QuestionsandAnswers_.pdf

Questions and Answers regarding Solicitation

W91QV1-17-R-0021 for

Army Force Management School Education and Training Support

Services

Section B, CLINs referenced: 0001 – 0008 versus 0010 - 0069 Pages 2 - 140 The CLINs list staff positions with # hours, and then also list types of work (specific courses) with # of units. If we are pricing the staff labor under a CLIN, that would cover their working on the specific course. Please clarify why there is pricing by both “per person” and “per work element” and the difference in what offerors are to include in pricing them.

A. It is anticipated the first Task Order will consist of CLIN 3 only. It is anticipated that the second Task Order will include the remaining first 18 CLINs as well as CLINs 61 through 64, 68, 70, and 71. Do not include pricing for CLINs 1 through 8 in CLINs 10 through 18. For instance, do not include pricing for CLIn 0004, Director of Training Development in CLIN

13, Publications Support. CLINs 19 through 32, and 34 through 60 include Instructor support only. CLIN 33 has been removed and guest speaker fees have been added to CLIN

68, AFMS Other Direct Costs.

Section B CLIN Pricing RFP Page(s) 2 – 140, Ref student instructor ratios and the pricing volume. The government is asking offerors to price each activity in accordance with Army regulations and planning factors. Please provide the number of instructor hours per class.

A. Unless otherwise stated in the PWS, one day of instruction is equal to approximately 8 hours.

Section B CLINs X071 RFP Page(s) 2-140 Please clarify the quantity of 25 for Contractor

Manpower Reporting. This appears to be an annual event.

A. The Contractor Manpower Reporting CLIN is included in every Task Order issued. 25 is a maximum quantity. The actual quantity ordered will depend on how many Task Orders are issued.

Section C PWS and Section J, Para 1.5.10 And Appendix B Past Performance Questionnaire RFP

Page(s)148, 273: Para 1.5.10: “The COR monitors all aspects of the contract and assists in contract administration.” Since the Government PCO, COR and Technical, Management are materially involved with this solicitation, How can the government avoid incurring an OCI with respect to 1) directing current execution of this contract and 2) Conducting an unbiased and fair evaluation of the Past Performance of the incumbent contract?

A. All participating personnel will sign a SSP agreement. The SSA will ensure all actual or potential conflicts of interest are addressed prior to granting access to any SS information.

Section C, PWS,Para 1.5.14 Phase-In/Phase-Out Activities, RFP Page 149-There are no instructions in Section L to include a Phase In/Phase-Out approach as part of the proposal.

1) Is a proposed and documented approach required, and if so where should offers include it?

Will additional page allocation be provided to allow for a description of the approach?

2) If a Phase-In/Phase-Out approach is required, how will it be evaluated (via Section M or Past

Performance Questionnaire) to ensure minimal risk and proposed opportunity in a transition situation?

A. The Phase-In/Phase-Out approach should be included and will be evaluated as part of Sub-factor a, Technical Approach RFP Page 288. Additional pages will be allocated for Volume I –

Technical Capability.

Section C PWS 1.5.14, RFP Page 149 - How will the government ensure for a fair evaluation since the incumbent does not have a requirement for phase in/phase out activities?

A. The Government will evaluate fairly by evaluating in accordance with Section M of the solicitation.

Section C PWS 1.5.1.5 Key Personnel, RFP Page 150 -What is the Government requirement driving the increase of the number of Key Personnel from 4 in 2009, 6 in 2012 to 8 in this solicitation? What additional requirements have been added to the AFMS in the last decade that the offerors need to be cognizant of in our responses to the government?

A. AFMS requirements have expanded throughout the years and emphasis on the right management team and key personnel are critical to the government’s ongoing success. All requirements are in the PWS. AFMS has increased our level of professional education requirements to meet both Army (TRADOC) accreditation and the American Council on

Education (ACE) requirements at the graduate level.

Section C PWS 1.5.1.5 Key Personnel, RFP Page 150 -What additional requirement has caused the need to raise the experience and education requirements in 2012 to a higher level of education and experience in this solicitation?

A. AFMS is pursuing graduate level credits through the American Council on Education (ACE) and as such requires the credentialing of the Instructor/Facilitators and Deans to have a

Master’s Degree.

Section C PWS 1.5.1.5 Key Personnel, RFP Page 151-PWS Table 1-3 (Department Chair) what is the rationale for requiring the Department Chair to have been published? How does this relate to increased efficiency or capability for the AFMS?

A. The PWS verbiage has been revised.

Section C, PWS 1.5.15, RFP Page 151-155-The Government states that the personnel’s experience must be performed within a DoD or commercial educational institution. Would the

Government accept experience within a civilian agency educational institution that provides training to DoD entities?

A. Yes, if they provided training to DoD entities.

Section C PWS 1.5.20, RFP Page 156-157- Can the government further clarify IAM/IAT levels requirement? The general reference stating “stating must comply with DoD and Army training requirements in DoDD 8570.01, DoD 8570.01-M and AR 25-2” combined with the general use of the term “support which then further includes words such as maintain, test, troubleshoot, diagnose, repair or replace” in Functional Area 4 Educational Technology Support leave a wide interpretation of computing environment requirements related to AFMS Computer Laboratory.

For example, the use of the term Information Assurance Security Officer (IASO) in 7.2.2. clearly lets the offeror know the requirements to comply with DoD regulations.

A. PWS has been revised. The requirement for Computer Laboratory Support has been removed. The verbiage in Section 1.5.20 has been revised.

Section C PWS .5.21-1.5.23 Other Directs Costs (ODCs), RFP Page 157- The Government states that for material, supplies, and equipment that 3 prices quotes will be required and that those quotes are to be submitted without profit, overhead, and G&A. Please confirm that is only for the Government to be able to do price reasonableness analysis and that the awarded contractor will be allowed to include indirect costs such as G&A and M&H (Material and Handling) in accordance with disclosed accounting practices on any ODCs incurred, including travel and material

A. The ODC verbiage has been revised in the PWS.

Section C PWS 5.4.3, RFP Page, 165- Please provide a copy of the USAFMS SOP. The USAFMS

SOP is referenced throughout the document as an authoritative source similar to a regulation.

The SOP would give some insight into workload, technology, etc. associated with those tasks.

A. The USAFMS SOP has been attached to the Solicitation.

Section C, PWS 7.10.1, RFP Page 172- This section requires the contractor to nominate a Course

Director (CD) for all USAFMS courses. Please clarify when this nomination is to be accomplished.

If nominations occur after award, what is the Government’s guidance since offerors are required to submit resumes for Course Directors as part of the proposal?

A. Course Directors are not considered Key Personnel and therefore resumes are not required as part of your submission. Upon award offeror must appoint Course Directors with the requirements per PWS section 5.10.

Section C PWS 5.13.2, RFP Page177- Is para 5.13.2 written to forbid or discourage any type of part time instructors?

A. The government has no objection to part-time instructors. Section 5.13.2 has been revised.

Section C, PWS Table 5-2 CMI Classifications, RFP Page 182- Table 5-2 lists Top Secret. Will Top

Secret CMI be required for training products? If so, which positions would be required to have a

TS Clearance (currently only SECRET is required for personnel and facility clearances per the

PWS and DD254).

A. Top Secret Clearance is not required. Secret Clearance is required. Inclusion of the CMI table is only to clarify the varying levels of clearance.

Section C PWS, Part 5 Specific Tasks 5.30, RFP Page- 189 The web link www.afms1@army.mil is not a valid link. This website is used throughout the document. Please provide an updated link which applies to all courses in Paragraph 5.23 through 5.31, and ensure that the explanation of the course, course subjects, dates and schedules are consistent and the class listing provide the tasks, standards and deliverables.

Will the Government consider an extension to allow all offerors appropriate research time once the correct link is provided?

A. The website link is www.afms1.belvoir.army.mil. This has been revised in the PWS. The proposal due date has been extended to 9 October 2017.

Section J-Appendix B Past Performance Questionnaire, RFP Page 273- Will the government amend the Past Performance questionnaire to include all current solicitation evaluation criteria?

Specifically, staffing & SB goals and participation? Additionally, if the Government decides to include a Management Proposal and Transition Phase-In/Phase-Out activities as part of the evaluated proposal response, please also consider including these elements in the Past

Performance Questionnaire.

A. The Past Performance Questionnaire will not be amended.

http://www.afms1.belvoir.army.mil/

Section L- L.1.3 Proposal Preparation & Organization and L.2.2 Volume II – Past Performance, RFP Page- 286 The table in section L.1.3 Proposal Preparation & Organization indicates that

Volume II – Past Performance page limits are restricted to “NTE 25 pages excluding covers, title pages, executive summary and table of contents.” However, section L.2.2 Volume II – Past

Performance, does not indicate that an executive summary shall be provided for this volume.

Please confirm that no executive summary is required for past performance

A. No executive summary is required for past performance.

Section I- FAR 52.222-41 and FAR 52.222-42, RFP Page 262- FAR 52.222-41 and 52.222-42 related to the Service Contract Labor Standards are listed in Section L. Please provide the appropriate wage determination for this effort.

A. FAR 52.222-41 and 52.222-42 have been removed. These are professional services. A wage determination is not applicable.

Section L- L.1.3.A, RFP Page 285- L.1.3 says to use Office 2013, but then says to provide “.doc” and “.xls” files. The default file type of Office 2013 is “.docx” and “.xlsx”. Was the instruction in error, or does the government want offerors to provide the older .doc and .xls file formats?

A. Instruction has been revised. Use “.docx” and “.xlsx” file formats.

Section L- L.1.3.A, RFP Page- 285- L.1.3 states “The maximum number of lines of text per page is forty-five (45)” and then says offerors can use 10-point font. Use of 10-point font and ½ inch margins results in 62 single-spaced lines on a page. Does the government want offerors to use more than single spacing of lines, or will the government change the maximum lines per page to

62?

A. The instructions have been revised to require 1 inch margins on all four sides of each page and no less than 12 pt font for paragraph text and no less than 10 pt font for tables with single spacing. The lines per page restriction has been eliminated.

Section L- L.1.3 Proposal Preparation & Organization and L.2.3 Volume III – Small Business, RFP

Page 286- The table in section L.1.3 Proposal Preparation & Organization indicates that Volume

III – Small Business page limits are restricted to “NTE 50 pages excluding covers, title pages, executive summary and table of contents.” Please confirm that no Executive Summary is required for Small Business.

