Question and Answer Sheet - Master.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 13 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- F2XHC73110A001
About this file
This document contains a question and answer sheet regarding a solicitation for a skill gap analysis contract. The solicitation is seeking proposals to conduct continuous skill gap analysis for all enlisted Air Force Specialty Codes, including future Space Force Specialty Codes, through tasks such as annually reviewing a minimum of 360 existing credential snapshot pages and researching a minimum of 48 new credential snapshot pages. Proposers are asked to provide pricing and details on the labor categories and resumes of personnel who will perform work such as analyzing a minimum of 96 new comparability analyses per year. The solicitation does not provide maximum values for the analysis work or share information on incumbent contractors' staffing and resumes. The related federal contract opportunity is a combined synopsis and solicitation issued by the Air Force Air Education and Training Command seeking these skill gap analysis services.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question 1 | Section 1.1 states that the "main component of this initiative will be conducting continuous skill gap analysis for all enlisted AFSCs. Can the Government confirm that no officers are being included in the AFCOOL PWS and the proposed work is only intended to apply to enlisted? |
| Question 1 - Answer | No officers are included in the AFCOOL program. |
| Question 2 | Section 1.1 and mentioned 56 other times throughout that the PWS applies to current and future AFSCs. However, with the mention of the US Space Force and Guardians, should the offeror assume that SFSC's shall be included as well? It's recommend that "AFSCs" be revised to state "AFSCs and SFSCs" throughout if this is a valid assumption. |
| Question 2 - Answer | Yes, this assumption should be made until HAF/A1D and S1D determine otherwise. Is the Space Force formally SFSC since they are still under DAF? It can be changed either way. |
| Question 3 | The requirement states that the contractor shall review/update a minimum of 360 existing Credential Snapshot pages annually; and research/add up to a minimum of 48 new Credential Snapshot pages for credentials related to AFSCs. Can the Government provide maximum values, as these are open-ended with an unknown variable as a ceiling and it is unreasonable to provide firm-fixed pricing on. |
Also, regarding the minimum of 48 new Credential Snapshot pages for credentials, suggest that a statement be added as follows: (Note: the number of Credential Snapshot pages completed is dependent upon Air Force identification and approval of new credentials.)
| Question 3 - Answer | No change will be made to update the requested information. |
| Question 4 | The requirement states that the contractor shall conduct a minimum of 96 new comparability analyses per year. Can the Government provide a maximum value, as this is open-ended with an unknown variable as a ceiling and it is unreasonable to provide firm-fixed pricing on. |
| Question 4 - Answer | Same as item 3. The minimum requirement for both CAs and RDs was established from findings from an AF Audit study and historical data from the inception of the COOL programs as what was a reasonable floor of CAs and RDs. |
| Question 5 | Can the Government revise to include “such as”, so that it aligns to the same language from 1.4.6, which will allow the offeror to include information related to additional organizations that are also relevant to supporting the requirements within the PWS? |
| Question 5 - Answer | No changes have been made the to revise the mentioned langauge. |
| Question 6 | Could the Government explain what information is expected in the Projected Timeline (Quarterly Updates) deliverable, and how the information is different from what would be included in the Monthly Activity Report? |
| Question 6 - Answer | This is accomplished at our monthly meetings to include what the projected work is going to be accomplished for the quarter. This includes what AFSCs being looked at, certifications, RD/CA workloads, etc so we can brief HAF leaders where we are in the program cycle. |
| Question 7 | Should the Offeror treat Parts I-III as individual files to be submitted to the Government? |
| Question 7 - Answer | Offers should contain a clear and concise reponse to Parts I-III. The response does not necessarily have to be submitted as individual files but can be if you see fit. |
| Question 8 | To ensure the Offeror meets the needs and requirements of the scope, will the Government provide more specific qualifications for the analyst positions? |
| Question 8 - Answer | The resumes need to show the individuals have a full and complete understanding/knowledge of the work in the PWS with key focuses on items in 1.4 |
| Question 9 | What file format (PDF, Word, etc.) does the Government prefer to receive? |
| Question 9 - Answer | Any document type that is supported by Adobe or Microsoft is sufficient. |
| Question 10 | The Offeror’s intent is to hire incumbent personnel. This will ensure continuity of services with personnel who are well qualified and familiar with this scope of work. |
Can the Government share how many incumbent (FTE) positions there are currently on the contract? What are their LCATS? And will Offerors have access to the incumbent resumes prior to award?
Question 10 - Answer The Government recommends that the vendor supply information and pricing what they think is needed to support the effort. The labor categories of the incumbent contractor will not be released at this time.
And will Offerors have access to the incumbent resumes prior to award?
No.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .