Attachment_6,_Answers_to_Industry's_Questions_-_Amendment_4_12_7_18.pdf

W9124L18R0016, Amendment 4 Answers to Industry’s Questions

# Source Document Page/Para Question Government Response 1 RFP W9124L18R0016; Volume III –

Past Performance (Factor 3), L.4.3.1., (8), Performance Assessment Reports

Page 35, Section L.4.3.

There is no detail in this section on what level of information is required, and the format for inclusion of CPARS data.

What is the level of detail required for this section? Does the government have a preferred format? Is a PDF snapshot of the current CPARS report sufficient?

This requirement has been deleted from the solicitation.

2 RFP W9124L18R0016; Volume III – Past Performance (Factor 3), L.4.3.1., (8), Performance Assessment Reports

Page 35, Section L.4.3

We understand CPARS Performance Reports are required for our past performance references. In some cases, CPARS do not exist for IDIQ level contracts, and in many other cases CPARS at the IDIQ level do not provide sufficient level of detail to show relevancy against the 13 Task Areas identified in this proposal.

For Performance Assessment Reports, can we use CPARS reports at the Task Order (TO) level of detail for our IDIQ Past Performance References?

See answer to question # 1.

3 RFP W9124L18R0016; Volume III – Past Performance (Factor 3), L.4.3.1

Page 34, Section L.4.3

This section states “Past performance information described herein is required on the Offeror and any subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform on the proposed effort.” Previous language from the draft RFP was removed indicating “significant portion of the proposed effort”. Given the 25-page limit and a maximum of 6 past performance references, it does not seem that an Offeror could provide appropriate past performance for the Offeror and all teammates within these constraints.

Is it the Government’s intent that the consent letters from teaming partners meet this requirement or is past performance reference required for every member of the Offeror’s team?

If in fact each Offeror is required to provide past performance for every team member will the Government increase the PP Volume page count or remove the page limit in order to comply with this requirement?

RFP Para L.4.3.3 (3) revised to limit consent letters to subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners that will perform 25% of the effort.

RFP Para L.4.3.3 (3) is revised to limit consent letters for subcontractors, teaming partner and/or joint venture partner, proposed to perform 25% or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price.

The Offeror is not required to provide a reference for every team member. The RFP at L.4.3.3 (7) requires a minimum of 4 and maximum of 6 references.

4 RFP W9124L18R0016; Supplies or Services and Prices, Attachment_4,_Pricing_Worksheet Tab A or Tab B, Attachment_2

Page 2-3, Section B

The government has provided CLINs for pricing travel and ODCs, but not provided a travel worksheet at the IDIQ level. In addition, the government did not provide a pricing request or instructions in Attachment_4,_Pricing_Worksheet for Tab A or Tab B. Travel is also not listed as a basis for price evaluation, “Pricing of the Sample Task Order will be evaluated and will include a review of the Offeror’s labor categories, number of FTEs, and total hours to determine whether the price is fair, reasonable and balanced.”

Will the government confirm that travel is not required to be priced or provide an NTE for these CLINs? If required, will the government provide the basis and instructions for pricing travel?

Attachment 4, Pricing Worksheet – Amendment 4 and Section B have been revised to add Government provided not-to-exceed amounts for ODC-Travel and ODC-Non-Travel. ODC amounts shall not be changed.

5 Attachment_2,_Sample_TO_FCOE_

TMS PWS; Performance Requirements Summary

Pages 44-46 PO1 refers to “Withhold of labor costs for missing personnel for a specific position multiplied by the number of days position is not filled by a certified instructor.” There are no instructors required for this task area.

Will the government clarify the reference to “instructors” for this task area?

The Government revised the PWS to change from ‘a certified instructor’ to ‘qualified personnel’.

(Due to other revisions made to the sample task order PWS, this revisions is now found on Page 51 Objective 1)

6 Attachment_2,_Sample_TO_FCOE_ TMS PWS; Performance Requirements Summary

Pages 15-20 There are two referenced notes (Note #2, and Note #3) in the table titled “Performance Requirement Summary (PRS) for Joint Fires Observer Course (JFOC). Those two referenced notes are not explained anywhere in the table.

Will the Government include the narrative explanation for the two notes and clarify whether there is a note #1 that was omitted?

The Government revised the narrative explanation which is now located on page 26 of revised PWS to include Note #1-Note #3.

7 Attachment_2,_Sample_TO_FCOE_ TMS_PWS; Performance Requirements Summary

Pages 116-119 There are two referenced notes (Note #2, and Note #3) in the table titled “Performance Requirement Summary (PRS). There are three notes explained below the table. Also, this table appears to be a duplicate of the table on page 15-20 which pertains to the Joint Fires Observer Course (JFOC). This table refers several times to “*Cost of non-performance per each JFO Course being taught provided below.”, but there is no information about course costs below this table.

Will the Government clarify which of the three notes’ narratives on page 119 apply to the two notes in the table?

Will the government clarify what portions of the Sample TO, the table on page 116 refers to?

Will the government provide information regarding the cost of non-performance to allow offerors to understand and calculate costs of non-performance.

The Government revised the PWS to delete the table in its entirety.

The Government revised the PWS to delete the table in its entirety.

The cost of non-performance (total daily cost per task) for each JFO course has been updated on pages 32 & page 96, Appendix B, Sample Project Courses and Workload FY18 of the PWS.

8 Attachment 2,_Sample_TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS;

Performance Requirements Summary

Pages 80-84 The “Deduction Calculation” for PO1 states “Labor Cost of position and daily cost of course multiplied by the number of days affected.” The “Deduction Calculation” for PO6, PO7, and PO8 states “% of course cost per day times days affected.”

For PO1, will the government clarify what course(s) are referred to and provide a means by which to calculate the “daily cost of course” so that offerors can understand the financial implications of this “Deduction Calculation”.

For PO6, PO7, and PO8, will the government clarify what course(s) are referred to and provide a means by which to calculate the “% of course cost” so that offerors can understand the financial implications of this “Deduction Calculation”.

Due to PWS revisions, the content in the revised PWS is located on pages 88 – 90.

The heading of the PRS is “Constructive Simulations and Training Support“. Therefore, any course called out under sample TO PWS section 2.5 is subject to deduction calculation.

The cost of non-performance (total daily cost per task) for each JFO course has been updated on pages 32 & page 96, Appendix B, Sample Project Courses and Workload FY18 of the PWS. The daily cost of courses have been provided on pages 32 & page 96, Appendix B.

9 RFP W9124L18R0016 L.4.5, pg. 38 paragraph 5;

and pg. 39 paragraph 1

The government indicated that the Service Contract Labor Standards are applicable to this proposal, but did not attach/reference the Wage Determinations to go with it.

Will the government provide the appropriate Wage Determination to Offerors to ensure compliance?

The Government has added the Wage Determination (WD) to Section J and the WD is issued with amendment 4.

10 Attachment 1, MAIDIQ FCOE TMS

PWS

Page 8, para 1.6.13

“All contractor employees working IA/IT functions shall comply with DoD and Army training requirements in DoDD 8570.01, DoD 8570.01-M and AR 25-2 within six months of employment.”

Attachment 2, Sample TO, page 78, para 2.5.6.4 and 2.5.7.3 states, “Contractor shall be Security Plus certified….”.

Does the Government require any associated Computing Environment (CE) certifications to meet IAT Level II compliance? If so, please provide the specific CE for each positions qualification in 2.5.6 and 2.5.7.

The answer to this question will be provided in a subsequent amendment.

11 Attachment 1, MAIDIQ FCOE TMS

PWS

Page 35, para 5.10.11

Models and Simulations Subtask 10 states, “Provide technical design and programming for enhancements to combat system capabilities, unit behaviors, terrain interactions, data-processing, graphical user interface, etc., for the Fires simulation software.”

Does the Government require software development (programming) for this contract? If so, will the Government’s provide the contractor both the executable applications along with the accompanying compliable current source code, associated libraries and corresponding Integrated Development Environment (IDE) necessary to program enhancements?

12 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

Page 79, para 2.5.9.6.

States, “Provide networking services….”

Does the contractor work alongside Government or other Contractor Network Administrators? If not, is it the Government’s intention of 2.5.9.6 to include all aspects of Network Administration within the description of ‘networking services’?

For proposal development purposes to demonstrate capability to meet PWS paragraph 2.5.9.6 requirement, Offerors are to propose based on no Government or other Contract Network Administrator support.

13 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS;

Page 83, Section 6;

page 87, Performance Objective 6

This section discusses Simulation Support - Performance Standard states, “Computer Software Code is created and is functional as required”.

Performance Standard states, “Constructive simulation components are operational and support training events IAW FCOE instruction methodologies and POI requirements.”

What Computer Software Code does the Government require the contractor to create?

Due to PWS revisions, content formerly on page 83 is now on page 90.

The government deleted row 6, Simulation Support in its entirety and renumbered remaining table content rows.

Content formerly on page 87 is now on page 93. Performance Objective 6 was deleted in its entirety and remaining content renumbered.

14 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

Page 85, Performance Objective 1

Procedures states, “The Government’s designated Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will monitor the operator qualifications, certifications, current knowledge, and student evaluations. If the Contractor fails to meet the standard the COR will address the issue and take action as appropriate.”

How will the COR monitor “current knowledge” of contractors?

Please provide the standards of current knowledge that the contractors are supposed to be able to meet or exceed.

“Current Knowledge” is replaced throughout the sample PWS with this content, “demonstrates understanding of courses being taught, systems and training to ensure adequate performance of tasks”.

15 RFP W9124L18R0016 Page 33, para L.4.2.(5)

This section states “The Offeror shall provide a staffing and management approach for each of the five (5) TMS tasks/requirements cited in Factor 1.”

Does the Government require five separate and distinct staffing and management plans, one for each of the five tasks listed in Factor 1? Is it acceptable to provide a single process where there is commonality, such as the plan to hire, train, and retain staff, and address specific requirements in paragraphs discussing each of the five separate tasks?

The offeror is required to provide separate and distinct staffing and management approaches for each of the five (5) TMS tasks/requirements cited in Factor 1. One management approach for all five tasks is not acceptable.

16 RFP W9124L18R00162; Attachment

2, PWS

Page 33, paraL.4.2.(5) third bullet;

page 2, para 1.5; page 103, para 11.0

The requirement to identify Key Personnel and provide resumes is not clear. PWS para

1.5 states that “A project leader/Subject Matter Expert (SME) shall be required for each of the five FCoE TMS requirements below.” PWS para 11.0 states “The contractor shall identify an individual, and an alternate, responsible for performance under the contract(s)…”

Will the Government clarify if the Key Personnel include only the project leader/SME for each of the five tasks (five key personnel) or does it include the alternate (requirement for ten Key Personnel)? Is a resume required for each identified Key Personnel?

Section L.4.2 (5) is revised (new first bullet) to address resume requirements for Key Personnel requirements for the base IDIQ.

See #15 above as its content is related to this question. Section L.4.2

(5) revised to require a resume for each candidate who will perform under the sample task order to include identifying positions where position is for a Project Lead/SME and Alternates identified for the 5 TMS task areas. A resume is required for each candidate performing on the sample task area.

17 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

Page 2, para 1.5

Period of Performance, states that the 12-month base year includes a 90-day Phase-In period. Page 117 of the same document in PO3 states: Meeting Certification Requirements, under Performance Standards states there is a 120-day Phase-in.

Will the Government clarify the length of the Phase-in period?

The phase-in applies to the JTAC requirement at 2.1 and consists of 90-days.

18 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

Page 3, para 2.1.1

Scope refers to the “Export Clause” and references para 7.0.

Is this reference accurate or should it refer to para 2.1.13.1?

This has been corrected. See revised PWS.

19 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

page 12, para 2.1.12.1

This section states “The JTAC/PTAC instructor to student ratio shall not exceed 1:20. At peak instructional times, during practical exercises and simulations with small groups, the instructor to student ratio shall not exceed 1:4.” This differs from Attachment 2, PWS, page 2, para 2.1.1 which states the JFO POI student-to-instructor ratio shall not exceed 4:2 and the FABOLC-B student-to-instructor ratio shall not exceed 4:1.

The POI student-to-instructor ratios are correct as provided in the PWS.

Per page 18, Sample Task Order PWS Paragraph 2.1.12.1 the Student to Instructor Ratio are correct for each course. For this sample task order, there are no changes in the POI for the student to instructor ratio.

Will the Government clarify the correct student-to-instructor ratio for each course and if the ratio changes during the course? If the ratio changes during a given course, will the Government provide a copy of each POI so the contractor can properly scope the work?

20 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

page 12, para 2.1.12.1

This section refers to a JTAC/PTAC.

Will the Government define what a PTAC is?

PTAC: Previously Terminal Air Control.

An acronym list has been added to the sample TO PWS.

21 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

General There are several acronyms used in Attachment 2 that are not defined. There is an acronym list in Attachment 1, but it does not address Attachment 2 specific acronyms.

Will the Government provide an acronym list specific to Attachment 2 that defines all acronyms used?

See answer to question #20.

22 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

Page 3, para 2.1.1

States “the Contractor shall be able to provide up to fifteen (15) additional JFOC instructors at various times throughout the contract period of performance to support unexpected Training Resource Arbitration Panels (TRAPs) and or surge classes in they occur (Optional Surge CLINS).”

Will the Government provide an approximate number of times and for what courses they would expect a requirement to hire the 15 additional JFOC instructors?

23 Attachment 2, Sample

Page 3, para 2.1.1

This section states “Instructor certification times for Optional CLINs will depend on individual contract requirements, (60 days for Joint Fires Observer Instructors) as well as, notification lead times to the Contractor if in the event an optional CLIN is utilized (30 Days for Joint Fires Instructors).”

Will the Government clarify this sentence? What is the difference between a Joint Fires Observer Instructor and a Joint Fires Instructor? Does the sentence mean there is a 60-day certification time for JFO Instructors and a 30 day notification period to the Contractor?

There is no difference. The word Observer was accidently left out.

Please see Amendment 3 to the sample task order PWS. The sentence means there is a 60-day certification time for JFO Instructors and a 30-day notification period to the Contractor.

24 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

Page 3, para 2.1.2

In describing the requirement for a Phase-In Training Plan states “This plan shall contain a list of all proposed qualified contractor candidates/personnel, to include possession of required security clearances, qualifications, certifications and passports.”

Is it the Government’s intent that the plan submitted as part of this Sample Task Order include a by name list of all proposed personnel with verification that the named personnel have the required qualifications listed to include passports?

For clarity, the only sample task TMS Tasks/Requirements that require a Phase-In Training Plan is Joint Terminal Attack Control. The Phase- In Training Plan shall meet PWS requirements 2.1.2. The Phase-in approach shall be submitted in accordance with Section L.4.2 (4), as revised, in the RFP.

25 Attachment 2, Sample

Page 4 and 5, para 2.1.4.a and 2.1.4.b

These sections state that all instructors must certify on a specified number of academic blocks of instruction and “all” simulator blocks of instruction. This differs from Attachment 2, page 5 and 6, para 2.1.5.f which differentiates between an “Academic Instructor” and a “Simulator Instructor”.

Will the Government clarify the Contractor Instructor Qualifications required and specifically state if there is a requirement for both Academic and Simulator Instructors? If

Academic and Simulator Instructors are the same.

there is a difference between Academic and Simulator Instructors will the Government provide the hours required for each type of instructor for each course or provide current POIs for each course so we can adequately determine the number of personnel required?

26 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

Page 5-6, para 2.1.5.f

This section discusses a requirement for 28 days to complete Academic and Simulator Instructor training for certification. It is unclear if it takes 28 days to complete one or both of the Academic Instructor and Simulator Instructor requirements.

Will the Government clarify the period of time that it takes to complete Academic and Simulator Instructor certification requirements since each instructor is required to complete both according to para 2.1.5.1? Does the 28 days equate to work days and therefore equal five full work weeks and three work days?

Academic and Simulator Instructors are the same. Sample PWS at paragraph 2.1.2 for Joint Terminal Attack Control sets a 90-day calendar phase-in period of which allows an 8-week period for a contractor to have certified instructions ready to perform the requirement. Please see Amendment 3, the word “calendar” has been added to 2.1.5f.

27 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

Page 5-6, para

2.1.5 and 2.1.5.1

This section states that it takes a minimum of 8 weeks, which equates to 40 work days for an uncertified instructor to be certified as a JFO. For an unqualified instructor candidate, the total period of time required, assuming both the Academic Instructor and Simulator Instructor requirements combined are completed in 28 work days, it takes a minimum of

44.5 work days or just under 9 weeks to complete. If the Academic Instructor and Simulator Instructor training takes 28 work days each the time is significantly extended since para 2.1.5.1 requires all instructors to complete both Academic and Simulator Instructor training.

Will the Government clarify the time required to complete certification?

See answer to question #26.

28 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

Page 10, para 2.1.7

This section discusses the requirement for Training Development.

Will the Government provide the number of courseware, POIs, lessons, and lesson plans expected to be developed and / or updated during the base year in-order-to scope the work?

For the purpose of this sample task order ONLY, there will be monthly updates for both courses.

29 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

page 10, para

2.1.7.2 c

This section states “The Contractor shall maintain lessons in the TRADOC approved learning content management system, TDC.”

Will the Government provide access to and the training necessary to input information into the Training Development Capability?

Yes.

30 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

Page 26-28, para 2.2.3 – 2.2.5

Discusses the requirement for a Concept Developer – FA.

Will the Government provide approximate number of working groups by type, the number of studies and analysis, tabletop exercises, map exercises, Battle Lab Simulation events, CONOPS, Organizational and Operational Concepts, Organizational Concepts, operational architectures, the number of manuals and documents reviewed, and the number of white papers or other major documents to be developed during the base year in order to scope the work and provide an adequate number of Concept Developers?

Please see Amendment 3, the Government clarifies the requirements are for one (1) CME.

31 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

Page 29-30, para 2.2.8 – 2.2.9

Discusses the requirement for a Concept Developer – ADA.

Will the Government provide approximate number of working groups by type, the number of studies and analysis, tabletop exercises, map exercises, Battle Lab Simulation events, CONOPS, Organizational and Operational Concepts, Organizational Concepts, operational architectures, the number of manuals and documents reviewed, and the number of white papers or other major documents to be developed during the base year in order to scope the work and provide an adequate number of Concept Developers?

Amendment 3, the Government clarifies the requirements are for one

(1) CME.

32 Attachment 2, Sample

Page 31, para 2.2.12.2

This section discusses the requirement to “develop and query data bases necessary to conduct analysis and provide relevant information used by CDID leadership for decisions.”

Will the Government specify the database software tools used for development and query of databases?

This list is not inclusive: ARCAT, MS Office Suite, Battle Lab Collaborative Simulations Environment (BLSCE), Analysis Data Mining, Forces Modeling, FireSim, EADSIM.

33 Attachment 2, Sample

TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS

Page 32, para 2.2.14.2

This section states “The Contractor shall develop and maintain SharePoint websites used to record and share information and decisions resulting from work groups.”

Is the ability to develop and maintain SharePoint websites a requirement for the Integration Technical Analyst? Will the Government provide the necessary training to develop and maintain SharePoint websites?

The position for this requirement is called out as an Integration Technical Analyst. The Government will not train contractor personnel in Sharepoint.

34 RFP W9124L18R0016; Factor 4:

Small Business Participation Proposal

Page 44, Section M.3.5

As part of the evaluation the Government has listed “the extent of commitment to use such firms (and enforceable commitments will be considered more favorable than non-enforceable ones);”

On previous solicitations of this nature MICC-Eustis has required enforceable agreements to include specific workshare to receive favorable consideration. At the IDIQ level it is difficult to provide each team member specific workshare as it is unknown what work will be released and awarded on the IDIQ in the form of Task Orders. Additionally, socio economic coverage can be provided by one or many teaming partners depending on their designation. Specific goals evaluated under the Small Business Participation Proposal and subsequent Small Business Subcontracting Plan drive compliance in this area.

Will the Government accept bilateral Teaming Agreements without specific workshare as an indicator of the extent of commitment to Small Business to receive favorable consideration? If not, what does the government consider “enforceable” on an IDIQ teaming agreement?

An enforceable teaming agreement is one that is signed by all parties.

While the workshare doesn't have to be specified in the bilateral teaming agreement, it should be addressed in the proposal to answer the small business area "Complexity & Variety of Work SB Firms will perform."

35 RFP W9124L18R0016; Factor 2, 3rd bullet addressing Key Personnel and resumes

Page 33 of 46, Section L.4.2., subparagraph (5)

As part of its evaluation of Factor 2, the government states it “… must be able to ascertain if Offerors are capable of providing qualified candidates.” The requirement to provide resumes and names of people makes little sense, especially when the government adds “that no personnel are intended to be hired to perform against this PWS.” Therefore, instead of requiring resumes certain to be supremely qualified, the

For clarity, Section L Factor 2 and Attachment 1, MAIDIQ FCOE TMS PWS were both revised to address questions. Recommend these revisions be reviewed as they will address Key Personnel submission and evaluation criteria.

government’s intent would be more directly and ethically served by instructing offerors to describe the minimum acceptable qualifications for their proposed Key Personnel.

Will the government clarify the rationale /purpose behind asking offerors to provide Key Personnel names and resumes for people whom will never be hired? The government’s stated intent is, “the Government must be able to ascertain if Offerors are capable of providing qualified candidates.” As an alternative to requiring resumes for people who are certain to be supremely qualified, would not the government’s intent would be more directly and ethically served by instructing offerors to describe the minimum acceptable qualifications for their proposed Key Personnel in terms of education, experience, expertise and certifications (if any)?

By requesting an Offeror to describe the minimum acceptable qualifications for its proposed Key Personnel would be a simple regurgitation of the PWS. The Government must be able to determine if the Offeror has a qualified pool of candidates for these types of positions and fully understands the requirements outlined in the PWS to meet Table L.3 TMS Task/Requirements.

36 Attachment 2, Sample TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS; Period of Performance

Page 2 of 123, Para 1.3

Para 1.3 of the Sample TO PWS mentions a 90-day Phase-In period. The PWS provides no guidance to offerors on whether they should assume all work is completely new, or there are incumbent contractors for some or all of the major STO tasks.

For the 90-day Phase-In period specified in the Sample TO PWS, shall offerors assume there are no incumbent contractors and that all primary STO tasks are a new start? If this is incorrect, and there are incumbents for one or more of the primary STO tasks, will the government provide the Phase-Out Plans?

For proposal development purposes, Offerors shall assume all work is completely new for the Sample TO requirement, and all STO tasks are new. An incumbent does not exist. See answer #24 as it is relevant to this question.

37 Attachment 2, Sample TO_FCOE_TMS_PWS; Period of Performance

Page 2, Para 1.3

Para 1.3 of the Sample TO PWS mentions a 90-day Phase-In period. Of the five primary STO tasks, the only one that mentions Phase-In is the JTAC.

Will the government clarify the Phase-in period for each of the five STO tasks? Of the five primary STO tasks, the only one that mentions Phase-In is the JTAC. For the other four primary STO tasks, what are their respective Phase-In periods and what are their PRS Table performance standards?

See answer to question #24.

38 RFP W9124L18R0016; Proposal Text

Page 30 of 46, Section L.3.2

There is no specification for the font sizes offerors are allowed to use in their illustrations, graphics, figures, exhibits and tables, etc. As a point of reference the font sizes used by the Government on the filled-in portions of the SF Form 33 cover page of the solicitation use font sizes as small as 6. Recommend the government accept font sizes no smaller than size 8.

What is the minimum acceptable font size offerors may use in their proposals for illustrations, graphics, figures, exhibits and tables, etc.?

RFP Para L.3.3.2 has been revised to allow a font size of no less than 8 for illustrations, graphics, figures, exhibits, and tables.

39 RFP W9124L18R0016; Page Limit does not include

Page 31 of 46, Section L.3.6

Section L.3.6 appears to restrict offerors to a one-page cross-reference matrix (CRM) per volume. If this interpretation is correct, then it is not feasible for a one-page CRM to adequately cross-reference the breadth of tasks to which offerors are responding through Volume II (Mission Capability / Risk), e.g. the Sample TO. Recommend the government remove this restriction in entirety for Volume II, or otherwise allow offerors to use a maximum of two pages for each of the five 2.X-level task in the Sample TO task set.

This page limitation has been removed.

Within Volume II, Mission/Capability/Risk, will the government remove the limit on the number of pages allowed for Cross-Reference Matrices, or allow offerors up to two pages for each 2.X-level task in the Sample TO task set (e.g. 5 pages)?

40 RFP W9124L18R0016 Page 30, para L.3.3.2

This section states that the proposal shall be in a “fixed 12-pitch font”. Most typography/font discussions discern between fixed width (Courier) vs. variable width fonts (Times New Roman). Pitch refers to the number of characters printed per inch. The way it is written is a bit confusing. “Fixed Pitch of 12” would be 12 characters per inch. In Microsoft Word, users select fonts based on point sizes that relate to the overall height of the letters.

Will the government verify the intent on this and can we use a variable width 12 POINT font?

RFP Para L.3.3.2 has been revised.

41 RFP L.3.3.2 Proposal text shall be in a fixed 12-pitch font. No limits are provided for tables and graphics. Will the Government allow 10-pitch font in tables and graphics?

See answer to question #38.

42 RFP L.3.3.2 Volume II 75-page limit. Due to the technical complexity and detail required to properly respond to the requirements, we request that the volume II page limit be increased to 100 pages.

The Government has considered the question and for transparency purposes is disclosing it used a base page amount of 15 pages to address each sample task order TMS Task/Requirement area 2.1 – 2.5.

43 RFP L.3.3.2 Volume III 25-page limit. Due to the detail required for each past performance citiation, we request that voume III page limit be increased to 30 pages.

The page limit provided is sufficient.

44 RFP L.4.3.1 (3) Consent Letters indicates that the Offeror must submit consent letters for each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner authorizing release of past performance information.

Can the Government please confirm that we only need to submit consent letters for those subcontractors/teammates whose past performance references we are including in the proposal?

See answer to question #3.

45 RFP L.4.3.2 Small Business Participation Past Performance. Can the Government confirm that the Offeror is only providing information substantiating its past performance in complying with FAR 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business” for the specific past performance references it is including in this proposal?

Yes, the Offeror is required to submit small business past performance information for the specific past performance references it is including in the proposal.

46 RFP L.4.3.2 Small Business Participation Past Performance. Can the Government confirm that the Offeror must submit SF 294 and SF 295 (or Individual Subcontracting and Summary Subcontracting Reports in eSRS) and descriptive information for all small business categories for all contracts with reporting requirements for the last three years?

The Offeror is required to submit the SF 294 and 295s and descriptive information for the specific past performance references it is including in the proposal, as explained in Question 45 above.

47 RFP L.4.3.2 Small Business Participation Past Performance. Is all information included in L.4.3.2 Small Business Participation Past Performance excluded from the page count, or just the SF 294 and SF 295 (or Individual Subcontracting and Summary Subcontracting Reports in eSRS) as identified in L.3.6?

All the information submitted for L.4.3.6 Small Business Participation Past Performance is excluded from the page count.

48 RFP L.4.5, TAB A Please provide the applicable Wage Determination(s). See answer to question #9.

49 RFP L.4.2 Volume II – Mission Capability Risk. Is it the Government’s intent to award a Task Order using the vendor’s response to the Sample Task?

No.

50 RFP L.3.5 and L.3.6, page 31

L.3.5 says the Page Limit includes “All Appendices” and L.3.6 says page limit does not include: “… Signed Teaming agreements…. And Resumes for Key personnel which should be submitted as separate appendices or attachments” Question: Should the list not included in page count in L.3.6 be submitted as attachments AND would the government prefer separate files or to have them at the end of the associated Volume?

RFP Para L.3.5 has been revised.

Resumes and Signed Teaming Agreements may be provided as separate attachments or at the end of the associated Volume, as long as they can be easily located and have been clearly identified.

51 RFP L.3.6, L.4.3.1,

L.3.3.1, pages 31, 34, 30

L.3.6 states Consent Letters, Client Authorization Letters, and Performance Assessment Reports are not included in page count and should be submitted as appendices or attachments. The format required by L.4.3.1 for Volume III requires these items in an order which would embed these items within areas which are included in page count, making the requirement for volumes to have consecutive numbering required by L.3.3.1 difficult.

Question: Will the government consider allowing Consent Letters, Client Authorization Letters and Performance Assessment Reports be submitted as attachments at the end of the information included in the page count of Volume III?

Yes. Also, see answer to question #50.

52 Attachment 4_Pricing Worksheet Tabs A & B In Tab A, FBLR are requested for the Base Year & all 4 Option Periods. But Tab B has Sample TO Pricing for only Base Year and Option Period 1.

Question: Will the government require Sample TO Pricing for the other 3 Option Years?

If so, will the government provide an updated Pricing Worksheet to offerors?

Section L.3.3, Table L2. Is revised and deleted reference for Tab A and B. Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet is also revised and issued with amendment 4. The answer to #4 is also relevant

53 RFP Page 28 Section L.1.2 Page

Sec L.1.2 Electronic Submission via email.

Question. Will the Government consider using: AMRDEC SAFE ACCESS FILE EXCHANGE (SAFE) for Submission?

SAFE is a file sharing system hosted by the Army at Redstone Arsenal. -Users can upload 25 documents with a total 2GB limit. -SAFE has an ATO from the Army and has 128-bit encryption security. --Approved by Army IO to share FOUO and Privacy Act files.

-SAFE URL https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx

The Government will not accept AMRDEC submissions.

54 RFP Page 31 L.3.6

SEC L.3.6 Page limit does not include: covers for volumes, tables of contents. Glossary of abbreviations and acronyms. Indices. Title page, cross reference matrices (shall be limited to one page)….

Question; Will the government remove the one page limit from cross reference matrices?

See answer to question #39.

55 RFP Page 34

L.4.3.1

L.4.3.1 (7)

SEC L.4.3.1 The Past Performance evaluation … Past performance information described herein is required on the Offeror and any subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform on the proposed effort.

(7)Specific Relevant Contract Sheets – the Offeror shall provide sheets in accordance with the Specific Relevant Contract Sheet format at Attachment 3 for a minimum of four (4) relevant contract references and a maximum of six (6), whose effort was relevant to the effort required by this solicitation for which it served as a prime, major subcontractor, or teaming partners. If proposals are received with more than six

(6) references …

Question. If an Offeror has more than six subcontractors and only six citations are allowed please clarify the government preference for meeting SEC L 4.3.1 requirement to submit a citation for all subcontractors?

See answer to question #3.

56 RFP Page 38 L.4.5

Government estimates for Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) have been established for administrative purposes only and do not represent actual or potential requirements.

Requirements for travel and ODCs shall be specified at the individual TO level. The Offeror shall not change the Government estimates provided for reimbursable Travel and ODCs. Phase-In will be priced at the TO level if required.

The Sample Task PWS contains multiple references to travel. The Pricing Worksheet and instructions does not include any Travel Estimates.

Question. Does the government want us to include Sample Task Travel in Price? If yes, does the government want us to provide CLIN 0002 FCOE Travel for the Sample Task? If yes, please clarify the required number of personnel for each travel event and the location of the travel.

See answer to question #4.

57 RFP Page 34 L.4.3.1

(4) Client Authorization Letter – for each identified effort for a commercial customer authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the Offerors and/or proposed subcontractors performance.

Question. Does the government have a preferred format/content for the Client Authorization Letter?

No, the Offeror’s format is acceptable.

58 Attachment 2, Sample TO FCoE

TMS

PWS Para 2.1.1, 2.1.12.1

In the Sample Task Order para 2.1.1 states the FABOLC-B course student to instructor ratio is 4:1. Para 2.1.12.1 states the instructor to student ratio shall not exceed 1:20. At peak instructional times, during practical exercises and simulations with small groups, the instructor to student ratio shall not exceed 1:4. Would the Government please clarify which is correct, or if both are correct, clarify when each ratio would apply?

Student/Instructor Ratios is broken down by JFOC/FABOLC-B/ & JTAC/PTAC. See below:

JFO: Student to Instructor is 4:2 (PWS para 2.1.1) FABOLC-B: Student to Instructor is 4:1 (PWS para 2.1.1) JTAC/PTAC: Instructor to Student is 1:20 (PWS para 2.1.12.1)

JTAC/PTAC: Instructor to Student is 1:4 (during peak instructional times, practical exercises & simulations w/ small groups). (PWS para 2.1.12.1)

PWS Paragraph 2.1.12.1 and table is for the projected workload for one

(1) year.

59 Attachment 2, Sample TO FCoE Pages 2 and 3

PWS Task 2.1 and 2.1.1

PWS 2.1.1 States

In addition, the Contractor shall be able to provide up to fifteen (15) additional qualified JFOC instructors at various times throughout the contract period of performance to support unexpected Training Resource Arbitration Panels (TRAPs) and or surge classes if they occur (Optional Surge CLINS).

It is not known if a TRAP will involve foreign military students; however, the Export Clause has been incorporated into the PWS if in the event a TRAP does have a FMS requirement. See paragraph 7.0, below. Instructor certification times for Optional CLINs will depend on individual contract requirements, (60 days for Joint Fires Observer Instructors) as well as, notification lead times to the Contractor if in the event an optional CLIN is utilized (30 Days for Joint Fires Instructors).

Question. Please clarify the lead time an Offeror will receive for Training Resource Arbitration Panels and or surge classes requiring additional qualified JFOC instructors?

The lead time an offeror will receive for TRAP/SURGE requirements for the Sample Task Order is 30 days.

60 RFP, Specific Relevant Contract Sheets

(7) Specific Relevant Contract Sheets (8) Performance Assessment Reports RFP L.4.3 pg.

34-35 of 46

Past Performance on IDIQ contracts do not have CPARS. Can we use Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ)? If so, please provide the template and page limitations.

PPQs will not be accepted.

61 Attachment 2, Sample TO FCOE

TMS PWS

pp 76-77 If Contract Site lead (1 CME) (#1) is 2.5.2.1 on page 76, shouldn’t Contract Exercise Director (1 CME) (#2) be 2.5.2.2 vice 2.5.3 on page 77?

The numbering system is correct as stated.

62 RFP L.4.3.1, pg. 34 “The Offeror shall provide sheets in accordance with the Specific Relevant Contract Sheet format at Attachment 3 for a minimum of four (4) relevant contract references and a

The Specific Relevant Contract sheets fall within the Past Performance page limitation listed in Table L2.

maximum of six (6), whose effort was relevant to the effort required by this solicitation for which it served as a prime, major subcontractor, or teaming partners”

Respectfully request the government increase the page limitation to maximum of eight (8).

63 RFP Paragraph L.1.2/Page 28 of 46

Will the Government provide the maximum email size that can be received on your system to ensure delivery of electronic submission? (i.e., 5Mg)

RFP Para L.1.2 has been revised.

64 RFP Paragraph L.3.3.1 and L3.3.2/ Page

What is the allowable font size for graphics, tables, pictures, and figures? See answer to question #38.

65 RFP Paragraph L.3.6 and L.4.2(3)/Page

Paragraph L.3.6 states “the cross references matrices (shall be limited to one page).

Paragraph L.4.2(3) states "Cross Reference Matrix – The matrix shall cross-reference the proposal paragraph to the applicable factors, and PWS paragraphs/solicitation requirements.” It is not possible to map all of these requirements on a single page.

Recommend deleting this page limitation.

See answer to question #39.

66 RFP Paragraph L.4.2 (4) Factor 1 – Sample TO Approach/Pag e 33 of 46

The Sample TO Approach instructions include the requirement to provide the offerors “… capabilities, experiences, and abilities to execute the tasks described in the TO PWS …” Does the Government anticipate that offerors will present experience and capability information on every task and sub-task under the 13 Functional Areas as they relate to each Sample TO PWS area? Or is a general summary of our team’s experience and capabilities as it relates to the Sample TO PWS requirement (i.e. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc.)

acceptable?

Responses shall relate to the sample TO PWS requirements. Table L3 provides a cross walk of sample task order requirements to their IDIQ requirements.

67 RFP Paragraph L.4.3.1(4)/Pag e 34 of 46

Will the Government provide a standardized format for the Past Performance consent letters or should offerors use their own format?

The Offeror’s format is acceptable.

68 RFP Paragraph L.4.3.1(3)/Pag e 34 of 46

Is “commercial” defined as an end customer who is not a Government agency? Will the Government provide a standardized format for the Past Performance client authorization letters or should offerors use their own format?

Yes, “commercial” is defined as an end customer who is not a Government agency. The Offeror’s format is acceptable.

69 RFP Paragraph L.4.3.1 (8) Performance Assessment Reports/Page

Should offerors submit CPARs within our proposal or does the Government intend to locate these through external sources?

See answers to questions 1 and 2, and the last paragraph in PWS para L.4.3.3 of the RFP.

70 RFP Paragraph L.4.5/Page 38 of 46

In the sixth paragraph of L.4.5 the Government states: "If the Offeror deems it necessary to propose additional or different labor categories, fully burdened labor rates and whether or not each labor category is subject to the Service Contract Labor Standards statute shall

The offeror must only propose the labor categories provided in Attachment 4, which will become binding under the base contract upon award. See revised Attachment 4, Pricing Worksheet and RFP instructions regarding price submission.

be provided as well as an explanation provided in the narrative submission as to how the proposed labor category relates to the Government listed categories.”

If an offeror adds an additional labor category, how will the Government provide a common basis for comparing the relative prices of proposals between different companies?

71 RFP Paragraph L.4.5/Page 39 of 46

Should an FTE in Tab B be assumed at 1,920 hours or can the hours for an FTE in Tab B be less than 1,920 hours? Burdened rate costs are different for exempt and non-exempt positions.

The 1,920 productive labor-hours is the required baseline for what is considered one full-time person for one year.

72 Attachment 2 STO PWS Paragraph 2.1.

Joint Terminal Attack Control

(JTAC) (JFO)

Courses Performance Requirement Summary (PRS) for Joint Fires Observer Course (JFOC)/Page

Page 16 table provides the following for title for Performance Objective 1: “Recruit qualified staffing to successfully support USAFCOEFS mission.” On page 20, the title for Performance Objective 1 is “Personnel Requirements”. Additionally, the performance standards between the two are different. Which one is correct? Finally, on page 24, Personnel Objective 7 is also titled “Personnel Requirements.” Recommend all STO PWS Performance Objectives be reviewed for accuracy and consistency.

See revised language under the PRS table in the PWS.

73 Attachment 2 STO PWS

Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet/ Tab A – LCAT Prices

Section 2.2.12 Integration Technical Analyst/Page

This PWS section refers to the Integration Technical Analyst labor category; however, this labor category is missing in Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet. Please confirm that this labor category should be priced, and the number of hours needed?

Paragraph L.4.2 (5) is revised for offerors to provide a table that cross walks sample task order positions to an IDIQ labor category for binding pricing. The answer to #52 is also relevant.

74 Attachment 2 STO PWS

Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet/ Tab A – LCAT Prices

Section 2.2.16 Organizational Integrator/Pag e 32 of 123

This PWS section refers to the Organization Integrator labor category; however, this labor category is missing in Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet. Please confirm that this labor category should be priced, and the number of hours needed?

See answer to question #73.

75 Attachment 2 STO PWS

Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet/ Tab A – LCAT Prices

Section 2.4.19 Operational Research and Systems Analysis /Page

This PWS section refers Operational Research and Systems Analyst labor category;

however, this labor category is missing in Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet. Please confirm that this labor category should be priced, and the number of hours needed?

See answer to question #73

76 Attachment 2 STO PWS

Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet/ Tab A – LCAT Prices

Section 2.5.7 Contract Systems Engineer/Page

This PWS section refers to Contract Systems Engineer labor category; however, this labor category is missing in Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet. Please confirm that this labor category should be priced, and the number of hours needed?

See answer to question #73.

77 RFP

Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet/ Tab A – LCAT Prices

Section B

CLIN 0001

FCoE Support Services/Pa ge 2 of 46

Please confirm the following:

UNIT = 5

UNIT PRICE = (Tab A Year 1 Rates x Notional Hours + Tab A Year 2 Rates x Notional Hours + Tab A Year 3 Rates x Notional Hours + Tab A Year 4 Rates x Notional Hours + Tab A Year 5 Rates x Notional Hours) / Qty 5) / Qty 5 MAX AMOUNT = Unit x Unit Price (Represents Total of 5 years)

See revised Attachment 4, Pricing Worksheet. The unit of issue is NOT

5. The IDIQ provides for a 5-year ordering period..

78 RFP

Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet/ Tab A – LCAT Prices

Section B

CLIN 0002

FCoE Travel/Page 2 of 46

Section B

CLIN 0003

FCoE Other Direct Costs (ODC)/Page 3 of 46

L.4.5 Volume V – Price (Factor 5)/Page 38 of

RFP section L.4.5 states, “Government estimates for Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) have been established for administrative purposes only and do not represent actual or potential requirements. Requirements for travel and ODCs shall be specified at the individual TO level. The Offeror shall not change the Government estimates provided for reimbursable Travel and ODCs. Phase-In will be priced at the TO level if required.”

Section B CLIN 0002 and 0003 do not identify any estimates. There is also no indication of Travel or ODC estimates in Attachment 4. Is this intentional? Please advise.

See answer to question #4.

79 RFP Section I Contract Clauses 52.222-41 and 52.222-43/ Pages 14-15 of

The RFP includes service contract act clauses; however, a wage determination (WD) was not provided as an attachment. Will the Government please incorporate WD 15-5313 Rev 6 2018-08-02 into the solicitation and include the WD as an attachment?

See answer to question #9.

L.4.5 Volume V – Price (Factor 5)/Page 38 of

80 Attachment 1 MAIDIQ FCoE TMS

PWS

Attachment 4 Pricing Worksheet/ Tab A – LCAT Prices

Section 1.6.18/Page 9 of 44

MAIDIQ PWS 1.6.18 Key Personnel states, “The contractor shall identify a primary and an alternate program manager responsible for performance under the contract(s) who shall have full authority to manage and direct the efforts of the workforce and shall have full authority to commit resources and make decisions for the contractor(s).”

In Attachment 4, TAB A – LCAT Prices, the “Project Manager” labor category includes 2 Notional FTEs and does not identify a separate labor category as “Alternate PM”.

Please confirm that the TAB A labor category “Project Manager” includes the “Alternate Program Manager” and that no other labor categories…