Questions_and_Answers_W912HQ-16-T-0008.pdf

CEPPS

Information for Solicitation Number W912HQ-16-T-0008

SUBJECT: Answers to Questions Received

1. Question: In order to properly assess several aspects of the solicitation including the timeline of deliverables and the industry led training scheduling requirements, are there correct projected dates for the first three classes that will be covered under this proposal? With the previous knowledge of the course, and the description of course length provided in section

1.4 of the PWS, the dates listed in Section 1.4.1 be accurate dates.

Answer: Yes, there are correct projected dates however, the dates listed in section 1.4.1 are not accurate dates. For the base year (assuming the contract is awarded June 2016 timeframe), the two classes that will be covered under the base year proposal are Class 002- 16 and Class 001-17, which will be conducted during FY16 and FY17. Their start and end dates are as follows;

Class #: Start Date: Current End Date: Proposed End Date:

002-16 29 Aug 16 27 Oct 16 4 Nov 16 001-17 3 Jan 17 3 Mar 17 13 Mar 17

Note 1: Currently PLDC is scheduled for 40 training days, however we have submitted a course extension of 5 training days. We anticipate an approval/disapproval decision approximately 1 June 2016. At this time, the number of Students that PLDC is projected to provide course instructions to out to FY 2020 will only require two class for at least the first four option years.

Note 2: Because this will change things and will lock us into the contractor providing services for only two class per year, we may want to add an additional paragraph. This paragraph should state that the government reserves the right to add an additional third class within a given one year period of performance, if the need should arise. If this option is exercised, the government shall give the contractor a minimum of six months notification, and the contractor shall be given 30 days upon notification to decline or provide back suggested alternative dates due to scheduling conflicts.

2. Question: A few sections, including section 1.3.2 refer to military instructors providing them with train-the trainer classes. Are there or will there be any civilian instructors for the course? If so, they would be required to attend a train-the trainer class as well.

Answer: No there will not be any civilian instructors now or in the near future. The Prime Power School is in the process of working an agreement with the Army Reserves to have one or two 249th BN Power Distribution Specialists (12Q) personnel help teach during Class 001- 16, but they would still be Military Instructors. We also have an agreement with the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence (MSCOE) to utilize their 12PU4 personnel in emergency situations.

REPLY TO

ATTENTION OF:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. Army Prime Power School

Building 12630 FLW 28 Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri 65473

3. Question: Section 1.4.2 states “The dates of the third class will be provided to the contractor within two weeks of commencement…” Commencement of what?

Answer: The commencement of the exercised option year, and the third class shall always have a start date of 70 days prior to the termination of exercised option year approximately 20 March to 10 April of given year.

4. Question: The solicitation states that the contract will run from the effective date of award for a period of one year with four optional years. However, what will occur if the contract year is scheduled to end midway through one of the classes?

Answer: Whether the year is the base or an option year, all class must be completed prior to the end date of each year, so the Prime Power School will always schedule its PLDC classes to ensure they start at a minimum of 70 days prior to the contract’s yearly end date.

5. Question: Section 1.6.2 mentions a “quality assurance surveillance plan”. What does this plan entail, and where can it be found for reference?

Answer: The Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan entails develop and deliver course curriculum for PLDC modules A through F and develop, deliver, and instruction of PLDC module G to maintain compliance with instructional standards. This document should have been provided to you with the solicitation packet by the contracting office.

6. Question: Section 1.6.6.1 covers credentials required to enter a military installation. Is Fort

Leonard Wood still open for personnel to enter with a standard state issued driver’s license, or will there be a need for special identification such as a military contractor ID card, required visitor badges, etc.?

Answer: No, it is not as open as it was a year ago. A civilian driver’s license will get you on base, but you will need to go to the visitor’s center, show your civilian driver’s license, and receive a post pass. One additional note, if you have any of the following state driver’s licenses; Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Washington, and America Samoa than you will need one of the following additional documents; US passport or passport card, Certified birth certificate, Social Security Card, School identification card with photograph, US military or draft record, US Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Card, Transportation Worker Identification Card, US Native American tribal document.

7. Question: Section 1.6.6.5 states that we must pre-screen candidates using the E-Verify

Program. Does this apply to employees that have been working for the contractor for multiple years, including having performed work on the previous PLDC contract?

Answer: Yes, it is a requirement by the government that all contracted employees verify their suitability to enter government facilities.

8. Question: Section 4.1 covers post-award conference and periodic progress meetings. Where will these be held? How much notice will the contractor have prior to these meetings? Can these meetings be conducted via conference call or video call?

Answer: The initial post-award conference meeting will probably be conducted ASAP after awarding. It can be conducted via conference call/video call or when the contractor conducts the train-the trainer class with the Prime Power School PLDC Instructors within the first 60 days of awarding. If conducted during the train-the-trainer class, it would be held at the chosen training facility location. The periodic progress meetings can also be conducted via conference calls or video calls or when the contractor is at the Prime Power School during the ILT training with the location of the meeting at the Prime Power School location.

9. Question: Sections 5.1.5, 5.2.6, 5.3.4 and timeline of deliverables list the requirements for student and instructor workbooks, as well as training yard drawings. The issue with the timelines shown are as follows; If PLDC has 30 days from graduation to submit changes to the contractor and the contractor must deliver everything to PLDC no later than two weeks prior to class start, that will leave only 2-3 weeks for the contractor to review the requested changes, make any agreed upon changes, have new workbooks and drawings printed, and have it all delivered. That timeline is not realistically achievable. Can the requirement change to PLDC submitting changes to the contractor within two weeks of graduation? That will leave 4-5 weeks of turnaround time for all the required tasks, which is a much more attainable timeline.

Answer: To provide the contractor sufficient time for deliverables, any changes or modifications to the workbooks will not be required to be delivered back to PLDC until the two weeks prior to the start date 2nd class after changes/modifications were submitted to the contractor. For example; Class 001-16 graduated 1 March 2016 and workbook changes/modifications were submitted 20 March 2016 to the contractor. The contractor would be allowed to deliver workbooks without requested changes/modifications to the next class (Class 002-16 start date 29 August 2016), and then be required to deliver workbooks with those changes/modifications two weeks prior to the next class (Class 001-17 projected start date 3 January 2017).

10. Question: Section 5.3.1 states that the staking and specification sheets for the training yard must be based upon a bill of materials (BOM). It is the other way around a BOM is built based on equipment and hardware required by the staking and specification sheets.

Answer: Yes, you are correct. The intent of this paragraph was to identify that we needed two staking sheets. The first covering training areas 1, 2, and 3. The second covering training areas 4 through 9. These staking sheets need to be developed from the existing training yard design and any other curriculum information we have like the bill of materials that we, the PLDC Instructors, have developed. The additional statement of “based on bill of material” should be disregarded.

11. Question: Section 5.3.2 refers to the RUS++ and NESC requirements for specification sheets. Based on previous knowledge of the training yard, not all structures can be found in the RUS++ handbook. Some are custom drawings made specifically for objectives such as the climbing qualification and wire tying. Will those structures be exempt from the RUS++ requirement? If not, then the training yard will have to be rebuilt to only include poles with specification sheets listed in the RUS++.

Answer: Yes and no. Yes, we understand that there are structures in our training yard that are not 100% exactly like any RUS++ specification sheet. No, we do not want any poles that are less than 100% to any one specification sheet to be exempt. That is why we added the statement in section 5.3.2 “Additions, deletions, changes, and remarks for each structure shall be annotated on the staking sheet and referenced to the corresponding RUS specification sheet as applicable”. The intent of this statement is for the structures that are not exactly 100% IAW any one RUS++ specification sheet, than we want the Contractor to pick the specification sheet that is the closest and any modifications such as additions, deletions, and/or changes to be annotated on the staking sheet. If this can’t be done or presents too much of a problem, than PLDC would be willing to entertain exempting poles. However if poles are exempted, the identification of exempted poles shall be agreed upon by the contractor and the PLDC.

Note: Keep in mind that the PLDC Instructors have identified specification sheets for each pole in the PLDC training yard for training areas 1, 2, 3, and 7, and that information is a part of the PLDC curriculum information that can/will be made available to assist the Contractor if needed.

12. Question: Sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2.3 require the ILT instructor to be “certified”. However, OSHA does not “certify” anyone, they “authorize”. So all OSHA trainers are OSHA authorized trainers, not certified trainers. Under those same principles, students will not receive a “certification” of training. Instead, they will receive a wallet card from OSHA acknowledging their successful completion of the training. Again, it achieves the same goal for showing proof of training, but is an issue of semantics on the part of changed in the solicitation? Or will it be acceptable if it is shown as such in the submitted proposal?

Answer: Yes, it is understood about OSHA “authorizes” individuals and is an acceptable wording change in the solicitation, as it will still meet our overall goal.

13. Question: Section 5.4.2 states the ILT classes shall be conducted during week four of PLDC.

However, our training calendar tends to fill up quickly, and we already have training scheduled throughout 2016. Thus, there may be training conflicts that arise. Is there any flexibility in the training calendar for PLDC? For instance, if week four is already taken, can the ILT be conducted during weeks three or five instead?

Answer: Yes, there is flexibility with the week of ILT classes with some stipulations. It must be conducted after the completion of A Module (Introduction, Climbing, and Safety), its preferred to be completed after B Module (Aerial Lift and Digger Derrick Trucks), and its preferred to be completed before the start of F Module (Final Exercise), which IAW the current training schedule A Module ends week two and B Module ends mid-week three. If a requested five day course extension is approved, than A Module ends mid-week three and B Module ends mid-week four. From that point through graduation we can be flexible, however it would be preferred to be completed prior to the start of F Module which starts approximately mid-week eight.

14. Question: Section 5.4.2 also states that the ILT classes shall not last longer than 21 training hours. All the ILT training requested will take approximately 28 training hours to complete.

Will the appropriate amount of time be allotted for the training?

Answer: ILT’s instruction is a vital portion of this course. IAW with our Instructor contact hours the ILT instruction is indeed 28 hours. The 21 training hours stated in the solicitation is derived from the training calendar hours, and the additional seven hours is Practical Exercise (PE) hours conducted simultaneously with PE hours of C03 Cross Arm Change Out and C04 Rescue an Injured Victim from a Utility Pole. The appropriate time can be allotted as long as it can take place during the week of training the ILT instructor is on site.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY