QAs_(28_Jun_2017).pdf

6/5/2017 3:37 PM Page 1 of 1

Questions and Answers Technical Instruction Services

Combined Synopsis Solicitation

W912LP-17-R-0008

“Highway Drug Investigations for Patrol” Course 28 June 2017

Q1. Was the language in the RFP Attachment #2, Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2 taken from another contract? There appears to be a large focus on “physical surveillance techniques”, but this area is not a part of the curriculum.

A1. Yes, this is an error. RFP ATCH 2 Full-Text Provisions and Clauses, paragraphs 2.2.2.1 through 2.2.2.3 should be deleted and replaced with the following:

"2.2.2.1 The contractor shall have course developers and instructors with prior experience in the design, development, and delivery of a comprehensive Highway Drug Investigations for Patrol Officers Course to a national or regional audience of uniformed patrol officers and other concerned law enforcement personnel.

2.2.2.2 The contracting firm and the contractor’s instructors must have a demonstrable background in the training of law enforcement, more specifically; they must be currently engaged in training uniformed patrol officers in the techniques, tactics, procedures, and processes of highway drug and criminal interdiction.

2.2.2.3 All instructors must have studied, practiced, researched, taught, and consulted on traffic stops and subsequent highway interdiction activities. The contractor and the instructors must have no less than 10 years of law enforcement experience that clearly demonstrate progressive experience, responsibility, and proactivity in highway drug and criminal interdiction. Supervisory experience is preferred for instructors."

Also note that the Offeror Instructor Qualifications identified in ATCH 1 PWS are correct.

Q2. Can MCTC utilize the past performance questionnaires which were submitted with our last submittal or do we need to have new ones submitted?

A2. Offerors must submit separate past performance questionnaires for each solicitation. They may request PPQ's from the same references; however keep in mind that relevancy is part of the pasts performance evaluation. Reference RFP Attachment #2, Addendum to FAR Clause 52.212-2, paragraph 2.1.1.2 and Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating.