the RFP has been revised.

Question 54: Page 81 of 89, (2) TAB B – Response to Scenario 2 (Egypt), should this should be STO #3.

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, STO 1 is Peru, STO 2 is Philippines. STO 3 Egypt has been removed.

Question 55: Page 81 of 89, (3) TAB C – Response to Scenario 3 (Philippines), should this should be STO #2.

Government Response: See response to question 54.

Question 56: Page 61 of 89, Such orders may be issued from 27 September 2015 through 26 March 2024. Should this be 27 March 2016?

Government Response: See response to question 22.

Question 57: STO 3, 1.5. Period of Performance: The period of performance shall be a total of seven (7) months. It will include a one (1) month Phase-In Period and a six

(6) month In-country training and advising period….the again: 1.6.16.1. Phase-In: To minimize any decreases in productivity and to prevent possible negative impact on additional services, the Contractor shall have all key personnel on board, during the two (2) week phase-in period. Which is it? 1-month or 2-weeks?

Government Response: STO 3 has been removed

Question 58: STO 2, Paragraph 1.3.1 identifies the requirement to train Filipino soldiers in all aspects of operations, maintenance and employment of the M109A5 howitzer system. Paragraph 1.4 suggests the M109A5s will be employed in support of the 5th Mechanized Brigade of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). Unstated is the organizational structure, means of employment, anticipated oppositional forces, and types of supporting equipment that will accompany the M109A5s, all of which will affect training considerations. What is the organizational (firing battery and / or battalion) structure under which the M109A5s will be employed?

Government Response: Organizational structure under which the M109A5s-a medium battery-based unit will be employed is listed in section 5.10.1 of STO 2 for each training task.

Question 59: Is a representative Table of Organization and Equipment (TOE) or Modified TOE (MTOE) supporting this employment available?

Government Response: No, a TOE or MTOE is not available.

Question 60: Which type of Field Artillery Ammunition Support Vehicle (M992, M548, or other) will support the M109A5 at the firing position?

Government Response: The M992 replaced the M548.

Question 61: If an MTOE is not available, is a full equipping list available?

Government Response: A full equipping list is not available.

Question 62: Are After Action Reports (AARs) and lessons-learned available following similar Technical Assistance Field Team (TAFT) fielding of the M109A5 system to other countries (Afghanistan, Israel, Portugal, Thailand, etc.)?

Government Response: After Action Reports (AARs) and lessons-learned are not available.

Question 63: Will the equipment be provided in Fully Mission Capable (FMC) status?

Government Response: Yes, equipment will be provided in FMC status.

Question 64: Are the supporting Fires Center of Excellence plans of instruction (POIs) appropriate to training the Field Artillery (FA) equipment sets available?

Government Response: No, contractor will develop all lesson plans and plans of instruction (POIs).

Question 65: Are the supporting TRADOC POIs for all other equipment types available?

Government Response: No, contractor will develop all lesson plans and plans of instruction (POIs).

Question 66: To what level of operations should the participants be taught? Battery-level, battalion-level, or brigade-level; and will this encompass all echelons of leadership?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, STO 2 Section 1.2.1.

Question 67: Paragraph 1.3.1 does not identify personnel / equipment for a supporting Fires Meteorological Section. Will the PWS / SOW be modified to include equipment and training for a supporting Meteorological Section, and if not, what will be the source of Meteorological (MET) data to support Fire Direction Center (FDC) and M109A5 determination of accurate firing solutions?

Government Response: Meteorological Section training is not a requirement of STO 2.

Question 68: Paragraph 1.3.2 states the need to train a Cadre capable of conducting independent training. What is the educational background of the Cadre Target Population?

Government Response: See STO 2 Section 1.3.2 and 5.16.1. For educational background.

Question 69: Paragraph 5.1.2 notes that an option year may be exercised. When will the Contractor be notified that the option year will be exercised?

Government Response: Schedule B of the RFP. There are no option periods in the MATOC RFP. STO 2 contains an option period at the task order level.

Question 70: Paragraph 5.11.1 notes that 8 FDCs will be trained in Manual Gunnery procedures. Will the FDCs be taught to use computer systems in determining gunnery solutions, and if so, which system will be used?

Government Response: STO 2 Section 5.11.1. No, Manual gunnery only.

Question 71: Paragraph 4.1.3 notes presence of two diagnostic computers. What is the purpose of the two listed diagnostic computers?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, STO 1 and 2, Diagnostic computers were a typo and are no longer mentioned in STOs.

Question 72: Attachment 1 – TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 1 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY, Observation - The Summary lists as a Performance Threshold: “90% of students are able to meet performance standard.” How is the “performance standard defined?” Is this standard defined by the US Government, Philippine Government, or Contractor? What is the basis (reference) for that definition?

Government Response: See Amendment 0003, all PRS have been removed.

Question 73: RFP instructions specify that all printing shall be 12 point font Times New Roman. Is smaller font allowable on tables and figures? If yes, please provide guidance for font size for tables and figures.

Government Response: Section L of the RFP. All font will be at 12 point.

Question 74: RFP instructions specify a labeling nomenclature that does not include Volume, Attachment, or Appendix labeling. Is it the intent of the Government to maintain strict adherence to the current labeling instructions or may offerors tailor the labeling to be consistent with the guidance but allow for more specific document identification?

