QA_ACES_06MAR25.pdf

Q&A

W91247-25-R-A008

Question 1: Is W91247-21-C-9002 the only contract under which this support is being delivered currently.

Answer: Yes.

Question 2: Is there a current incumbent contractor providing these services today, can the Government provide an ID Number?

Answer: Current incumbent is Advanced Technology Logistics, Inc contract number W91247-21-C-9002.

Question 3: If there is an incumbent, is the staffing level at each of the locations today consistent with the workload data provided in TE3?

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 4: Is the current contractor compliant with SCA requirements?

Answer: The Government can not address incumbent compliance with the SCA.

Question 5: In accordance with SCA provisions, when will the government provide a list of incumbent employees with respective employment start dates to allow offerors the opportunity to determine the earned benefits (i.e. personal time off)?

Answer: The Government will work with the awardee to address incumbent employees after award.

Question 6: Does the estimated level of effort identified in the PWS match the current level of effort on the existing contract. If not, where are the differences?

Answer: Reference TE3 for workload data.

Question 7: Will you consider HUBZone 10% pricing preference?

Answer: No. This requirement will be procured as a 100% SDVOSB set-aside.

Question 8: Will the government please include a cost reasonableness analysis as part of the evaluation criteria to ensure that bidders can at least meet SCA requirements?

Answer: The Government will use Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation method for this requirement.

Question 9: Due to the complexity and magnitude of this requirement, past performances demonstrate offerors’ experience that minimizes risk to the government.

Would the government consider evaluating offerors past performance competitively?

Answer: Reference Solicitation 52.212-2 for evaluation criteria.

Question 10: Due to the importance of quality services, a best value trade off would significantly reduce risk in comparison to lowest price technically acceptable. Would the government consider revising is basis for award to one that ensures excellence in execution and mitigates performance risk presented by unrealistically low pricing?

Answer: Reference response to question 8.

Question 11: As the Volume I evaluated criteria is pass fail, is this requirement low price, technically acceptable if the offeror’s technical approach is deemed “Acceptable” or will the government consider trade-offs for best value solution?

Answer: Reference response to question 8.

Question 12: To be deemed technically acceptable, must the offeror comply 100% with the government staffing matrix provided in Technical Exhibit 3?

Answer: No, the Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a sufficient staffing plan to meet all performance requirements.

Question 13: The Staffing Approach requires offerors to list the labor hours proposed for each labor category to adequately perform the tasks identified in the PWS. How will the Government determine if the proposed labor hours are technically acceptable?

Answer: The proposed labor hours should be based on the Offeror’s proposed staffing solution to meet all performance requirements.

Question 14: The pricing instructions mention including labor rates and any associated escalation in the staffing matrix. Are there specific guidelines or limitations on the rate escalation percentages year-over-year, or does the government have preferred rates for budgeting purposes?

Answer: The escalation rate would be based on the Offeror’s pricing methodology.

Question 15: The CLIN structure indicates monthly unit pricing for several tasks. For task orders that may vary in intensity, should the unit price reflect an average monthly cost based on anticipated workload, or will the government accept variable monthly billing based on actual performance?

Answer: This will be awarded as a firm-fixed price (FFP) contract. The unit price should reflect an average monthly cost.

Question 16: The PWS outlines a 14-day phase-in period for assuming full operational control. Should the phase-in costs be allocated as part of the base year’s monthly price, or should a separate line item be created specifically for phase-in activities?

Answer: Phase-in costs should be allocated as part of the base years price.

Question 17: For the two-week phase in period, would the government like the offeror to propose full staffing for this period?

Answer: No. Only Key Personnel are required during the phase-in. IAW PWS para

1.21.1 the Contractor shall have all personnel on board by the end of the phase in period.

Question 18: For proposal consistency, does the government have a specific travel plug number that should be used in the cost evaluation? If so, can you confirm the assumptions or guidelines around this amount, such as expected travel frequency or destinations?

Answer: No. Travel is not authorized for this requirement. Reference PWS para 1.16.

Question 19: Is there an established ODC (Other Direct Costs) plug number that offerors should include in their pricing proposal for evaluation purposes? If a standard ODC amount is provided, could you specify the types of ODCs it should cover?

Answer: No. ODCs are not authorized for this requirement. Reference PWS para 1.17.

Question 20: Request that contractor travel associated with program manager site visits be allowed to be priced into the base year as well as all option periods.

Answer: PWS para 1.16. Contractor Travel has been revised to reflect travel costs to be priced into the base year and option years. See PWS para 1.16 for changes.

Question 21: Do bidders cut and paste the Attachment 2 into the Price Volume, or simply attach it to the Price Volume?

Answer: Attachment 2 should be submitted as a separate attachment.

Question 22: Technical Exhibit 3 shows hours of 2008 for Test Examiner personnel.

Will the government allow the contractor to invoice more than 8 hours per day?

Achieving 2008 billable hours with 10 federal holidays and 7 required PTO days only achieves around 1,944 work hours per year.

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 23: TE 3 Historical Workload Data by Location appears to indicate the labor hours worked for education advisors and test examiners. During what timeframe were these hours worked (e.g., one month, one-year, entire contract, etc.)?

Answer: The revised TE3 provides data for a 12-month period.

Question 24: TE 3 Historical Workload Data by Location appears to indicate the labor hours worked for education advisors and test examiners. Were those the hours charged on an employee timecard or hours the Government estimated?

Answer: TE3 provides estimated historical workload data.

Question 25: TE 3 Historical Workload Data by Location appears to indicate the labor hours worked for education advisors and test examiners. Are offerors required to propose the TE 3 hours for pricing purposes?

Answer: The Offeror should propose a staffing solution that meets the performance objectives.

Question 26: TE 3 Historical Workload Data indicates hours not client workload experienced by the education support locations. How many clients were seen and what advisory or testing services were delivered as a result of the listed hours?

Answer: No historical data is available for the client workload. Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 27: TE 3 Historical Workload Data indicates hours not client workload experienced by the education support locations. What is the average advisory client workload and the average testing client workload by month during the period covered by

TE 3?

Answer: No historical data is available for the advisory client and testing client workload. Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 28: What time frame was used when calculating the hours in “Technical Exhibit 3: Historical Workload Data by Location”?

Answer: Reference response to question 23.

Question 29: Please confirm ESA workload hours as 5020 for 99th RSC, Ft Belvoir

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 30: Please confirm ESA workload hours as 16,380 for 9th MSC, Honolulu

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 31: Can the government confirm how the historical data is calculated? It seems that the hours are based off 2008 hours however this is not common to total annual hours (2080) or total productive hours (1912 or 1856).

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 32: 9th MSC Honolulu, Hawaii's hourly calculation is inconsistent with the other locations hours (2008). Can the government please confirm if these hours are correct and if they are base and total annual hours or total productive hours?

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 33: Does the historical workload (TE3) include military or DoD civilian support?

Answer: No.

Question 34: If TE3 includes civilian or military support, what is the ratio of contractor support as compared to other sources of government support (Civilian/Military)?

Answer: Reference response to question 33.

Question 35: The previous solicitation (March 2021; W9124721R0005) described the historical workload (TE3) as “historical productive hours, not FTEs”. How does the government define productive hours in comparison to actual hours?

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 36: Will the Government please review and correct this table because the workload is nearly 80% greater hours (85K compared to 146K) than the RFP in 2021, so these hours are not historical workload.

Answer: Reference TE3 for the revised workload data.

Question 37: I would like to confirm the requirement that “Contractor personnel performing work under this task order shall have a Tier 3 background check prior to work commencement and must maintain the required security level for the duration of the task order”

Answer: Yes, a Tier 3 background check is required IAW PWS 1.10. Security Requirements.

Question 38: Paragraph 1.12.1.1 of the PWS lists requirements for all contractors with a security clearance. Will the Government confirm that the only security clearance required is Tier 3 per PWS 1.10?

Answer: Yes, Tier 3 Security Clearance.

Question 39: Is there a requirement for bidders to hold a facility security clearance, and if so, at what level?

Answer: Facility Security Clearance is not required.

Question 40: TE5 provides wage determination references for each location. However, the qualifications and expertise for the 2 LCATs identified do not appear to be eligible for SCA. Please clarify the purpose of TE5 and whether additional LCATs should be quoted.

Answer: The proposed Labor Categories that perform the functional areas would be based on the offeror’s proposed staffing solution.

Question 41: Would the government confirm the latest wage revision numbers for each location? (The Technical Exhibit 5 lists a later revision number than that is actually published in the SAM.gov Wage determination table. Wage Determination No.:2015-

4055 (Rev 29 vs 30). This could have an impact if the government is referencing a different table that is not publicly accessible.)

Answer: The most current wage determination from sam.gov will be utilized at time of award. If a wage determination has been updated from time of receipt of proposals to award, the awardee will be given the opportunity to request and equitable adjustment based off of the current wage determination.

Question 42: What (Wage Determination) Occupation Code and Title has the Government mapped the Education Service Advisor Personnel? And Test Examiner Personnel?

Answer: The proposed Labor Categories that perform the functional areas would be based on the offeror’s proposed staffing solution.

Question 43: Have you made an official wage determination for any positions?

Answer: No.

Question 44: PWS 5.2.13 states that 2080 hours equals 1 FTE, but TE3 shows that 2008 hours equals 1FTE. Please correct TE3 to reflect 1FTE=2080 hours or clarify the number of hours for each FTE.

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 45: If part-time employees are close to reaching their hourly limits, are there provisions for overtime?

Answer: No. Overtime is not authorized.

Question 46: Are the less-than-full-time hours fixed, or could they fluctuate based on project phases or peak workloads?

Answer: The Offeror shall propose a staffing solution that meets the performance objectives in the PWS.

Question 47: If the scope of work or hours expands, would this require a re-evaluation of SCA classifications, and what would the process for that look like?

Answer: If needed a re-evaluation of SCA classifications would be addressed at that time.

Question 48: Would the government indicate the number of positions (Full Time Equivalent) at each location, and confirm the exact number of hours required at each location? (The Education Service Advisor Personnel Hours and Test Examiner Personnel Hours do not cleanly align to the more typical 1912 annual work hours. It is not clear how many FTE positions are needed to address the current list of hours. For example, 3012 hours.)

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 49: The Recognized Federal Holidays list does not include all official holidays observed in Puerto Rico. Will contractors providing on-site support in Puerto Rico be required to perform services on Puerto Rican holidays (Three Kings Day, etc.)?

Answer: No.

Question 50: Will the Government confirm that there is no work on Saturday or Sunday. Army Reserve TPU units typically hold their battle assemblies on weekends.

How can the contractor be expected to effectively support Army Reserve Soldiers if we do not work when the TPU Soldiers are there?

Answer: Reference PWS para 1.9.3 for hours of operation.

Question 51: Are there any constraints on adjusting hours across roles or expanding responsibilities during periods of increased demand?

Answer: Hours are set and will not be increased.

Question 52: The locations that reported “0” hours under the test examiners, are those locations having their testing done at another nearby location?

Answer: No, not all locations have a test site.

Question 53: Please confirm that the education service advisor personnel hours in exhibit 3 align with CLIN 1 and the test examiner personnel hours align with CLIN 2.

Answer: PWS section 5.1 Education services align with CLIN 1 and PWS section

5.2 aligns with CLIN 2.

Question 54: The historical workload provides the historical hours, but does the government have a preferred minimum staffing requirement and preferred LCATS?

Answer: The proposed labor categories should be based on the Offerors proposed staffing solution to meet all performance requirements.

Question 55: Do you have historical workload data for the Program Manager?

Answer: No historical workload data available.

Question 56: To what extent are personnel allowed to take on interchangeable duties across different roles, and are there specific tasks or responsibilities that must remain role-specific?

Answer: The Offeror may propose a staffing solution that has cross-functional support.

Question 57: If cross-functional support is proposed, are there guidelines for assigning overlapping responsibilities, and does this need prior approval?

Answer: No. The Offeror must propose a staffing solution that is sufficient to meet performance objectives.

Question 58: TE 6 Historical Tests Administered summarizes the types of tests administered but no workload is indicated. What is the total number or average number of each type of test that was administered by each education support location during the past year?

Answer: Reference TE3 for historical workload. No historical workload on total number of each type of test.

Question 59: Is there a required place of performance for the program manager or is this position remote/contractor site?

Answer: The Government does not have a required place of performance for the

PM.

Question 60: Will the Program Manager be housed at Fort Liberty?

Answer: Reference response to question 59.

Question 61: How many observers are required and at what locations?

Answer: Reference TE3 for historical workload data at each location.

Question 62: Will the Government please confirm that all contractor work is to be performed at Government site(s).

Answer: Yes, all contractor work is to be performed at Government sites.

Question 63: Reference 1.16 Contractor Travel: Is there an anticipated, historical, or required volume of program manager visits to each site?

Answer: No historical data available.

Question 64: The PWS states "...The PM or APM shall be available between the hours of 7:00 AM to 4:30 PM.." it does not indicate a time zone or a specific location where the PM and APM should be located. The Place of Performance is spread across multiple time zones. Could the government please indicate what time zone the PM and AMP should be located in and what specific location? If there is no specific location can the PM and/or the APM work remotely?

Answer: Reference response to question 59.

Question 65: Would you require a "Site Manager" (Pg. 50) at each Zone or each location? Can the Site Manager be an additional duty of a designated Education Service Advisor?

Answer: Yes, the Site Manager can be an additional duty.

Question 66: Does the government have a site visit requirement by the Program Manager, either annually, or over the life of the contract?

Answer: No.

Question 67: [Solicitation Response Content, 6.2 Price (Volume II), 6.2.2] Does the Priced Staffing Matrix include a detailed buildup of rates or just the loaded labor rates?

Answer: It is preferred that the Priced Staffing matrix include the hourly rates and build-up for direct labor to support the proposed fully burden labor costs.

Question 68: Will the government evaluate direct labor rates to ensure offerors are exceeding SCA minimum requirements?

Answer: Reference Solicitation 52.212-2 for evaluation criteria.

Question 69: Can the government provide the current staffing levels at each site and labor categories for all the staff?

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 70: To ensure a level playing field, please provide the actual level of effort including fulltime and parttime education advisor and test examiner contractor employees aligned to each site?

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 71: Are there any locations with a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)? If so, can the government provide them?

Answer: No locations have a CBA.

Question 72: RFP 1.15.2.3 provides qualifications for the Program Manager (PM). RFP

1.15.2.1 identifies the PM and Alternate Program Manager (APM) as Key Personnel.

What are the required qualifications for the APM?

Answer: Reference PWS para 1.15.2.3. for APM qualifications.

Question 73: The solicitation outlines tasks but does not specify the number of full-time or part-time personnel required to meet the PWS requirements. Can you clarify if the government expects a minimum staffing level or if it prefers the contractor to determine the staffing structure based on the task load?

Answer: The Offeror must propose a staffing solution that is sufficient to meet performance objectives.

Question 74: Will the Government please clarify the contract requirements for a full-time PM and full-time APM.

Answer: The Offeror shall propose a PM/APM that meets the qualifications in PWS para 1.15.2.2. and provide a staffing solution to meet performance objectives.

Question 75: Will the Government please review and correct Test Certification (PWS 1.7.1.14) because the PWS does not have 1.7.1.14 and it is also unclear what this deliverable means for contractor personnel.

Answer: Reference PWS for changes.

Question 76: PWS 2.1.9 provides that a resume and LOC are required if the procurement is Best Value. Since this procurement is LPTA, are Key Personnel resumes required?

Answer: No, resumes are not required. See PWS para 2.1.9 for changes.

Question 77: Para. 5.2.1(b) Has the italic and bold requirement been included in error?

Should this requirement be limited to specific parts of the proposal submittal?

Answer: Italic and bold font may be used.

Question 78: P.14, The solicitation does not list a format for the cover sheet in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum #5. Is pdf format acceptable?

Answer: PDF format is acceptable.

Question 79: P.14, The solicitation does not list a page limit for the separate cover sheet listed in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum #5. Is there a page limit for the cover sheet package?

Answer: No page limit for the cover sheet, but will be counted if they contain any other information, i.e. diagrams, extraneous data, etc. Reference Solicitation Addendum to 52.212-1 para 5.1.

Question 80: P.14, The solicitation does not list a file size limitation in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum #5. Is there a file size limitation for the cover sheet, Volume I or Volume II?

Answer: No file size. Reference Solicitation Addendum to 52.212-1 para 5 and 5.1.

for page limitations.

Question 81: P.14, The solicitation does not list any prescribed file naming conventions in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum #5. Is there a specific file naming format (e.g., Company Name_Volume_I_Technical_Capability_W9124724R0105.pdf) for proposal files of this electronic submission?

Answer: No specific file naming format required.

Question 82: P.15, Solicitation FAR 52.212-1 Addendum #5.2.1. b requires Arial 12-point font; however, Attachment 2 Pricing Schedule is 11-point Arial. Is 11-point Arial font acceptable for Attachment 2?

Answer: Yes.

Question 83: P.15, Solicitation FAR 52.212-1 Addendum #5.2.1.c requires one (1) inch margins; however, Attachment 2 Pricing Schedule has 0.7- and 0.75-inch margins. Are 0.7- and 0.75-inch margins acceptable for Attachment 2?

Answer: Yes.

Question 84: P.16, The solicitation requires submission of a priced staffing matrix in the Offeror's own format in FAR 52.212-1 Addendum #6.2.2. Does the Government require a separate Excel file for the priced staffing matrix, or may it be submitted as a tab(s) in the Attachment 2 Excel workbook?

Answer: The priced staffing matrix may be included as an additional tab in Attachment 2.

Question 85: RFP, Instructions to Offerors, Is the “separate cover sheet” a completely separate document from the Volume I and II documents or can this cover sheet be the cover page for the Volume I proposal?

Answer: The cover sheet should be a separate document.

Question 86: Solicitation Response Content, 6.2 Price (Volume II), 6.2.2. The guidance state the Priced Staffing Matrix should be “in contractor’s own format”, can contractors modify the Attachment 2 to include the effective loaded labor rates in separate tabs or should it be a separate stand-alone excel spreadsheet?

Answer: Reference response to question 84.

Question 87: Section I, Request that FAR 52.222-43 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards - Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) be added to the solicitation.

Answer: 52.222-43 will be added by reference.

Question 88: P.12, The solicitation incorporates FAR 52.212-1 by reference. FAR 52.212-1(b)(8) requires offerors to submit a completed copy of representations and certifications; however, the solicitation's FAR 52.212-1 Addendum #4 on page 14 does not list this requirement. Shall offerors include completed reps and certs and any other FAR 52.212-1 items as a part of the separate cover sheet package?

Answer: Offerors may include the required representations and certifications as an Appendix to Volume II: Price. This will not count towards the page limit.

Question 89: The clause (3) 52.222-43, Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards--Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts) has been left blank. Since the solicitation incorporates wage determinations and includes option periods, will the Government please mark this clause as incorporated by reference?

Answer: Reference response to question 87.

Question 90: Section K, p.19, In which proposal volume do offerors complete and insert FAR 52.212-3? Volume II is recommended.

Answer: Reference response for question 87.

Question 91: The following numbers appear to be missing from the PWS: 1.11, 1.12, 1.12.3, 1.12.3.1, 1.12.3.3, 1.12.4, 1.13.2, and 1.21.2.1. Will the Government please confirm that the solicitation contains the complete PWS and that the missing numbers are either typos or intentionally left blank?

Answer: PWS has been revised to correct numbering format.

Question 92: Reference Instruction To Offerors 6.1 Technical Capability a.ii Management Approach: Should this be worded “training and retraining”, or is the intent to include retention in this section instead of the staffing approach?

Answer: The offeror shall discuss their approach to training and retaining a qualified workforce in Subfactor 1a. Management Approach.

Question 93: Reference Instruction To Offerors 6.1 Technical Capability a.ii Management Approach: Would the government consider moving “procedures for retaining a qualified workforce” from management to b. Staffing Approach?

Answer: Reference response to question 95.

Question 94: Paragraph 1.15.2.1 of the PWS is unclear. Is the Program Manager the only key personnel position for this contract or is the Alternate Program Manager also considered key personnel?

Answer: The AM is not considered key personnel.

Question 95: Please provide alignment of all states to the 3 zones provided in Army Education Support Locations (TE4).

Answer: Reference the revised TE3.

Question 96: Will the Government please explain the relationship of the three Zones (East, Middle States, and West) to the USAR Organizational Structure (1st Mission Support Command and four Readiness Divisions) provided via the USAR Official Website

Answer: Reference the revised TE3.

Question 97: The PWS specifies Service Contract Reporting under DFARS 252.504- 7023. Is this to be integrated into monthly reporting, or submitted separately at fiscal year-end?

Answer: The Service Contract Reporting is to be reported NLT 31 October each year after the total obligation amount exceeds $3M.

Question 98: The solicitation does not list an "on or about" date for the post-award conference. Since phase-in is an evaluation factor, knowing this date or timeframe is important. How many days after contract award does the Contracting Officer anticipate convening the post-award conference?

Answer: The Government anticipates holding the post award conference within five (5) business days of award.

Question 99: Can the Government please clarify if “Stopper” is the equivalent to “Hold” as Stopper is not a term used in the current version of AR 625-1.

Answer: Stopper is equivalent to Hold.

Question 100: The acronym RSC (not listed in the acronym list) represents Readiness Support Center. Our understanding is that this terminology is no longer used as RSCs were redesignated Readiness Divisions (RD) in 2017. Would the Government please clarify?

Answer: Readiness Divisions (RD) is the correct terminology. See PWS for changes.

Question 101: Will the Government please clarify what the contractor will be required to do in terms of designing, building, and implementing education enterprise architecture.

Is this part of a separate contract?

Answer: Removed from PWS. Reference PWS for changes.

Question 102: 1.6.1, Will the Government please clarify which of these is correct?

(The contractor’s quality control program is the means by which they assure themselves that their work complies with the requirement of the task order Section 5 and will be submitted to the Contracting Officer (KO) and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) for approval five (5) workdays after task order award. Technical Exhibit 2 states that the QCP will be submitted within 30 days of task order award and 5 business days after any subsequent changes.)

Answer: The QCP shall be submitted to the KO and COR within 30 days of award and 5 days after any changes. Reference PWS for changes.

Question 103: SF 1449, Block 8 provides a due date and time of 20 Feb 2025 01:00PM but the Instructions in Paragraph 3 provides a due date and time of 20 February 2025, 4:00PM EST. Will the Government please clarify the due date and time?

Answer: The closing date has been extended until 06 March 2025 at 4:00PM.

Question 104: The historical workload does not appear to be based on 2080 hours or any other typical man year. Additionally, during the 2019 procurement cycle, this same exact data was provided in the original solicitation and was then revised in an amendment to reflect an approximate 40% reduction in staffing. Will the Government please verify the correct historical workload?

This will prevent offerors from inadvertently proposing a solution that either overstaffs or understaffs the actual requirements by 40%.

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 105: Will the Government please allow the Offeror to use pages up to 11x17 to accommodate the comprehensive un-priced staffing matrix?

Answer: No, a page shall be 8 1/2x 11” digital format. The un-priced staffing matrix can be included in Attachment 2 as a separate tab.

Question 106: Will the Government please count each 11x17 as a single page, providing it only contains the staffing matrix and not proposal narrative?

Answer: Reference response to question 108.

Question 107: Will the Government please confirm the solicitation number W91247-25- R-A008 should be used in the volume name?

Answer: W91247-25-R-A008 should be used in volume name.

Question 108: How do the results of the recent Department of Labor audit impact the current solicitation?

Answer: Reference response to question 4.

Question 109: To ensure consistency and fairness in the proposal evaluation process, could the government clarify if there is a preferred or recommended SCA occupational specialty for the labor categories outlined in the PWS, or if there is a baseline or expected wage rate range that offerors should consider when determining their proposal pricing?

Your guidance on this matter will help ensure a level playing field for all offerors and promote consistency across proposals.

Answer: The proposed Labor Categories that perform the functional areas would be based on the offeror’s proposed staffing solution.

Question 110: Are the PM and APM positions additional duties or dedicated roles?

Answer: The PM and APM shall meet the minimum qualifications in PWS para 1.15.2.3.

Question 111: Do the hours demonstrated in Technical Exhibit 3 represent the full contract period of performance, or are they annual values?

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 112: Are these hours supposed to be 2080 hours and 1040 hours to meet the full-time employee 40/part-time employee 20 hours a week requirement?

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 113: PWS paragraph 2.1.7 Facility Clearance does not provide if the bidder is required to have a Facility Clearance. Nor does it include if the employees at the site locations require a clearance. Will the Government clarify if bidders required a SECRET Facility Clearance, or if any employees require a SECRET clearance.

Answer: A Facility Clearance is not required.

Question 114: Technical Exhibit 3, Historical Workload Data by Location, Zones, 1-3.

Are the hours provided the minimum expected staffing expected to perform at each location?

Answer: TE3 provides historical workload data. The Offeror shall propose a staffing solution that meets performance objectives.

Question 115: If bidders bid less than the provided hours on TE3, are bidders considered non-compliant?

Answer: No, the Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a sufficient staffing plan to meet all performance requirements.

Question 116: We noticed that the Government used 2008 to determine FTE numbers.

Is 2008 considered productive hours, or do bidders use 1856 from the WDs.

Answer: TE3 is based on 1920 hours. The Offeror shall propose a staffing solution that meets performance objectives.

Question 117: How many positions (Full Time Equivalent) are at each location?

Answer: Reference TE3.

Question 118: With the positions showing a zero hour in Technical Exhibit 3, can the Government confirm that the offerors should not price these positions in the base or optional years?

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 119: Can the Education Service Advisor be a Site Lead?

Answer: Yes.

Question 120: Request clarification regarding the master’s degree requirement for the Program Manager (PM)/ Assistant Program Manager (APM) positions. While we understand the value of advanced education, we would like to determine whether equivalent experience may be considered an acceptable alternative.

Answer: No, equivalent experience will not be considered an acceptable alternative.

Question 121: In order to provide balanced pricing and continuity of services, would the government provide the current number of personnel performing these services for each position and location?

Answer: Reference TE3 for revised workload data.

Question 122: Can an Education Service Advisor also be a Test Examiner?

Answer: Yes, if they meet the requirements for both ESA and TE.

Question 123: In the Requirements description only CONUS is referenced, but in the Continuation of Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs section with CLINS, both CONUS and OCONUS is listed. Can the Government update accordingly to reflect CONUS and OCONUS locations?

Answer: Puerto Rico and Hawaii are considered OCONUS locations.