A. No Executive Summary is required for Small Business.

Section L- L.1.3 Proposal Preparation & Organization, RFP Page 287- Under the summary table for Proposal Preparation, VOLUME IV – Price is being asked for in .doc format which is MS Word.

However, the detailed instructions under L.2.4.1 asked specifically for the Price Model spreadsheet which is in .xls format which is MS Excel. Will the Government accept a .xls format for VOLUME IV – Price?

A. Yes. The summary table has been revised.

Section L- L.2.1.3 Part 3 – Technical Capability, RFP Page 288- The instructions state: “The

Offeror shall provide a matrix that will direct Government evaluators to the specific areas of the

Technical and Management Proposal that addresses each task/requirement of the PWS.” The

RFP instructions do not instruct offerors on where to include a Management Proposal. Where should offerors address the Management Proposal, and can additional page allocation be provided to do so. Also, please provide detail on how the Management Proposal will be evaluated.

A. The instructions have been revised to read “Technical Capability Proposal”. The “Technical

Capability Proposal should address each task /requirement of the PWS.

Section L- L.2.1.3 Part 3 – Technical Capability, RFP Page 288- The Government requires each offeror to speak to the specific “techniques and steps,” that will be used for PWS task accomplishment. The steps that are required to accomplish the PWS tasks are part of a overarching Management Approach that not only addresses the Functional Area sub-tasks but also the processes resident in the Army Force Management School itself.

Will the government define a Management Section in this proposal? Without it the offeror will not be able to demonstrate the approaches and tools required to address all processes required to run the AFMS

A. See revised Sections L and M.

Section L- L.2.1.3.1 Tab A – Sub-factor a, Technical Approach, RFP Page 288- The instructions state “The offeror must also submit its proposed labor mix (labor categories and proposed hours) for each Part 5 task.” Part 5 of the PWS (pg 163 – 195) only includes Functional Areas 1 and 2. Functional Area 3 is numbered as 6, Function Area 4 is numbered as 7, etc. Please confirm that offerors should propose a labor mix for each of the 8 Functional Areas, pages 163 – 219 that the government currently has annotated as 5 through 14.

A. Yes. The offeror must include its proposed labor mix for each Part 5 task of the PWS which includes all 8 functional areas. The PWS numbering has been revised.

Section L- L.2.1.2 Part 2 – Cross-Reference Matrix & Part 5, Specific Tasks RFP Page 288 & 163-

For clarity in the required Cross Reference Matrix, will the government please considering numbering (or clarifying numbering for) the following Functional Area titles identified in Part 5 of the PWS?

Functional Area 2 – Non-core Academic Support (pg 191)

Functional Area 5 – Course Development (pg 211)

Functional Area 6 – Exportable Training And Engagement (pg 212)

Functional Area 7 – Army Senior Executive Education and Professional Development Program

(ASEE & PDP) (pg 213)

Functional Area 8 – Army Logistics Planning and Integration Course (ALPIC) (pg 217)

A. The PWS numbering has been revised and all Functional areas are now simply listed as

Functional Area 1, Functional Area 2, etc.

Section L- L.2.1.3.2 TAB B – Sub-factor b., SAMPLE TASK, RFP Page 288- Paragraph states: “The technical and management approach shall include a logical sequence of events that will be performed to accomplish all tasks, standards, and deliverables outlined in the PWS section 5.30

…” Para 5.30 does not “establish all tasks, standards and deliverables”. The link

(www.afms1@army.mil) listed in para 5.30 does not exist. The minimal information at the Army

Force Management School does not include any specific information for the FMICC classes. We request clear, supported instructions for this Sample Task FMICC.

A. The website link is www.afms1.belvoir.army.mil. This has been revised in the PWS. Sample

Task has been revised. See sections L and M.

Section L- L.2.1.2, RFP Page 288- The description of the Cross-Reference Matrix asks for a mapping of the solicitation to the proposal, and later asks for a mapping of the proposal to the

PWS. Please clarify whether the government wants a matrix that is sorted on the proposal structure with Solicitation mapped, or a matrix sorted on the RFP structure with the proposal sections mapped to it.

A. Section L.2.1.2 has been revised. Proposal shall be mapped to entire PWS

Section L- L.2.1.3 RFP Page 288- This section says that Part 3 Technical Capability should provide a matrix that will direct Government evaluators to the specific areas of the Technical and

Management Proposal that address each task/requirement of the PWS. This duplicates the

Cross-Reference Matrix requirement of Part 2. Does the government want a duplicate matrix in part 3, or is this requirement referring back to the Cross-Reference Matrix?

If a duplicate cross reference matrix is required as part of Part 3 Technical Capability, can this cross reference matrix also be excluded from page count?

A. L.2.1.3 has been revised. Only one Cross-Reference Matrix is required.

Section L and Section M -L.2.1.3.2 First paragraph and paragraph 3.0, M.C.2 Technical

Capability, Sub factor b, RFP Page 288 and 290- L.2.1.3.2 states that the Offeror shall describe, in detail, its technical and management approach to complete the sample task. Later under paragraph 3.0, and in the Section M evaluation criteria, it says to provide a Program of

Instruction (POI) and an agenda and instructional block descriptions. Please clarify whether offerors are to just describe our approach to doing the sample task, or if we are to provide the referenced products that are a result of performing the sample task.

A. Sample Task has been revised. See sections L and M.

Section L- L.2.1.3.2 Tab B – sub-factor b, Sample Task 1.0.c, RFP Page 289- The assumption states that the Place of Performance is CONUS/OCONUS, however, 1.0.a.1 states that “Potential site for instruction may include, but not limited to U.S Sergeants Major Academy (USASMA), the

Command and General Staff College (CGSC) and their satellite campuses, The Western

Hemisphere Institution for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC).” The sites listed are all CONUS. To most accurately produce a response to the Sample Task, could the Government please confirm the OCONUS requirement and provide any potential OCONUS sites?

A. See revised Section L. The specific location is immaterial. The schools listed are meant to provide context only. The course objective is to provide Force Management Instructor /

Facilitator Certification Course to train non-Force Management professionals appointed to instruct Force Management (FM) courses within TRADOC/Non-TRADOC institutions to an audience of Soldiers and/or Civilians attending Department of Defense institutions.

Section L- L.2.1.3.2 Tab B – sub-factor b, Sample Task 1.0.c, RFP Page289 - Based on the locations provided in 1.0.a.1: “Potential site for instruction may include, but not limited to U.S Sergeants

Major Academy (USASMA), the Command and General Staff College (CGSC) and their satellite campuses, The Western Hemisphere Institution for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), ”does the

Government expect offerors to develop three separate FMICC POIs that focus on each separate audience (Sergeant Majors/Staff NCOs, CGSC Graduates, and International Officers from

WHINSEC) for the three potential locations?

If yes, please consider allowing offerors to include the three POIs as attachments not included in page count.

If not, and only one POI is required for the Sample Task, please identify on which audience our

POI should focus.

A. Section L and Section M have been revised and a POI is no longer required. . The specific location is immaterial. The schools listed are meant to provide context only. The course objective is to provide Force Management Instructor / Facilitator Certification Course to train non-Force Management professionals appointed to instruct Force Management (FM) courses within TRADOC/Non-TRADOC institutions to an audience of Soldiers and/or

Civilians attending Department of Defense institutions.

Section L- L.2.1.3.2 TAB B – Sub-factor b., SAMPLE TASK 2.1 b, RFP Page 290- Instructions state:

“Subjects for this course shall include:” Each bullet lists a subject. The third bullet – “Force

Development Overview Organizational Design” The subject “Force Development Overview” has five phases. Phase 2 Design Organizations is specifically listed. Is the subject for this bullet to include all of Force Development Process or specifically “Organizational Design.”

A. See revised Section L.

Section L- L.2.1.3.2 TAB B – Sub-factor b., SAMPLE TASK 2.1 b RFP Page, 290- Instructions state:

“Subjects for this course shall include:” Each bullet lists a subject. The fourth bullet – “Roles, Functions and Missions Manning the Force”. These are two separate subjects/classes. Roles, Missions and Functions addresses how the Army is organized. Manning the Force is a separate function within the Army Force Management Model. Question: Please clarify the subject doctrinal titles required for this course.

Section L-L.2.1.3.2 TAB B – Sub-factor b., SAMPLE TASK 2.1 b, RFP Page 290- Instructions state:

“Subjects for this course shall include:” Each bullet lists a subject. The eighth bullet – “Army

Strategy Planning, Programming & Budget Execution System (PPBE) appears to join two totally different FM subject matters. Army Strategy is developed in the Determine Strategic and

Operational block. The Total Army Plan then provides the direction for the Army’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) process during the Determine Authorizations block of the Army Force Management Model. Question: Please clarify if the structure outlined is correct or if the subjects should be separated.

Section L & Section C PWS, Part 5 Specific Tasks L.2.1.2 Part 2 – Cross-Reference Matrix & Part 5, Specific Tasks Para 5.33, RFP Page 190 – 191- For clarity in the offerors Cross Reference Matrix will the government please correct numbering in Part 5 of the PWS - There are duplicate

Sections for 5.33 (Distributed Learning, page 190 and Non-Core courses, page 191)

A. PWS has been revised and numbering has been changed for Functional Area 2.

Section L 2.1.3.3 RFP Page 291- This includes a requirement to provide estimated hours and labor rates of the proposed personnel. Since offerors are not to provide price information in this

Volume, will the government remove this requirement?

A. Section L.2.1.3.3 has been revised. The requirement to include labor rates as part of the project staffing plan has been removed.

Section L- L.2.1.3.3 Key Personnel , RFP Page- 291- This requires that Offeror provide a narrative describing the qualifications/experience of their key personnel in addition to submitted resumes. A narrative describing the qualifications and experience of the key personnel and a resume serve essentially the same purpose. Will the Government please clarify if it is requesting both of these items or if it is an error and only resumes are to be provided? If offerors are to deliver both, please provide the location for where offerors are to include this narrative description and whether or not it is included in page count.

A. The requirement for a narrative has been removed. Resumes will suffice.

Section L- L.2.2 Past Performance, RFP Page 291- Will the government exclude the current AFMS contract with J&A bridge extensions from June 2016 from evaluation due to OCI implications?