Government Response: Offerors must follow current labeling instructions in Section L of the RFP.

Question 75: Section H.6 instructs offerors to include DD-254 in Tab C of Volume I, but Tab C is specifically identified for OCI Plan in section L. In Volume I, there are five tabs specifically identified. Is it the intent of the Government to limit Volume I to those five Tabs, or may other Tabs be added to support organization of RFP requirements?

Government Response: Yes, Volume I is limited to the five (5) tabs.

Question 76: PWS 1.6.1.1 requires a final QCP at the Task order level within 30 days after contact award. The solicitation is silent on the requirement for an IDIQ level QCP.

Is an IDIQ-level QCP required with the submission of the offeror’s proposal? If yes, where should this IDIQ QCP be located in the offeror’s proposal?

Government Response: PWS Section 1.6.1.1. Of the RFP. QCP are only required at the TO level.

Question 77: Key Personnel are required at the Task Order level, however the solicitation instructions do not provide specific instructions for resume placement. Is it the intent of the Government that resumes be submitted to verify that personnel have required qualifications? If yes, is it the intent of the Government that resumes are not included in page count limitations? We estimate that at least three pages per resume are required to address all key personnel requirements in the STO PWS. If resumes are to be included in page count limitations, would the Government increase STO page limits from 20 pages per STO to 26 pages to accommodate resumes?

Government Response: Resumes are not required.

Question 78: PWS paragraph 1.6.12.1: Within the body of this paragraph the position “Contract Manager” is cited. Was it the intent of the Government that this position be the “Program Manager”?

Government Response: Contract Manager has been replaced with Program Manager in both STOs 1 & 2.

Question 79: PWS 1.6.12 Contractor Personnel: Is it the intent of the Government that this paragraph be numbered “1.16.13” and subsequent PWS paragraphs be numbered to reflect this correction?

Government Response: Typo on draft, numbering was correct when solicitation was released.

Question 80: RFP Reference: L.4.D. (1) “Recent and relevant past performance shall be discussed for the prime contractor and any ‘team members” or “teaming partners” proposed to support this contract.” In teams where team members carry more relevant and significant past performance, must one of the past performances come from the prime contractor or can all three come from subcontractors?

Government Response: No, all three can come from the teaming members or teaming partners. See Amendment 0003 Section L.4.D (1) Factor 4 Past Performance verbiage has been revised.

Question 81: If an Offeror submits three past performance citations from its subcontract teammates solely, will the government deem the overall past performance as “unknown” “acceptable” or “unacceptable.”

Government Response: Ratings cannot be determined until past performance is evaluated in accordance with Section M of the RFP.

Question 82: If the Prime submits a past performance example where it performed similar work as a subcontractor and the Prime contractor for the effort is unwilling to provide corroboration or citation, will the Prime’s PP still be deemed acceptable.

Government Response: See response to question 81.

Question 83: Reference Arming Contractors: Although there is no requirement any of the Sample Task Orders, does the government envision the potential for any task order where contractors may be required to be armed?

Government Response: Historically, SATMO has never had any task orders where contractors were required to be armed.

Question 84: Paragraph 1.6.11 Key Personnel: This paragraph lists some responsibilities but does not list any qualifications or request a resume. Does the government require a resume for designated IDIQ and/or task order Key Personnel?

Government Response: See response to question 77.

Question 85: Section L, Paragraph 3, a, 1) CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix states that:

The proposed rates in the CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix shall be Capacity (CAP) rates that reflect the maximum rates that will be paid for such labor category and be fully burdened to include profit. CAP rates must include any escalation and each CAP rate will be applicable over the entire period of performance of the Contract. The CAP rates shall be inclusive of the impact of possible overtime, shift pay differential and all other considerations that may be required to satisfy requirements hereunder. Is it anticipated that some task orders will be performed in countries/regions that are designated as conflict zones and if so, will hazard duty/danger pay be applicable and should this hazard duty/danger pay be captured in the fully burdened CAP rates?

Government Response: The CAP rate shall be provided in accordance with Section L and M of the RFP and Attachments 1 – CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix and other costs will be submitted in accordance with H.2 Ordering, G, TO Pricing, (2) Other Direct Costs

Question 86: Given the detailed administrative, legal, medical, security and training pre-deployment requirements and activities of contractor personnel, what is the typical mobilization and pre-deployment time period for a task order?

Government Response: Historically 30-60 days.

Question 87: Section J of the RFP lists a “CAP Labor Rates Price Matrix” as a J.1

Attachment, however, not such attachment was provided. Please provided the subject attachment document.

Government Response: Attachments were uploaded separately in ASFI.

Question 88: Section L, paragraph E.3.a.1 (page 77) of the RFP states “The CAP rates shall be inclusive of the impact of possible overtime, shift pay differential and all other considerations…” Since no defined work schedule or locations (other than those identified in the sample task orders) are provided, it would be difficult to factor all potential variations that could impact pricing into the CAP rates. Would the government provide a standard work schedule at the MATOC level for purposes of uniform pricing?

Variations to schedules could be identified at the TO level and offerors could…