Questions from RFI_Govt response Rev 2.pdf

• Question 1: Could you please clarify which specific cyber investigative training areas the Government anticipates will require updates or new course development under the PWS?

o Government response: Not with particularity, (that is the issue), we know Cyber Investigative Training (course development) requirements will arise during the PWS we don't know with specificity what they would be. Refer to PWS section 1.0.6 Tasks —Note 2.

• Question 2: Will there be a need for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs), or will the majority of the training remain unclassified?

o Government response: At award the contractor would not need a SCIF, all training is currently unclassified - at some time during the PoP of this PWS it might become necessary to have a SCIF in which case the government would identify that requirement. Refer to PWS section 1.0.5.1 Primary operational Environment – SCIF.

• Question 3: Does the Government have a preferred contract vehicle for this effort, such as

GSA or NASA SEWP?

o Government response: Market research will determine the path forward.

• Question 4: Is the Government considering a set-aside for Service-Disabled Veteran-

Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB) or other small business categories for this opportunity?

o Government response: Market research will determine the path forward.

• Question 5: Does the LMS have to be a COTS or can it be one that has been designed and implemented by the company?

o Government response: The requirements for the LMS are clearly set forth in the PWS. At a minimum any proposed solution must be minimally as capable as that which we already have. It is not a requirement the system be COTS but it must be SCORM compliant and (again) provide (minimally) the same level of capability as our current system (and those capabilities set out in the draft PWS).

• Question 6: Is the training required to be in multiple locations simultaneously?

o Government response: It could be, depending upon requirements.

• Question 7: Can the on-location training be accessed virtually by other training locations?

o Government response: This would depend upon the contractor's solution(s). Today, resident training is not accessed or linked to remote locations but it could be. This is essentially the approach we use with ILV (Instructor Led Virtual) the instructors using TEAMS or some other similar technology coupled with the contractor's LMS/Training platform deliver classes (as a resident type format) but students are remote. In short, one could do the same with resident courses, basically broadcast them (depending upon the resident course as some courses do not lend themselves well to a distance learning approach due to technical requirements and activities.

• Question 8: The RFI mentions that in a single location, the contractor needs to support/deliver 260 one-week training sessions annually. Does this mean 260 sessions divided by 52 weeks = 5 in-res classes-week? Jacobs currently has numerous courses that are 2-weeks in length, how many (in-res) classrooms are contractors expected to have?

o Government response: I would refer to the PWS - the language is specific and when decomposed yields an answer as indicated in the question.

• Question 9: Intermediate Cyber Core (ICC) is listed as one of the CMF courses. Is the expectation to deliver this course even though it has been replaced with CDA Basic?

o Government response: At present (Yes) - While CDA-B is the preferred course, throughput considerations (and others) at CIWT make alternative courses (ICC) necessary to meet training requirements for elements that cannot go through CDA- B at CIWT.

• Question 10: Is the contractor expected to print in-house or assist with coordination of printing, binding, and shipping?

o Government response: Printing is handled by the Government

• Question 11: Can the Government specify prior to course development what the hardware requirements will be needed to support development and implementation?

o Government response: Generally, the requirements of courses will be consistent with the hardware required (generally) to deliver other CTA courses. It is probable that newly developed courses may require additional or different hardware. In such cases the Government would work with the contractor to define these requirements and understand impacts.

• Question 11: How does the Government envision that these reports are displayed/generated? Graphs, CSV, etc. Is grade tracking per class iteration or per student?

Does the Government want to have all the dashboard requirements on one screen?

o Government response: The question is non-specific to reporting requirements, which are variable. In general, grade tracking is both per class and per student. In other words, reporting on grades would for a specific class show the grades per student for that iteration and (when required) generate broader more comprehensive reporting that would / could show student grades for a range of or all students who attended / completed an identified course. It would be preferential that any dashboard presents the information in a unified (one-screen) format that allowed for search functionality across collected information.

• Question 12: When providing intelligent and adaptive student tutoring and guidance that makes recommendations to students and adjusts content difficulty, would this apply to all previously developed courses?

o Government response: No - this functionality, if required, would be for new courses or major course modernization (as described in the TO).

• Question 13: Can the Government elaborate on the type of courses that should be delivered via mobile devices?

o Government response: In general, this requirement would be for video content (QuikBytes and CyberCasts)

• Question 14: The system currently supporting DC3 CTA will be taken offline after the 45-day transition period. None of the current systems will be available to DC3 CTA or any other organization after this date. Would this pose a major adverse impact to ongoing courses?

o Government response: Please ignore this section - it will be removed in future iterations of the TO.

• Question 15: Should LMS security standards be adhered to and based on NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 3 vice Rev. 2? (Rev. 3 is most current).

o Government response: Correct, the most recent version would be required. The PWS will be updated accordingly.

• Question 16: Based on the requirements of the PWS, is this going to be FFP/LOE Award Fee type contract? (Government refers to average rates, billing by labor category and metrics, however, the RFI states this will be a FFP type contract.) PWS para 1.4.6.2 - Student Surveys states that student survey's will be measured performance areas in the AFDP.

Please clarify the contract type, FFP or LOE/Award Fee? Additionally, how will scope changes be addressed under a FFP contract type?

o Government response: Market research will determine the path forward for award type.

• Question 17: Note 1 indicates Tasks 1, 3, 6, 7, and 8 are known requirements and the government intends to issue an annual Task Order at IDIQ contract award. Task 6 is listed as Reserved without any supporting information. Will the government provide historical information for use in the Reserved task?

o Government response: Will be determined at task order level.

• Question 18: Note 2 indicates Tasks 2, 4, and 5 have been identified as unknown requirements at the time of IDIQ contract award. Will the government confirm that these tasks are not subject to being included in the bid price?

o Government response: Will be determined at task order level, see page 12; note 2 of PWS.