The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Sheet1
| Civilian Guardian Course (CGC) Curriculum Development and Iteration |
| Questions and Answers |
| Solicitation number FA254926R0002 |
Responses have been consolidated according to subject matter.
| 1. Technical Approach & Learning Management System |
| Q1.1. LMS platform and version. The PWS requires all assigned courseware to be built and technically configured within the “Government-provided LMS,” but the platform is not named. Can the Government identify the specific LMS platform and version so offerors can plan the build and testing approach? |
| R1.1. CGC is currently slated to use Digital University LMS. |
| Q1.2. SCORM conformance. Which SCORM standard does the target LMS ingest — SCORM 1.2 or SCORM 2004 (and, if applicable, which edition)? Is xAPI (Tin Can) or cmi5 content acceptable or preferred? | |
| R1.2. Currently SCORM 2004 v4. Here are the file types supported in the DU LMS arena for all of the known supported file types in the list below: | |
| • | .txt | |
| • | .csv | |
| • | .zip, .xzip | |
| • | microsoft suite: .pptx, .xlsx, .docx, | |
| • | pdf | |
| • | scorm 2004 v4 | |
| • | .png, .jpeg | |
| • | .mp3, .mp4, .mov, .wav, .wmv, .avi, .flv, .aac. .aac. .aiff | |
| Regarding xAPI and CMI5, they can come from SCORM when a customer gives sends samples to test. | | ` |
| Q1.3. LMS access and tooling. At what point in performance will contractor personnel receive LMS access for build-out, and are there any authoring-tool, template, or file-format constraints imposed by the platform? |
| R1.3. Following the initial kickoff meeting, KTR will provide a list of people who will need access and training and we will arrange it ASAP. File format constraints will be answered at the time of the training. |
| Q1.4. Will the contractor have any LMS Administrative responsibilities? |
| R1.4. KTR is responsible for integrating their content to the LMS and ensuring it works |
| Q1.5. Will any LMS environment development be required by the CTR or will the CTR only develop lesson content and supporting materials for each lesson for inclusion on an existing GOV developed LMS environment? |
| R1.5. Yes, the contractor is responsible for uploading their content to the LMS. The CGC will have a course environment, but as the final structure of the microlessons in each module/lesson is up to the KTR to design they will be responsible for building out that framework within the course. |
| Q1.6. Are all CTR assigned lessons required to be configured for use on a Learning Management System or just those lessons assigned to the online phase of training? |
| R1.6. All content. |
| Q1.7. Can the government provide a design tool standard for lesson development deployed to the LMS? e.g. MP4, Storyline, Rise, Camtasia, PowerPoint, etc. |
| R1.7. The Government does not mandate a specific brand of design software (e.g., Articulate Storyline, Adobe Captivate). The Contractor is authorized to utilize any developmental tools they possess, subject to the following threshold standards: |
1. Phase 1 (Online Asynchronous): All e-learning modules must be fully SCORM 2004 v4 compliant and verified as fully functional on the designated Government LMS (Digital University) without requiring specialized plug-ins or player licenses for the end-users.
2. Phase 2 (In-Person Synchronous): All materials, facilitator guides, student workbooks, and slide decks must be delivered in native, unencrypted, and fully editable formats compatible with standard Government workstations (e.g., Microsoft Office 365 applications [Word, PowerPoint, Excel] or Adobe PDF).
3. Government Maintenance: To ensure long-term sustainability, no proprietary software licenses, annual subscription fees, or specialized hosting platforms shall be required for the Government to maintain, edit, or execute the final courseware deliverables. The Contractor shall deliver all final source files to the Government with unlimited data rights upon contract completion.
| Q1.8. Can the government provide a learning framework or Interactive Multimedia Instructional level desired for course curriculum? e.g. Chapman alliance learning Level 2 or IMI Level 3. |
| R1.8. For cost-estimating and multimedia development purposes, the online phase of the course should be priced as a blended baseline of IMI Level 2 / Chapman Level 2 (e.g., interactive maps, drag-and-drop scenarios, digital whiteboards), with specific, targeted spikes to IMI Level 3 for branching scenarios and the AI-integrated exercises outlined in the PWS/Sequencing plan. |
However, Offerors must note that the Government defines the primary learning framework for the Civilian Guardian Course (CGC) through pedagogical interactivity rather than solely multimedia interactions (e.g., clicking on a screen). As outlined in the PWS, the desired framework heavily prioritizes:
Inquiry-Based Learning: Utilizing "Guiding Questions" to drive self-paced discovery.
Collaborative Learning & Community of Inquiry: Fostering human-to-human interaction through asynchronous cohort networking, peer-review clinics, and collaborative problem-solving.
Active Learning: Forcing learners to apply concepts rather than passively consume them.
The Contractor’s design approach must focus on creating an engaging, collaborative community of inquiry for the 40-hour online phase, which then perfectly scaffolds into the 40-hour in-person phase (which consists entirely of active, collaborative wargames, tabletop simulations, and role-play, requiring zero passive lectures).
| Q1.9. Can the government provide a learning framework or Interactive Multimedia Instructional level desired for course curriculum? e.g. Chapman alliance learning Level 2 or IMI Level 3. |
| R1.9. For cost-estimating and multimedia development purposes, the online phase of the course should be priced as a blended baseline of IMI Level 2 / Chapman Level 2 (e.g., interactive maps, drag-and-drop scenarios, digital whiteboards), with specific, targeted spikes to IMI Level 3 for branching scenarios and the AI-integrated exercises outlined in the PWS/Sequencing plan. |
However, Offerors must note that the Government defines the primary learning framework for the Civilian Guardian Course (CGC) through pedagogical interactivity rather than solely multimedia interactions (e.g., clicking on a screen). As outlined in the PWS, the desired framework heavily prioritizes:
Inquiry-Based Learning: Utilizing "Guiding Questions" to drive self-paced discovery.Collaborative Learning & Community of Inquiry: Fostering human-to-human interaction through asynchronous cohort networking, peer-review clinics, and collaborative problem-solving.
| Q1.10. The solicitation requires a 5–10 minute capabilities video but does not identify how it will be evaluated. |
| a. | Will the video be evaluated as part of the Technical factor? Yes. |
| b. | Will the video be evaluated as a separate evaluation factor? No |
| c. | Will the video be evaluated solely for compliance? Unsure what is meant by this question. |
| R1.10. The solicitation requires a 5–10 minute capabilities video but does not identify how it will be evaluated. The video should not exceed 10 minutes. |
a. Yes.
b. It is part of the technical section but has its own scoring 33.3%
c. Unsure what is meant by this question. The video should demonstrate production capabilities in line with what is being asked for in this RFP. The video should demonstrate educational delivery capabilities.
| 2. Scope and Level of Effort |
| Q2.1. Government Furnished Information (Attachment 1). GFI is repeatedly deferred to Attachment 1. Is Attachment 1 populated for this solicitation, and what specific materials (existing curriculum, style guides, source content, reference documents) will be furnished, and on what dates? |
| R2.1. Attachment 1 is included. GFI listed in the PWS will be furnished after the initial kickoff meeting. There is no curriculum GFI. |
| Q2.2. CGC Curriculum Development Guide (CDG). The CGC CDG is listed with a date of “TBD,” yet it governs the applicable performance standard. When will the CGC CDG be finalized and provided, and what standard applies in the interim? |
| R2.2. A tentative CDG will be provided within 5 business days of contract award, however, please refer to the top of pg. 17 for when a finalized copy will be provided. |
| Q2.3. Module count and KTR/GOV split. Can the Government confirm the total number of modules and the contractor-versus-Government responsibility split reflected in Attachments 3–5, so offerors can accurately scope the level of effort? |
| Q2.3. The KTR is responsible for the modules and lessons as they relate to their assigned objectives in Attachment 2. In Lesson 1.4, the KTR with work with the gov to ensure cohesion. |
| Q2.4. Prototype offerings. What are the anticipated dates and cohort sizes for the two prototype offerings during the base year? Class size affects assessment, rubric development, and LMS configuration. |
| R2.4. Pilot 1 online portion tentatively starts 6 January 2027 with an in person concluding 12 February 2027. Pilot 2 tentatively starts 24 March 2027 with an in person concluding 30 April 2027. Cohort size slated to be 28 – 30 Students. |
| Q2.5. Reference: Location and Hours of Work RESERVED Question 1: Can the government provide the location where work is to be performed? Is work to be performed on government site or contractor site? Question 2: Can the government provide the anticipated hours of work required to perform this effort, either the total hours for all labor or hours per FTE, so that offerors can ensure proposed hours align with the government requirements? Question 3: Since the Period of Performance is less than one year, will the government allow remote work supporting this effort? If so, are there any positions that require in-person presence? |
| R2.5. 1. All work is to be performed on contractor site/remotely. The GOV will be located in Colorado Springs. |
2. The Government will not provide anticipated or estimated work hours for this requirement. This is a performance-based effort, and the Government's interest is in the successful completion of the defined deliverables, not in prescribing the level of effort used to achieve them. The PWS specifies the modules and deliverables the Contractor is expected to complete, along with the applicable performance standards and objectives. Offerors are responsible for assessing this scope and proposing the staffing, skill mix, and level of effort they determine necessary to accomplish the required outcomes.
