Questions-Repsonses RFQ 2022 (19MAY22).pdf

W9124D-22-R-0010 JLAB Questions Recv’d 9 MAY 2022

1. Page 56, 1.6.13.2: Provide software to assist students participating in online events (approximately 80,000) with current college success software (at a minimum, contractor shall supply the following books or materials for 80,000 plus Cadets; financial aid guide, finding and winning scholarships, school choice tutorials, SAT and ACT prep guides or vocabulary study guides for college prep testing, etc.).

QUESTION: Can the contractor assume that the items/products listed above should be on par with the quality, excellence, and gravity of the overall event? Should contractor assume that the products are recognized nationally, owned/copyrighted by the contractor or leased/purchased or built by the contractor (recognizing that products not owned and copywritten, but built for this event are the product of the US Army/government). Please verify that listed as “free” public domain websites that produce college-bound content or standardized test prep, cannot be used to fulfill this requirement? As nothing is free, all of these sites collect and sell massive amounts of what the military would consider PPI or protected information of their cadets.

Response: Yes, products should be on par with requirement listed in the PWS. There are safeguards in place that protect from PII being disclosed. These item are delivered when a student registers for the level one online portion of the competition. Domain websites will be evaluated to see if the meet the requirements.

2. Page 57, 1.6.13.7. In and around transportation services for VIP’s and guests: contractor is responsible to assist with not only coordinating VIP speakers and guests, but also providing in and around transportation for same. Guest speakers or special attendees will also require transportation to and from the DC area, lodging, and meals.

a. QUESTION: For planning and budgeting, how many VIPs, Guests, Guest Speakers, or Special Attendees, by category, does Cadet Command anticipate attending?

Response: Qty. Type 4 Guest speakers

4 Guests

TBD VIP's (To Be Determined) provided to contractor 30 days out. (These are people on TDY orders)

1 Special Attendee

b. QUESTION: Since it is expected that this Tier 1 type event should include well known VIP Speakers, Guest Speakers, etc., many will request speaker’s fees or honorariums.

Under what CLIN should the offerors include additional costs such as speaker’s fees?

RESPONSE: Those are to be included in CLIN 0004 JLAB LIVE EVENT.

3. Page 61, 3.4. Government-provided Equipment.

QUESTION: Please clarify what Academic Bowl and Leadership Bowl materials are required or expected? There is no mention of typical recruiting or Army handout “RPIs” materials/equipment supplied to attendees at these types of army events, e.g., T-shirts for all of the participants to aid in the safety, identification and security of the cadets while in movement in and around Washington DC, or water bottles or thermoses, again for safety and hydration purposes. Is the contractor required to purchase these items and work them into the materials section, CLIN 1?

RESPONSE: No. The contractor is not required to provide RPI or PPI items. They are provided by RMID and USACC 1st BDE. They will be issued by USACC according to the Operations Order.

4. Page 61, 3.4 ; Materials provided by the government include general officer flags for the live events.

QUESTION: As numerous sections indicate, this will be a joint program involving all service branches.

Should the contractor work into the materials required; flags, poles, weight stanchions, etc. for Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Space Force flags that are generally expected at high-visibility events such as this?

RESPONSE: Contractor shall provide the Army flag, pole, weight stanchion. The other services shall provide their own flags.

5. A.1, pg. 3: LPTA. This program is highly reliant upon the vendor supporting hundreds of attendees to have a successful, entertaining, news-worthy, and exceptional event that meets the primary goals of the Army JLAB process, (1) improve Cadet retention, (2) strengthen Army JROTC unit leadership skills, core HS curriculum knowledge, and improve all STEM capabilities and college/career success,

(3) expand stakeholder perception of Army JROTC as a viable academic and life-skills program. This requires proven customer service, logistics, and other event and people skills beyond just technical capability to execute. An evaluation based on new LPTA selection cannot take into account any differences in the quality of end-user experience and public perception. As long as the bidder is "technically" qualified, LPTA must award to them, even if a just slightly higher bidder would provide much superior service.

QUESTION: This contract was previously solicited under a Best Value, Trade-Off evaluation. Considering that these events rely heavily on customer service, customer experience, and other not easily quantified factors, we respectfully request that the evaluation criteria be returned to "Best Value" or to insert language that would allow the government to select a bidder who will provide a much superior customer experience, even if the price is slightly higher. For example, many shortcuts could be taken to reduce price while still being minimally “technically acceptable” according to how the PWS is written, however they would also greatly reduce positive event experience, media value, and the overall benefit to all participants. Examples could include extremely cheap meals, minimal or no event handouts or documents, minimal student interaction, unacceptably cheap lodging or transportation, etc. We feel these shortcuts would be unacceptable; however, there is no evaluation leeway in an LPTA without consideration of the narrative benefits beyond the minimums that would be provided for Factor 1. An evaluation beyond LPTA would allow the government to consider higher quality support, participant experience, media exposure, etc. FAR 13.106 provides several options to accomplish this.

RESPONSE: This acquisition will be processed IAW with solicitation.

6. PWS 5.2.30, pg. 68: Meals at Live Events. This requirement only indicates that the Offeror will "arrange and provide for meals." However, NO level of quality or characteristic of the type of meal is identified as "technically acceptable" under an LPTA.

QUESTION: Considering that this solicitation is now an LPTA and there is no related evaluation factor, an Offeror (in an extreme example obviously) could technically price and provide McDonald's Value Meals for all meals to get to an overall lower price using cost adjustments. Doing this would be significantly lower in price than something such as contracting with the college or university to provide meals (which would obviously be much superior in value and experience to the attendees). We respectfully request that the government change from an LPTA award to an evaluation method that allows for the quality of services provided or that some requirements for quality or characteristics be added to the PWS if remaining LPTA.

RESPONSE: The meals shall prepared and served by the University at the campus setting or prepared by the University for carry out (boxed meals).

7. A.6, pg. 4: Evaluation. This section indicates that the "Offeror will be evaluated on price and past performance".

QUESTION: As this is an LPTA, please clarify what the Technically Acceptable Offeror will be evaluated on other than Price. Is past performance a pass/fail? Is Factor 1 pass/fail? Are any other criteria used?

RESPONSE: The Offeror will be evaluated using the criteria on page 5 on a Technically Acceptable or Not Technically Acceptable per 52.212-2 Amendment- Evaluation Addendum to 52.212.2.

8. A.6, page 4: Pricing and Contract Info: This section only addresses submittal of pricing through Section B of the SF 1449. Nowhere in the solicitation are instructions for submitting all of the contract information generally submitted with government proposals such as the signed SF1449, Amendments, signed Representations and Certifications, etc.

QUESTION: How and where would you like the SF1449, Section B, Amendments, required FAR Clauses, Representations and Certifications, Cover Letter, etc. submitted? What contract and other elements do you require to be submitted? Would you like all of these inserted in Volume 2 – Price?

RESPONSE: Insert into Volume 2 Price.

9. A.6, page 4: Pricing Info: A.6 asks, in addition to Section B, that we “submit cost information and break out how you arrived at your prices.”

QUESTION: Please clarify that this is in addition to Section B. If so, how would you like this cost break out? Should we submit an Excel spreadsheet separately from Volume 2 – Price?

RESPONSE: Please submit an Excel spreadsheet with cost breakouts.

10. Page 8, CLINs 0004: “JLAB Live Event in Washington DC” and Page 65, 5.2.15.2, “Nine days of meaningful competition in a college campus setting.”

QUESTION: Can the contractor assume that the Army’s intent is to hold the event on a college campus in Washington D.C.?

RESPONSE: Yes, it is the Army’s intent to hold the event on a college campus in Washington, D.C.

11. Page 11, CLINs 0007: 2,793 Each, Meals FFP Estimated Meals for cadre, chaperones and guests.

QUESTION: Can the command provide a rationale (how you got to 2,793) and break out (Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner) for the 2,793 each meal?

RESPONSE: You have the Cadets for the Leadership event, then the cadets for the Academic event.

there are also the essay contest winners. Each team will have 1 instructor and 1 chaperone. Each of the 7 essay contest winners will also have one instructor and may have one chaperone based on the gender of the Cadet and Instructor.