A. The Government will evaluate Past Performance in accordance with section M.

Section L- L.2.1.3.3 Key Personnel, RFP Page 291- The Offeror shall submit a project staffing plan, which includes recruitment, retention, placement and exchangeable skill-sets, estimated hours, labor rates and qualifications of the proposed personnel and the ability of the overall project team to adequately minimize risk and successfully complete the requirements of the PWS.

Recruitment, retention, placement and the ability of the overall project team to adequately minimize risk and successfully complete the requirements of the PWS are not typically components of a project staffing plan. Is it sufficient for offerors to address these requirements in another location within the 110 page limit?

project staffing plan has been removed. Page limit for Technical Capability Volume increased to 175 to accommodate project staffing plan under Key Personnel.

Section L- L.2.1.3.3 Key Personnel, RFP Page 291- This section requires the following:

(1) A matrix of the company’s proposed personnel mapped to the appropriate PWS tasking that supports the proposed labor category and level

(2) a project staffing plan, which includes … and qualifications of the proposed personnel

Are these two (2) different requirements or the same?

A. These are two separate and distinct requirements. The matrix identifies how you plan to map your key personnel against the tasks; the staffing plan explains your long-term strategy to maintain adequate key personnel staffing.

Section L- L.2.2 Volume II – Past Performance, RFP Page 291- Given the broad scope of this PWS, will the Government permit additional past performance citations, up to 4 or 5 rather than 3, to allow bidders to demonstrate the capability to cover all elements of relevancy?

A. No, only 3 past performance citations within the past 3 years shall be submitted.

Section L - L2.2 Volume II – Past Performance, RFP Page 291- Given the unique nature of the

AFMS effort, how does the government define relevancy with regard to scope?

a) Schoolhouse management and execution?

b) Alignment to the AFMS Functional Areas?

c) Alignment to the AFMS PWS?

d) Is “relevant” scope restricted to only Army School Houses?

e) Is “relevant” scope restricted to a particular Subject Matter expertise?

A. Past performance relevancy is based on a review of similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Section L- L.2.3.1 Part 1 – Small Business Participation Plan and Small Business Subcontracting

Plan, RFP Page- 293-Will the government evaluate SB participation and goal attainment in the

Past Performance of this solicitation?

A. No

Section L- L.2.4.1 Price Proposal , RFP Page 297- The Government states that offerors shall complete Section B of the solicitation as well as the Price Model spreadsheet. Given that

Section B is 141 pages long and the Price Model spreadsheet is only 8 pages when printed and each would ultimately depict the same information and data, in an effort to save time, money, and paper would the Government allow for only the Price Model spreadsheet to be required, and not Section B? Request instead that Section B only be required to be filled out at contract award for the winning offeror.

A. The requirement to complete Section B has been removed. The Offeror shall complete the

Price Model for the base and each option period in .xls format.

Section L- L.2.6 Delivery of Offers, RFP Page 298- Due the amount of information offerors need to develop, we kindly request a two week extension to the due date.

A. Proposal due date has been extended to 12 October 2017.

Section L- L.2.5.5 OCI Questionnaire, RFP Page 298- The Government requests offerors to submit an OCI Questionnaire/Survey as part of their proposal. Will the Government please provide this document? The OCI Survey is also referenced in H.19, page 259.

A. An OCI Questionnaire is attached to the Solicitation.

Section L- L.2.5.6 Quality Control Plan (QCP), RFP Page 298- Section M does not provide an explanation for how the Government will evaluate the QCP. Please provide.

A. The Quality Control Plan is no longer required to be submitted with proposal.

Section L- L.2.5.6 Quality Control Plan, RFP Page 298 - There are no evaluation criteria stated for the QCP in Section M. How will the QCP be evaluated?

A. The Quality Control Plan will not be evaluated.

Section L- L.2.5.6 Quality Control Plan, RFP Page 298- To effectively write to the Quality Control

Plan requirement, all offerors would need a copy of the current AFMS QASP. Will the government provide this document during proposal preparation as GFI to all those who request it?

A. The QASP will not be provided. The Performance Requirements Summary (PRS) is provided in the PWS.

Section M- A. Basis for award, RFP Page 300- “The Small Business Participation factor is

Significantly More Important than the Price factor.”

Please delineate the sequential ranking of Volume III Part 1 SB Part Plan: with Part 2 which part is more important or are they equal?

A. The small business participation factor has no sub-factors.

Section M, C Evaluation Approach, Sub-Factor B RFP Page 302- The evaluation criteria states:

“The Government will evaluate the Program of Instruction (POI), the POI narrative, storyboards, and lesson plans.” However, Section L.2.1.3.2, Tab B – Sub-Factor b, Sample Task, page 288-290, does not mention a POI narrative, storyboards, and lesson plans. Please clarity/confirm what is required, and what will be evaluated, in the Sample Task regarding this inconsistency.

A. Section L and Section M have been revised.

Section M, M.C.2.a Past Performance Factor, RFP Page 304- In Section M.C.2.a Past

Performance Factor the evaluation criteria indicates that Government evaluation “will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractors) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors.” Can the Government clarify as to whether they intend for Contractors to submit subcontractor management information in their past performance volumes?

A. Yes, contractors can submit subcontractor management information as part of their past performance volume. Offerors shall provide a specific narrative explanation of how each contract listed describes the objectives achieved and details how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

Section M, M.C.2.b Past Performance Factor, RFP Page 304- Solicitation instructs offerors to

“submit three (3) Government contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor.”

Please confirm that the Government wants a total of three (3) contracts from the Prime and/or subcontractors

A. Only 3 past performance contracts within the past 3 years shall be submitted. These can include major subcontractor performance contracts.

Section M, C.2 Past Performance, RFP Page 304-305- Since subject matter expertise in force management (FM) is critical for effective support of this AFMS contract, will the government consider demonstration of FM expertise as part of the Past Performance evaluation criteria?

A. No. Past performance relevancy is based on a review of similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming

Section M, C. Evaluation Approach, RFP Page 307- There are no evaluation criteria for the Sub-

Contracting Plan. How will the Sub-contracting Plan be evaluated?

A. There is no specific evaluation for the sub-contracting plan, but there is an evaluation for small business participation.

Reference: RFP Section L, Paragraph(s) 1.3, Page 286 Description: For Volume I (Technical

Capability), NTE 110 pages is not sufficient to adequately address Part 3 consisting of three tabs:

1) Tab A – Technical Approach, 2) Tab B – Sample Task, and 3) Tab C – Key Personnel. Will the

Government either increase the NTE to 135 pages or exclude Tab B – Sample Task (25 pages) from the page count of 110 pages?

A. Page limit for Technical Capability Volume increased to 175 pages which includes Tab A, B, and C.

Reference: RFP Section M, Paragraph(s), B c, Page 302 Description: In the last sentence of the page, the Government specifies including labor rates in Volume I (Technical Capability). Will the

Government remove this requirement to include pricing information (labor rates) in Volume I?

project staffing plan has been removed. Section M has also been revised to remove the reference to labor rates as part of the project staffing plan.

Reference: RFP Section L, Paragraph(s) 1.3, Page 285 Description: The maximum number of lines of text per page is forty-five (45). Will the Government exclude headers, footers, graphics, and text boxes from the maximum number of lines?

Reference: RFP Section L , Paragraph(s) 2.2, Page 291 Description: For past performance relevancy, three (3) current or previous contracts will be evaluated. In Section M the

Government clearly states that relevancy is within the past three years. Will the Government evaluate relevancy for past performance in line with the instructions (Section M), which is defined as within the past three years?

A. Past performance relevancy is based on a review of similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming

RFP Section 1.5.15.2, Paragraph(s) Table 1-2, Page(s) 151: At Table 1-2 the government lists the requirement for the person filling this position to be a CGSC or ILE graduate or commensurate

Professional Military Education for Senior Civil Service. However, a review of Section 6.1 of the

PWS does not appear to provide any link between this education requirement for CGSC or ILE and the duties enumerated at Section 6.1. Therefore, will the government consider removing this education requirement so that the pool of acceptable candidates for this position can be expanded?

RFP Section PWS, Paragraph(s) 5.10.1, Page(s) 172: Can a Department Chair also be a Course

Director?

RFP Section L.2.1.32, Paragraph(s) Tab B Sample Task, Page(s) : Can the government clarify how it is defining "non-resident" training? Traditional definitions suggest distance learning where the students are not present at the school. Does this mean the students are not present at the school but the instructors are present at the school (distance learning) or are the instructors co-located with the students at a student location, e./g, a CGSC classroom.

A. See revised Section L. The instructors are co-located with the students (not distance learning).

RFP Section L.2.1.2, Paragraph(s) 1, Page(s) 288: Can the government clarify if the cross reference matrix is to include all of the requirements. paragraphs and tasks from all sections of the solicitation, from the entire PWS, or just those from Part 5 of the PWS, pages 163 to 219?

A. Entire PWS.

RFP Section PWS, Paragraph(s) 1.5.15. Tables 1-1 through 1-11, Page(s) 150-155: Can the government clarify if the current incumbent staff at the Army Force Management School satisfy all experience and education requirements specified for the positions described in these tables?

A. This is not relevant to the current requirement.

RFP Section PWS, Paragraph(s) 1.5., Page(s) 150 to 156: Is the school currently fully staffed to the level required by the PWS? Can the government provide the current list of faculty and staff along with identification of their respective positions?

A. The school’s current staffing is not relevant to the current requirement. There is some information about staff positions in the attached SOP and on the website www.afms1.belvoir.army.mil.

RFP Section L.2.1.32, Paragraph(s) Tab B Sample Task, Page(s) : Given the sample task is for a certification course, request the government make available the POI and Primer for the current

Force Management Instructor/Facilitator Certification Course so all offerors have access to that information.

A. The FMICC does not currently exist.

RFP Section, Paragraph(s), Page(s): How many instructor/facilitators are currently teaching at

AFMS? How many instructors and observers are required to participate in each class that is presented at the AFMS?

A. The number of instructor/facilitators currently teaching at AFMS is irrelevant. At least one instructor is needed to teach each class.

RFP Section L.2.1.32, Paragraph(s) Tab B Sample Task, Page(s): If the instructors are to be teaching at a non-resident location, what are the minimum expected items of GFE to be available for the course in terms of equipment and supplies?

A. GFE is not relevant to the sample task.

RFP Section L.2.1.2 and L.2.1.3, Paragraph(s) 1 and 1, Page(s) 288: In addition to the Part 2 requirement for cross reference matrix, the instructions for Part 3, Tab A include the requirement to include "matrix that will direct Government evaluators to the specific areas of the Technical and Management Proposal that address each task/requirement of the PWS" which appears to be duplicative of the Part 2 matrixes. Could the government clarify if Part 2 satisfies this requirement or if there is additional information required for Part 3 Tab A that is not included in Part 2?

A. Section L has been revised. Only one matrix is required.

RFP Section L.2.1.32, Paragraph(s) Tab B Sample Task, Page(s) 1.0 a. (2): In the course

"Objective" description the government says the contractor is to develop a five day non-resident

FM Instructor/Facilitator Certification Course to train non-Force Management professionals appointed to instruct FM courses within TRADOC/Non-TRADOC institutions. At 1.0 a. (2) the government says assume that the attending students have attended the HTARC course. Should we assume that the persons attending this course already have their TRADOC certification as instructors? Further, who is designing the FM courses that will be taught by the FM certified instructors?

A. Yes you may assume that the student-instructors have attended the TRADOC mandated instructor courses. The sample task has been revised. See Section L. Offerors need to provide a lesson plan that includes the following components: Terminal Learning Objectives (TLO), Enabling Learning Objectives (ELO), Learning Step Activities (LSA), an action statement, a condition statement, a standards statement, and a knowledge, skills and tasks list; and design an assessment that measures the student’s learning which meets or exceeds the “Analyze” level of hierarchy per Bloom’s Taxonomy.

RFP Section L.2.1.32, Paragraph(s) Tab B Sample Task, Page(s) : Is there a required (or preferred) delivery method for the sample FMICC? i.e., distance learning via instructor-led live synchronous; distance learning via self-paced asynchronous; live in person instructor led training; or a blended approach?

A. See revised Section L. The instructors are co-located with the students (not distance learning).

RFP Section PWS, Paragraph(s) 5.4.2, 5.5.4, Page(s) 165: Numerous sections in the RFP includes requirements for quality assurance for accreditation purposes and the current staff appears to have a full time Quality Assurance Evaluator. However that position is not listed in the pricing model. Is there a requirement for the contractor to provide a full time Quality Assurance

Evaluator as that position is not listed in the additional duties section?

A. Quality Assurance/Evaluation is under a separate contract to eliminate any conflict of interest.

RFP Section L, Paragraph(s) L.2.1.3.3 TAB C, Page(s) 291: Please clarify the differences between

(or integrate them into one table) the two requests: 1) a matrix of the company’s proposed personnel mapped to the appropriate PWS Tasking and, 2) a project staffing plan for the proposed personnel?

A. The two are separate and distinct. The matrix identifies how you plan to map your personnel against the tasks; the staffing plan explains your long-term strategy to maintain adequate staffing.

RFP Section 1.5.15.2, Paragraph(s) Tables 1-9 and 1-10, Page(s) : Tables 1-9 and 1-10 for Training

Developer Level I and II. QUESTION: The education required for these two positions contains the clause, "appropriate to the work of the position to be filled." Is this education requirement specific to FM work only or rather, to Training Development as a more general application?

Likewise, the Experience Required section for these two positions requires training development experience within DoD schools, but does not specifically mention that it be FM-related. So, is general experience (vice FM-specific experience) in training development within a DoD school sufficient?

A. FM experience is not a requirement for a Training Developer. Level II requires three to five years’ experience serving as a senior training developer within a TRADOC or Army functional school or Department of Defense school / program and level I requires two to three years’ experience serving as a training developer within a DoD school or commercial educational institution.

RFP Section L.2.1.3.3, Paragraph(s) , Page(s) : The government asks for a staffing plan that includes estimated hours and labor rates. Labor rate/pricing information is normally only included in the Price Volume. Can the government clarify if it really requires labor rate in the

Technical Volume?

project staffing plan has been removed.

RFP Section PWS 5.3, L.2.1.3.3 and L.2.4.1, Paragraph(s) Pricing Model, Page(s) : The government has specified a variable number of courses but has not specified how many courses might be taught at one time. Given the requirement for full time instructors, are offerors to build their staffing models and pricing based on the maximum requirement for instructors in a month or the minimum? Will offerors be allowed to bid to a minimum amount and then the government will add part time instructors if requirements increase?

A. The PWS has been revised and instructors are not required to be full time. The AFMS instructional base does not require full time positions, full time meaning presenting instruction within a classroom for eight (8) consecutive hours a day. This will be an IDIQ contract. Task orders will be issued and this will determine how many courses are needed in a specified time. CLINs 19 through 32, and 34 through 60 include Instructor support only. The anticipated FY18 Course Calendar has been attached to the Solicitation.

RFP Section PWS 5.3, L.2.1.3.3 and L.2.4.1, Paragraph(s) Pricing Model, Page(s) : The PWS requires full time instructors and course directors and also specifies certain positions are to be considered additional duties and so not incur additional costs. Will the government clarify its requirements with respect to the amount of time required to be spent on the additional duties as well as course preparation as compared to course delivery for each course?

A. The PWS has been revised. Instructor/Facilitators and Course Directors are not required to be full time. The requirements of the additional duties and course preparation are outlined in the PWS (i.e., Course Directors (PWS 5.10); Test Control Officer (PWS

5.24); Safety Coordinator (PWS 6.5); and OPSEC Coordinator (PWS 6.6)).

Historically, the personnel functioning as full time Instructor/Facilitators have been assigned and designated with these additional duty designations. The offeror needs to account for these requirements in their proposal.

RFP Section L.1.3 and L.2.2.4, Paragraph(s) A) c) table and 2, Page(s) 286 and 293: The instructions on page 293 say to submit the POC list in excel format but the table on page 286 does not include an excel file. Would it be acceptable to include the POC information as a table in the word document?

A. Yes. Section L.2.2.4 has been revised.

RFP Section L.1.3, Paragraph(s) A) 2, Page(s) 285: The RFP instructions specify margins of no less than 1/2 inch and 10 pt font and then no more than 45 lines per page. The current minimums result in potentially 57 lines per page. Having to track lines per page is onerous on both the government and the offerors given it is not clear how to measure lines in a table or a figure.

Would the government consider changing the instructions to 1 inch margins at top and bottom and no less than 12 pt font for paragraph text and no less than 10 pt font for tables with single spacing and eliminate the lines per page restriction? Those parameters yield a maximum of 46 paragraph lines per page for both Times New Roman and Arial fonts which would be rare given normal content structure. It would facilitate evaluation while eliminating non-value added work for the offerors and the government evaluators.

RFP Section L.1.3, Paragraph(s) A) and A) c) table, Page(s) 285 and 286: The instructions specify the use of MS Office 2013 formats and then the paragraph and the table specify file name extensions associated with MS Office 2003 (.doc, .xls) instead of 2013 (.docx, .xlsx). Is an offeror compliant if they use the MS Office 2013 default file name extensions of .docx and .xlsx?

A. Instruction has been revised. Use “.docx” and “.xlsx” file formats.

RFP Section PWS 5, L.2.1.3.3 and L.2.4.1, Paragraph(s) Pricing Model, Page(s) : The numerous requirements for the support staff and the faculty, to include instructors, appear to require everyone to be "full time". If so, the pricing model approach to price individual course preparation and delivery is completely inappropriate as no one can provide a partial instructor.

Would the government consider restructuring the pricing model to be much simpler and easier to manage with a set of core staff and a variable pool of full time instructors/facilitators that all share a common rate (or perhaps a senior, mid, and junior instructor set of labor categories).

The government could award task orders for individual instructors as the schedules and demand get clarified as opposed to asking offerors to price a complete set of courses for which they are not allowed any flexibility to manage the level of effort.

A. The PWS has been revised and Instructor/Facilitators are not required to be full time. The

AFMS instructional base does not require full time positions, full time meaning presenting instruction within a classroom for eight (8) consecutive hours a day.

RFP Section PWS 5.1, L.2.1.3.3 and L.2.4.1, Paragraph(s) Pricing Model, Page(s) 163: The RFP does not specify how many courses might be taught at one time. Please provide the expected annual course load by month for all courses or a representative master schedule for a fiscal year

(known by the incumbent) so all offerors can build the appropriate level staffing plan to support the technical and price proposals.

A. The anticipated FY18 Master Schedule has been attached to the Solicitation.

RFP Section PWS, Paragraph(s) 5.1, Page(s) 163: The RFP established a number of courses and standard times for the courses ((over 330 lesson plans) but has not provided the topics and hours required for each topic within the courses so there is insufficient information to determine the proper staffing levels and functional expertise for each course to support the price proposal. Only the incumbent has the information which provides them significant advantage on this bid. We would expect this information to be non-proprietary given the language in the PWS regarding data rights so should be available to share. Will the government provide all potential bidders information on the content and structure of each course to support a realistic staffing approach and reasonable bid by non-incumbents?

A. Lesson Plan Topics and the associated hours have been attached.

RFP Section M, Paragraph(s) C, Subfactor C, Page(s) 301, 302: The RFP requires a significant amount of information to be provided for the key personnel section but then says the following key personnel will be evaluated. Will the evaluation address all the information requested or just the key personnel. If only the key personnel recommend eliminating the rest of the requested information as it will not be evaluated.

A. The requirement for a narrative has been removed. Section M has been revised to reflect the evaluation of the key personnel project staffing plan.

RFP Section L.2.2.4, Paragraph(s) 2, Page(s) 293: The RFP uses the term "owner's representative." Could the government clarify if this term means any of the government POCs listed in the Part 1 Contract description sections?

A. The term “owners representative” has been changed to “Government representative”.

RFP Section 1.5.15.2, Paragraph(s) Tables 1-6, 1-9, and 1-10, Page(s) 154, 155: The tables require experience serving "within" a TRADOC or Army functional school. A lot of training development is done for TRADOC or Army functional schools by contractors who are not part of

(or within) the school. Would the government allow training development experience

"supporting" an appropriate school to be compliant? The work is reviewed and approved by the various proponent schools as meeting the TRADOC standards and that the materials meet training objectives.

A. Yes.

RFP Section 1.5.15.2, Paragraph(s) Table 1-7, Page(s): Will the government consider modifying the experience required for this position so that persons who have performed registrar duties but in other than a principal role can be considered?