Amendment_0003 _16-R-0005 _Ft_Bragg _FORSCOM_Foreign_Language _7_May_2016.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

The purpose of this amendment is to:

a. Provide responses to additional industry questions recieved as a result of Amendment 0002. These responses are for clarification purposes only. No additional questions w ill be accepted.

b. Add language to Technical Exhibit 9 for clarification.

c. The due date for reciept of proposals shall not be extended as a result of this amendment and w ill remain 11 May 2016 at 2:00PM.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 20

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 07-May-2016

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W91247-16-R-0005

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

08-Mar-2016

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

06-May-2016

CODE

MICC CENTER - FORT BRAGG

MICC - FORT BRAGG

2175 REILLY ROAD STOP A

FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000

W91247 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

W91247-16-R-0005

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been modified:

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

Question Number

Reference Question Response

1 General

Does the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation under solicitation number W9124716R0005 contain requirements similar to a current contract? If possible, please provide the current contract number. Or, is this a new requirement for the government?

This is not a new requirement.

Services are current being received under contract number W91247-13-D-0009

RFP,

PWS

Section 1.6.6.5 of the Request For Proposal states:

The Contractor shall coordinate with the COR regarding initiation of NACI’s. Facility Security Officer (FSO) or designated Contractor Security Representative (CSR) shall submit required employee documentation of security clearances and documentation of adjudicated CNAC-Is and IRC through the COR to the Government Security point of contact.

If the prospective contractor does not have a Facility Security Office (FSO) or a Facility Clearance, would that exclude the prospective contractor from participating in the solicitation?

There is no requirement for an Offeror to obtain a Facility

Clearance.

RFP,

PWS

Are you looking for industry to partner with Universities? Technical Acceptability Standard 3 - Accreditation. To be deemed technically acceptable, the Offeror must demonstrate the following:

(a) The Offeror submitted accreditation documents that demonstrate that they are a regionally or nationally accredited institution recognized by the U.

S. Department of Education.

1.6.8.1.1. Accreditation. The Contractor shall be

accredited by a regional or national accrediting association. Documentation of this accreditation shall be provided to the Government with the proposal.

Accreditation suggests academic soundness and is a means of substantiating quality of instruction methods and the SLA theories and approaches that inform them. Accreditation is neither divisible nor transferable; a non-accredited institution or organization does not gain accredited status solely because of an affiliation or arrangement with an accredited institution. Any contract service provider directly involved with instruction or curriculum development must, therefore, belong to an accredited institution, whether Prime or subcontractor. The Government will verify the Offeror's certification of accreditation through the U.S. Department of Education; Database of Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs listing at Caution-http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Agencies.aspx < Caution-http://www.ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Agencies.aspx > and/or Caution-http://www.sacs.org/ < Caution-http://www.sacs.org/ > .

If the offeror is regionally or nationally accredited and provides documentation – they meet the requirement – this can mean partnering with a University but not necessarily.

The following extract is key.

“Accreditation is neither divisible nor transferable; a non-accredited institution or organization does not gain accredited status solely because of an affiliation or arrangement with an accredited institution.

Any contract service provider directly involved with instruction or curriculum development must, therefore, belong to an accredited institution, whether Prime or subcontractor.”

RFP,

PWS

On page 115, paragraph, under Technical Acceptability, is the following statement: "The Offeror submitted accreditation documents that demonstrate that they are a regionally or nationally accredited institution recognized by the U. S.

Department of Education."

Can the contracting company be in a partnership with an accredited academic institution - or - must the contracting company be an accredited school/university?

Would it be acceptable for the prime to compete and have an accredited academic institution (local university) as a sub, thereby fulfilling the requirement for accreditation?

Please see response to Question 3.

5 General Who is the incumbent company/organization?

The incumbent is NESI/Milburn Academy Inc./Middleton Academy

6 RFP/PWS

Reference PWS 1.6.8.1.1. Accreditation.

This section states that “Any contract service provider directly involved with instruction or curriculum development must, therefore, belong to an accredited institution, whether Prime or subcontractor.”

We believe that this requirement unnecessarily restricts competition given that most of the providers of language instruction to the military are not accredited, and many of them achieve highly desirable results. Will the government consider relaxing this requirement and allowing non-accredited subcontractors, given the Prime meets all the accreditation requirements?

3. The Prime contractor and all subcontractors must be accredited to fulfill the accreditation requirements.

7 RFP/PWS

Sections 1.6.1.1 to 1.6.1.8 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) describe the requirements of the Quality Control Program. Section 1.6.1.3 describes recordkeeping requirements for instructor professional development. For many locations instructors use a virtual training program to satisfy the 40 hours professional development requirement over the course of a 12 month period. There may not be training completed on a monthly basis. Could the clause be modified to submit a quarterly report of professional development activities?

A monthly report is still required. Even if the report states “no training has taken place.”

8 RFP/PWS

Section 1.6.6 of the PWS-Security Requirements: Is a DD254 included with this contract?

No – a DD254 is not required.

9 RFP/PWS

Section 1.6.9.12.1.1 in the PWS requires a PM for the Eastern Region and West Region. Has the requirement for a PM in the Central region been eliminated? Do the PM and APM need to be located in the same site for the East Region or can they be at different sites?

The government has combined the Eastern and Central Regions.

There is no specific location requirement for the PM/APM therefore the PM and APM for either region can be located at different sites.

10 RFP/PWS

Section 1.6.9.12 Key Personnel in the PWS:

Personnel may elect to leave a job voluntarily or at the request of the contractor. Replacement of key personnel staff may take up to 15 work days (3 weeks) to fill the requirement. Will any consideration be given to changing the period for replacement of key personnel to 15 work days instead of 10 days?

Per Section 1.6.9.12 the requirement will remain at 10 working days.

11 RFP/PWS

Section 1.6.9.12-Key Personnel in the PWS: Are key personnel resumes required as part of the proposal submission?

No, resumes are not required.

12 RFP/PWS

Section 1.6.9.12.1 in the PWS: Is the Alternate Program Manager a full time position? Could the APM be assigned other duties while not tasked as the

PM?

The APM must be able to act full time in the ABSENCE of the PM

13 RFP/PWS

Section 1.6.9.12.2.1 Program Manager Qualifications in the PWS: Please clarify what a related field of study would encompass to ensure clarity around the requirements for the position?

A field of study related to:

Second Language Acquisition, Cultural Anthropology, Cross Cultural Communication, or

Instructional Design.

14 RFP/PWS

Section 1.6.13.1-Technical Support in the PWS states that technical support is needed at Fort Lewis, Fort Hood, and Fort Bragg. Fort Hood does not have technical support currently. Is this a new requirement for the Fort Hood? CLIN 0003AA and CLIN 1002AA only indicate 1 FTE, presumably in the East. Please clarify.

Please see revised PWS Section

1.6.13.1. which removes the Fort

Hood Technical Support Requirement.

15 RFP/PWS

Section 1.6.13.2 Administrative Support in the PWS- Please clarify the level of administrative support necessary for Fort Lewis, Fort Hood, and Fort Bragg? Is the LOE the same at each region? CLIN 0002 does not break out the support by location.

Please see revised PWS Section

1.6.13.1.2. which removes the

Fort Hood Administrative Support Requirement.

16 RFP/PWS

Sections 5.4.1.3 in Part 5, Specific Tasks– Are ODA assessments available for all languages expected to be taught? What is the average length of time to administer an ODA? How will this be coordinated in sites that do not have access to the Internet for students?

ODAs are not available for all languages. Typical length is two to three hours – may be longer for high level proficiency. This will be administered with the local CLPM

17 RFP/PWS

In Sections 5.4.1.6 of Part 5, Specific Tasks, the deliverable for lesson plans is 3 days before the class begins. If this is a new class, will additional days of service be provided for lesson plan development before the class officially starts or can the deliverable be changed to 3 days after the class starts?

Contractor is responsible for POIs and lesson plans.

Additional days are not planned for new classes unless requested by the COR

18 RFP/PWS

The level of effort in Tech Exhibit 2 for the EAST/CENTRAL region is approximately half the number of days requested in CLIN 0004AA? Is the number of days in CLIN 0004AA the maximum available to order while Tech Exhibit 2 provides a realistic estimate of required services in the region?

Please clarify.

CLIN 0004AA is the maximum available to order for the first ordering period. Technical

Exhibit 2 is the Deliverables Schedule. Technical Exhibit 9 contains historical workload data.

19 RFP/PWS

In the proposal preparation instructions pages 104- 106, Volume I and Volume II both have executive summaries. Is the Executive Summary duplicated in both volumes? Does the Executive Summary count against the page count in Volume II?

The Executive Summary should not be duplicated in both volumes. Paragraph 4(b)(Tab D)(Executive Summary) of Addendum to FAR Clause

52.212-1 has been revised to exclude the duplicative requirement to introduce the Offeror’s team in Volume II.

Additionally, paragraph 3.2(v) of this section has been revised to exclude the Executive summary from the page count.

As reflected in the chart in Addendum to 52.212, the content contained in Volume II shall not exceed 50 pages, excluding those pages specifically identified in paragraph (v).

20 RFP/PWS

In the proposal instructions, pages 104-106, Does the 50 page limit for Mission Capability in Volume II apply to Tab D - Executive Summary and to Tab E - Mission Capability in total, so that the two tabs together cannot exceed 50 pages?

Please refer to paragraphs 3–4 of Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-1 as to what is included in Volume II’s 50-page limit, noting what pages are expressly excluded by paragraph 3.2(v) which now excludes the executive summary.

21 RFP/PWS

In Section 1.6.8.1.5.1 of the PWS, "obtaining hard copy fingerprints for background checks" IAW DoD/DSS you can only scan fingerprints to OPM.

Will the Base Security Office scan the employees’ fingerprints to OPM?

That depends on the local procedures of the Installation

Security Offices

22 RFP/PWS

In Section 1.6.8.1.5.1 of the PWS it states, "Contractors will not be able to perform services under this contract until they have obtained such favorable adjudication" IAW with DoD and Army process, an employee can be granted a CAC card while OPM is doing there NACI background investigation. If employee requires a NACI background check, will the COR issue the employee a CAC card while OPM completes the investigation?

CAC cards are only issued after a favorable NACI background check

23 RFP/PWS

In Section 1.6.8.1.8 of the PWS it states, "The security requirements are in accordance with the attached DD254." No DD254 was in the attachment, will a DD254 be issued?

This sentence has been removed from PWS 1.6.8.1.8.

24 RFP/PWS

On page 103 of the RFP, Table 1 only indicates that a CD is required for Volume 1. Do all Volumes 1-4 require a CD? And if so, does each Volume need to be on a separate CD or can all volumes be on one

CD?

Table 1 has been revised to require one (1) digital copy encompassing Volumes 1 -4 on CD-Rom. One (1) CD containing all four (4) volumes is sufficient for submission.

25 RFP/PWS

In Clause 1.6.8.1.9 in the PWS, what type of security clearance does an employee need to have access to Government controlled information systems? Does the Government perform the background check?

There are no security clearance requirements in this contract.

The requirement is for a favorably adjudicated NACI

Evaluatio n Criteria

Reference: 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999) a) Basis for Award

Referenced section begins with the words “This is a best value source selected conducted in accordance with FAR Par 12 in addition to FAR Par 15.3…” Later in the same paragraph there is a sentence that 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.”

Question: Can the procurement approach be both best value and LPTA?

Per FAR 15.101, Best Value is a continuum. The Source

Selection Process under that continuum is Lowest Priced

Technically Acceptable (LPTA).

See FAR 15.101-2.

Evaluatio n Criteria

Reference: 52,212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999) c) Evaluation Factors

Under Factor 1: Mission Capability and Technical Acceptability Standard 2: Technical Approach -- there are seven subfactors: 1) management Concept, Organizational Plan Summary; 2) Recruitment Plan;

3) Teacher Training Plan; 4) Programs of Instruction;

5) Transition Plan/Phase-In/Phase-Out; 6) Quality Control Plan; and 7)Technical Scenario.

Question: What is the relevant importance of each of these subfactors?

There are no subfactors, per se, in this solicitation. However, all stated requirements under each factor must be met if the proposal is to be deemed technically acceptable. Further, as this is a Lowest Price

Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procurement, there is no relative importance to any factor or aspect of the technical requirements.

Evaluatio n Criteria

Reference: 52,212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999) c) Evaluation Factors

Question: Will the Government please provide the relative weight value (percentage) for each of the Factors (Factor 1: Mission Capability; Factor 2: Past Performance; Factor 3: Price)?

Please see response to Question 27.

Reference: PROPOSAL PREPARATION

INSTRUCTIONS ADDENDUM TO FAR CLAUSE

52.212-1 – INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS –

COMMERCIAL ITEMS

Section 4. Proposal Content. Volume III: Factor II:

Past Performance (Page 108, subsection C(i)) states that the Contractor must “provide information regarding any relevant experience acquired in providing similar Language and Culture Services exceeding $35,000,000.00, in the last three (3) years…”

Question: Is the $35,000,000.00 over a one-year period or the total of the last three years of the proposed past performance contract?

Question: Will the Government consider eliminating or significantly reducing the dollar amount of this requirement?

Please see revised language under Section 4. Proposal

Content. Volume III: Factor II subsection C(i) revising the requirement to $5,000,000.00 annually.

30 General

The $35 million dollar threshold (to be qualified to bid) appears to be overly restrictive and appears to significantly limit competition. This may be inconsistent with the intent of Competition in Contracting Act.

31 RFP

Clauses Incorporated by Full Text (Wage Determinations); page 24: The Government provides the applicable SCA wage determination tables to be used in development of daily rates. Under SCA regulations, employees accrue vacation time based on number of years of service regardless of contractor.

This time could be anywhere from 2 weeks to 4 weeks, creating a significant variance in vacation pay costs. Could the Government please provide the incumbent anniversary dates of current SCA-covered employees so that offerors may appropriately plan for vacation and associated costs?

The Government does not have the incumbent anniversary dates of current SCA. During phase-in/out the awardee can request this information at that time.

32 RFP/PWS

PWS Part 1; paragraph 1.6.9.12.1.1; page 38: The PWS states “The Contractor shall provide a PM for the Eastern Region and the Western Region, as well as an APM for each region…” To clarify, is the Government requesting one (1) PM in the Eastern Region, one (1) PM in the Western Region, one (1) APM for the Eastern Region and one (1) APM for the Western Region for a total PM/APM count of four (4)?

Yes, the Government requires a total of four PMs/APMs. PWS

1.6.9.12.1.1. states, “The Contractor shall provide a PM for the Eastern Region and the Western Region, as well as an

APM for each region who shall be responsible for the performance of the work under this contract. The APM will act as the PM, with equal authority, during any absence of the PM.

The PMs (or APMs in the respective PM’s absence) shall have full authority to act for the

Contractor on all contract matters relating to daily operation of this contract.”

33 RFP/PWS

PWS Part 1; paragraph 1.6.9.12.1.1; page 38: Where specifically should the PMs and APMs be located in both the Eastern and Western Regions?

There is no specific location requirement for the PM/APM and the PM/APN do not have to be co-located.

34 RFP/PWS

PWS Part 7; Technical Exhibit 8; page 80: The PWS states Technical Exhibit 8 is “provided as an outside attachment” however it was not posted to FBO. Could the Government please provide Technical Exhibit 8?

Technical Exhibit 8 has been removed with the release of

Amendment 0002.

SF 1449 Continuation Sheet (CLINS); page 3-16 and PWS Part 7; Technical Exhibit 9; page 80-81: The CLINS for CLP, Technical Resource Support, and Foreign Language Instruction state that Contractors should provide daily rates “in strict compliance with the PWS and historical workload data for the Eastern/Central/Western Regions…” Based on the work days and hours provided by the Government within the PWS (M-F, 40 hours/week); and the historical workload information in Technical Exhibit 9, could the Government please confirm that all offerors must base their daily rates on the available work days/hours and the specific workload data provided, regardless of any knowledge of actual planned workload? For example, if planning Foreign Language Instruction in Ft. Campbell, all offerors would need to plan for 1 language (Arabic), no more than 10 students at any one time, for 251 training days per year, regardless if the offeror has insight as to the actual or projected training days (or students) at that location which might be less. Such information would provide an offeror with an unfair advantage and would create an unequal evaluation of that cost.

The Government 's evaluation will be according to criteria contained in the solicitation and will include no criteria not articulated therein it's up to the contractor to price the requirement based on their own pricing structure. The workload data provided is based on historical data only and the contractor is cautioned when using this information to prepare their proposal. Offerors should base pricing off of the quantities as specified in the CLINs, considering the provided historical workload.

36 RFP/PWS

PWS Proposal Preparation Instructions; Proposal Format; paragraph 2(ii); page 102: The paragraph states “Files names to be ‘Company Name—Initial’ for the first submission.” How should the Volume identifier be incorporated—should offerors provide the Volume number after “Initial” (e.g. Company ABC—Initial Volume 1)?

Volume number after "Initial" (e.g. Company ABC - Initial

Volume 1) is acceptable.

37 RFP/PWS

PWS Proposal Preparation Instructions; Proposal Content; paragraph 4(a) Volume 1 Tab E; page 105:

Could the Government please confirm that the Representations and Certifications to be included in this tab are listed beginning on page 114-128 of the solicitation?

The Representations and Certification are as listed in paragraph 4(a), Volume I, Tab E.

38 RFP/PWS

PWS Proposal Preparation Instructions; Proposal Content; paragraph 4(a) Volume 1Tab G; page 105:

The paragraph instructs offerors to “identify any potential OCI conflicts…” and “if such concerns exist, the impacted Offeror will submit an acceptable OCI Mitigation Plan”. Could the Government please confirm that offerors who have no such OCI conflicts should not submit any information in this tab/volume?

The Offeror is asked to review FAR 9.5, and if an OCI concern exists, the Offeror shall submit a Mitigation Plan. All Offeror’s who do not submit an OCI Mitigation Plan under TAB G, must include in Tab G a statement that they have determined that no actual or potential OCI exists.

39 RFP/PWS

PWS Proposal Preparation Instructions; Proposal Format; paragraph 2, Table 1; page 102: Per Table 1, only Volume 1 requires a CD ROM. Could the Government please confirm its intent that only one (1) CD is required and only for Volume 1?

Please see response to Question 24.

40 RFP/PWS

The paragraph states “Spreadsheets will not contain hiding worksheets. All formulas, lookup tables, and links shall be intact…” Could the Government please clarify this paragraph or remove it, as per Table 1 (page 103) offerors are only to submit a hard copy of the price proposal (Volume 4)?

Please see response to Question 24.

41 RFP/PWS

PWS Proposal Preparation Instructions; Proposal Content; paragraph 4(d)(ii) Volume 4; page 109:

Could the Government please confirm if there is a requirement to submit either certified cost and pricing data or other than certified cost and pricing data?

Per Volume 4 and FAR 15.403- 1(b)(3), certified cost or pricing data is not required.

42 RFP/PWS

PWS Proposal Preparation Instructions; Proposal Content; paragraph 4(a) Volume 1; page 104: The paragraph states “Offerors are required to submit a completed SF1449…and FAR Provision 52.212-1.”

Could the Government please clarify how offerors are to submit the FAR Provision 52.212-1 as stated? Is the Government looking for offerors to simply state that they have complied with the instructions therein?

Revised to read “Offerors are required to submit a completed

SF 1449 (including acknowledgment of

Amendments) and all documents as stated in the Addendum to

FAR Provision 52.212-1.”

43 RFP/PWS

PWS Proposal Preparation Instructions; Proposal Content; paragraph 4(a) Volume 1Tab F; page 105:

The paragraph states that Large Business offerors are to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and that “this plan shall be submitted separately from the Small Business Participation information identified below.” Could the Government please confirm if the Small Business Participation information is referencing the recommended goal percentages at the end of the paragraph? If so, could the Government please provide the goals for the Small Business Subcontracting Plan? If the percentages provided are NOT for the Small Business Participation, could the Government please provide the Small Business Participation information/percentage goals?

Removed statement regarding Small Business Participation information. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan should strive to meet the percentages as listed under Tab

F.

44 RFP/PWS

PWS Proposal Preparation Instructions; Proposal Content; paragraph 4(a) Volume 1Tab F; page 105;

and PWS paragraph 1.6.8.1.1; page 35: Volume 1, Tab F illustrates the small business subcontracting goals. Paragraph 1.6.8.1.1 states “Any contract service provider directly involved with the instruction or curriculum development must, therefore, belong to an accredited institution, whether Prime or subcontractor.” Given the overly restrictive nature of this paragraph, could the Government please consider removing the requirement for subcontractors to be accredited? There are a limited amount of certified small businesses who meet the criteria, fit in the stated concern categories (WOSB, SDB, HUB Zone, etc.) who are also accredited institutions. The language in paragraph 1.6.8.1.1 creates an overly restrictive circumstance in which small businesses would have difficulty providing subcontractor support. Thus, the goals in Volume 1 Small Business Subcontracting would be similarly difficult to attain.

Please see response to Question

3. The Prime contractor and all subcontractors must be accredited to fulfill the accreditation requirements.

45 RFP/PWS

PWS Proposal Preparation Instructions; Proposal Content; paragraph 4(c) Volume 3; page 108: Could the Government please confirm that there are no requirements to include tabs, a table of contents, or a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms in Volume 3?

If not, could the government please revise this paragraph with the necessary information to include in the desired order/format?

There is no requirement to include tabs, a table of contents, or a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms in Volume III.

46 RFP/PWS

PWS Proposal Preparation Instructions; Proposal Content; paragraph 4(c) Volume 3; page 108: Could the Government please confirm no Past Performance Questionnaires are required for this solicitation?

Past Performance Questionnaires are not required.

47 RFP/PWS

Could the Government please confirm there are no requirements to provide any resumes for any personnel (to include key personnel) with the submission of proposals?

There is no requirement to provide resumes with the submission of proposals.

48 RFP/PWS

PWS 52.212-2 Evaluation; paragraph 1; page 110:

Could the Government please clarify if this is a best value source selection or a lowest price technically acceptable source selection?

26.

49 RFP/PWS

PWS 52.212-2 Evaluation; paragraph 1; page 110:

Could the Government please explain its intent to make an award based on LPTA criteria? This seems confusing as all price factors, criteria, and metrics for development have been provided by the Government, such as: the required number of days, applicable SCA Wage Determination tables to be used for base pay;

hours per day, maximum hours per week, no overtime allotments; and has required offerors to base their prices on the Historical Workload in Technical Exhibit 9. Assuming all offerors follow the Government’s instructions (all things being equal), the only variance in prices would be from fringe benefits and any applicable markups such as G&A and Fee.

In accordance with FAR 15.101- 2, the Contracting Officer determined that using LPTA would provide the best value to the Government.

50 RFP/PWS

PWS 52.212-2 Evaluation; paragraph 3 Factor 1; page 111-112; PWS Part 1; paragraph 1.1.1; page 30;

paragraph 1.3; page 31: The Government lists the ratings for Mission Capability as Acceptable or Unacceptable, which would be in accordance with an LPTA source selection method. However, as stated in PWS paragraph 1.1.1 “FORSCOM language and culture program emphasizes creativity and flexibility to meet unique instruction needs…This program’s courses/training events do not have rigid Programs of Instruction…” further, the stated objectives of this program are to “achieve and maintain/sustain the Army minimum qualification…and strive to enhance proficiency.” Given the emphasis on creativity and flexibility, the Government’s description of the fluid and varying nature of POIs for this program, and the Government’s objective of enhancing proficiency, could the Government please explain the rationale for an LPTA award and the rigidly vague acceptability criteria for the Mission Capability Factor? More than one offeror could “meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation” as the nature of instruction requires the use of differing techniques and methodologies.

How will the Government evaluate those differing methodologies? Further, LPTA would be best suited when there is no additional value to be gained from exceeding the technical requirements, which per the Government’s objectives in the PWS, is not the case.

If the goal is to use flexibility and creativity as part of enhancing proficiency with non-rigid POIs as the Government states, would it not be in the best interest of the Government to evaluate offers based on best value criteria and not LPTA?

The Government will evaluate differing methodologies in accordance with the Government's stated evaluation criteria. Proposals will be evaluated to ensure they meet all solicitation requirements. Where those requirements appear to restrict creativity or flexibility, ensure your proposal focuses on meeting the Government's stated requirements.

51 RFP/PWS

PWS 52.212-2 Evaluation; paragraph 3; Factor 2 page 112-113; and PWS Proposal Preparation Instructions;

Proposal Content; paragraph 4(c)(i) Volume 3; page 108: The proposal instructions state relevant experience as exceeding $35,000,000, however the evaluation criteria on page 112-113 do not make any mention of the $35,000,000. Is this an evaluated requirement for past performance? If so, could the Government please add the criteria to the Evaluation factors on pages 112-113?

Please see response to Question 29.

52 RFP/PWS

PWS Proposal Preparation Instructions; Proposal Content; paragraph 4(c)(i) Volume 3; page 108: The paragraph states the Contractor must submit recent and relevant experience “in support of Army, Active, Reserve, and National Guard…” Could the Government please provide an explanation as to why the past performance is limited to Army, especially given the possibility of other CLPs from other military organizations could potentially be using this contract?

Please see revised language under Section 4. Proposal

Content. Volume III: Factor II subsection C.

53 RFP/PWS

Per the pre-solicitation Section 4 Proposal Content (paragraph C sub i): The Offeror should provide information regarding any relevant experience acquired in providing similar Language and Culture Services exceeding $35,000,000.00, in the last three

(3) years that will enable successful execution of the proposed approach and satisfy the requirements of the contract. For an accredited University to successfully bid this contract, it is requested/recommend the past performance cost requirement be reduced to the NAICS standard of $11,000,000.

29.

54 RFP/PWS

Per the pre-solicitation, Section1.6.8.1.1.

Accreditation. The Contractor shall be accredited by a regional or national accrediting association.

Documentation of this accreditation shall be provided to the Government with the proposal. Accreditation suggests academic soundness and is a means of substantiating quality of instruction methods and the SLA theories and approaches that inform them.

Accreditation is neither divisible nor transferable; a non-accredited institution or organization does not gain accredited status solely because of an affiliation or arrangement with an accredited institution. Any contract service provider directly involved with instruction or curriculum development must, therefore, belong to an accredited institution, whether Prime or subcontractor.

It is requested/recommend the solicitation be amended to state that the Prime must be an accredited institution and the subcontractors working under the Prime do not have to be accredited institutions.

3.

55 RFP/PWS

In reference to Addendum to 52.212-1 Proposal Preparation Instructions, paragraph 4.c.(i). on page 108 of 128, it is stated that the requirement for past performance references are for services exceeding $35,000,000 in the last three years. Few existing language and culture requirements – potentially including FORSCOM Language and Culture Services requirement, as indicated on USASpending.gov – meet this high standard. It is requested that the US Government lower the standard to a more realistic $6,000,000 in the last three years.

29.

56 General

Since the Ft. Hood requirement has been removed, do the quantities to be bid upon reflect the reduced requirement? If not, what are the new quantities?

Does the 14,170 Days of FLI-East include the now removed Ft. Hood requirement?

The Fort Hood requirement removed was for technical support and administrative support, the days of Foreign Language Instruction (FLI) were not affected by this removal and will remain unchanged.

57 General The quantities given appear to be based on years with 211 days of service as being considered 1 FTE - is that a correct statement?

The quantities provided in the solicitation are based on the anticipated requirements of the Government for the base period and all option periods. The quantity of 211 as specified on

Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 0003AA is the base period requirement for Technical and Resource Support.

58 General

By calculating the estimated number of training days per language per year as given in Technical Exhibit 9 (Location x of Languages x Estimated number of training days per language per year), the total number of estimated days equates to 7,565 days (5292 for East FLI, and 2273 for West FLI). However, the Solicitation is requiring bids for a total of 20,945 days (14,170 days for East FLI and 6,775 for West FLI).

Please confirm that these are the correct number of days that are anticipated for this requirement, as it appears to be triple the amount of historical usage.

The quantities provided in the Solicitation represent the anticipated requirements of the Government for the base period and all option periods. Though historical data was provided at Technical Exhibit 9, this data was provided for informational purposes only and Offerors are cautioned to use this information at thier own risk. Please see the revisions to Technical Exhibit 9.

59 PWS

Amendment 2, Answer to Question 3, it states that "Any contract service provider directly involve with instruction or curriculum development must, therefore, belong to an accredited institution, whether Prime or subcontractor. However, in the Answer to Question 6, it states "The Prime contractor and all subcontractors must be accredited to fulfill the accreditation requirements." These statements appear to contradict each other, and do not clearly express the Government's intent. In the first statement, it says providers DIRECTLY INVOLVED with

INSTRUCTION OR CURRICULUM

DEVELOPMENT must belong to an accredited institution - however the 2nd statement says the Prime and all Subcontractors MUST BE ACCREDITED.

Question - Which is the correct statement - Statement 1: That ONLY those DIRECTLY involved with instruction or curriculum development must belong to an accredited institution, or Statement 2: The Prime and all Subcontractors must be accredited REGARDLESS if they are involved with instruction or curriculum development? Clarification is needed to ensure companies know if they can bid on the non-instruction/curriculum development portions (such as CLP and Tech Support) without needing accreditation.

Per PWS 1.6.8.1.1., “Any contract service provider directly involved with instruction or curriculum development must, therefore, belong to an accredited institution, whether Prime or subcontractor.” Any subcontractor not involved with instruction or curriculum development is not required to belong to an accredited institution.

60 PWS

Please clarify what SPECIFIC type of accreditation is required. Is accreditation required specifically for teaching of foreign languages or will ANY subject matter accreditation suffice?

The Accreditation requirements are not specific to Foreign

Language Instruction, per PWS

1.6.8.1.1. "The Contractor shall be accredited by a regional or national accrediting association......The Government will verify the Offeror's certification of accreditation through the U.S. Department of Education; Database of

Accredited Postsecondary Institutions and Programs.

61 General

The answer to Question 32 states "the Government requires a TOTAL of FOUR PM's/APM's. Does that mean FOUR FTE's are required by the Government?

Can the PM for one location backfill as an APM at the other location?

The Government requires a total of two PMs and an alternate

(APMs) for each, for a total of 2 PMs and 2 APMs. PWS

1.6.9.12.1.1. states, “The

Contractor shall provide a PM for the Eastern Region and the Western Region, as well as an

APM for each region who shall be responsible for the performance of the work under this contract." Yes, Offerors may utilize a PM for one location as an APM for another.

62 General

In determining responsibility, if a new company is bidding, and they have not yet filed an Annual Profit or Loss Statement, what is considered documentation that indicates the ability to obtain such resources?

Will a Letter of Credit suffice? Must the letter of credit be from a formal banking institution? Will bank account statements suffice? If so, how many months of bank statements will be needed? What other documents will suffice to indicate that the Offeror possesses adequate financial responsibility?

Does the Prime and ALL Subcontractors need to submit supporting documentation?

The Contractor is advised to review FAR Subpart 9.1, "Responsible Prospective

Contractors" for guidance on sufficient information to submit to demonstrate financial responsibility. Specifically, FAR 9.104-3 details information the contractor shall submit to demonstrate responsibility.

Additionally per FAR 9.104- 4(a), which states that

"Generally, prospective prime contractors are responsible for determining the responsibility of thier prospective subcontractors;" and FAR 9.104- 4(b) which states, "When it is in the Government's interest to do so, the contracting officer may directly determine a prospective subcontractor's responsibility."

SECTION SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

The following have been added by full text:

TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 9

Estimated Workload Data

This technical exhibit is derived from historical workload data, i.e., hours previously performed for the same or similar services. Be advised that the estimated data being provided below is inclusive of all requirements as outlined in the PWS, which is subject to increases and decreases in workload, and SHOULD NOT be considered as absolute in terms of present or future requirements. This data is included for informational purposes only.

OFFERORS ARE CAUTIONED TO USE AT OWN RISK.

Location Languages # of students

Estimated number of training days per language per year

Ft. Bliss TX Arabic, Spanish

No more than 10 at any ontime 251

Ft. Campbell KY Arabic

No more than 10 at any ontime 251

Ft, Hood TX Spanish, Arabic, and Persian Farsi

No more than 10 at any ontime 251

FT Bragg NC

Arabic, French, Persian Farsi, Dari, Korean, Chinese Mandarin, Spanish and Russian

No more than 10 at any ontime 251

FT. Riley Arabic

No more than 10 at any ontime 251

FT Stewart Arabic and French

No more than 10 at any ontime 251

Ft. Benning Arabic

No more than 10 at any ontime 251

Ft. Polk ESL

No more than 10 at any ontime 251

Ft. Carson Arabic

No more than 10 at any ontime 251

JBLM #1

Arabic, Korean, Chinese, Persian Farsi, Dari, ESL

No more than 10 at any ontime 251

JBLM #2

French, Indonesian, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, Thai

No more than 10 at any ontime 40 days

JBLM #3

German, Japanese, Pashto, Ukranian, Serbo-Croatian, Czech, Vietnamese

No more than 10 at any ontime 20 days

Ft. Drum Arabic

No more than 10 at any ontime 251

Ft. Irwin ESL/Arabic

No more than 10 at any ontime Once a year

Carville LA

No more than 10 at any ontime 4 X 10 hour days per instructor

Ft. Gordon (MIRC) Arabic and Farsi

No more than 10 at any ontime 40 days

Camp Bullis TX Spanish

No more than 10 at any ontime 20 days

Austin TX Russian

No more than 10 at any ontime 20 days

Fraser Michigan French

No more than 10 at any ontime 10 days

The following have been deleted:

(End of Summary of Changes)