3. Yes, the KTRs may work remotely.
| Q2.6. Will contractor instruction be required prior to the end of the PoP? |
| R2.6. No instructor support is required by the KTR in the PWS. |
| 3. Security & CMMC |
| Q3.1. CMMC requirement. The PWS invokes CMMC (Attachment 7) for CUI/FCI the contractor may generate or handle. What CMMC level is required, and is certification a condition of award or a condition of performance (with a compliance timeline)? |
| R3.1. Level 1 – at this time all material will be unclassified. There is no anticipated CUI. If changes occur they will be discussed post award. |
| Q3.2. NDA format (A003). Will the Government provide a standard Non-Disclosure Agreement template for deliverable A003, or is contractor format acceptable? |
| R3.2. Government will provide the NDA. |
| 4. Place of Performance & Travel |
| Q4.1. Work location and telework. Sections 2.4 (Location/Hours), 2.4.4 (Teleworking), and 2.5 (Travel/TDY) are marked RESERVED. Where is the one-week residential capstone held, and may curriculum development and configuration be performed remotely/off-site? |
| R10. Capstone locations are currently TBD. KTRs will support remotely during capstones. |
| Q4.2. Travel and ODC not-to-exceed values. The pricing workbook contains pre-filled Travel (NTE $220,825.68) and ODC (NTE $24,536.19) amounts. Are these Government-directed plug values that all offerors must carry as-is, or offeror-estimated figures? Comparability of Total Evaluated Price depends on a consistent approach across offerors. |
| R4.2. Amounts listed were purely for example purposes only. |
| 5. Contract Structure |
| Q5.1. Option periods. The solicitation states a base year only (through 14 May 2027), yet FAR 52.219-14 is checked for “the end of the base term and then each subsequent option period.” Are option periods contemplated for this effort? |
| Q5.1. No. |
| Q5.2. Service Contract Act. Does the Service Contract Act apply to this requirement under NAICS 611430, and if so, is a wage determination incorporated? This affects labor pricing. |
| R5.2. Please prepare your offer in accordance with the best practices of your company. There are educational and/or experience requirements for each position. |
| 6. Submission Mechanics |
| Q6.1 Large-file submission. The capabilities video (MP4), Excel pricing file, and proposal volumes are likely to exceed the stated 10 MB email limit. Should large files be submitted via DoD SAFE, and if so, will the Government provide a request/drop-off link? |
| R6.1 - Only the pricing and proposal volumes will be emailed. If the file will exceed size limitations, please send in two parts. The instructions for the video submission have been supplied, please read the instructions and note only the link will be emailed not the video. |
| Q6.2. “Certified Technicians” definition. Subfactor 1.B requests the “status, type, and number of certified technicians on staff,” but the term is not defined in the personnel requirements. What certifications or roles qualify as “certified technicians” for evaluation purposes? |
| R6.2 |
| 7. Document Discrepancies Requiring Clarification |
| Q7.1. Delivery timeline vs. contract start. The PWS sets contract start at 14 May 2027, yet Phase 1 curriculum is due NLT 30 November 2026 and Phase 2 iteration NLT 12 March 2027 — both before the stated start date. The two (“Base Year” label; “six-week” vs. “20-business-day” Phase I window). What are the correct performance start date and delivery dates? The PoP is from contact award/start (maybe August 2026) - 14 May 2027. The PoP PWS copies also differ. |
| R7.1. The PWS from the RFP (not the RFI) is the most current. In terms of 6 wks vs 20 business days for the online portion is irrelevant as the number of online hours remains at 40. |
| R7.2 Technical volume page limit. The package now shows a three-way conflict: the Instructions to Offerors addendum (§4.0) caps the Technical volume at 15 pages; the Proposal Checklist (Attachment 6) asks whether the proposal is 20 pages or less; and the evaluation section references a 25-page technical volume. Which page limit governs? |
| R7.2 Technical volume page limit. 25 pages or less. |
| Q7.3. Evaluation weighting. The scoring narrative allocates approximately 33.3% (technical subfactors) + 33.3% (capabilities video) + 33.4% (price) = 100%, and states that Past Performance (Factor 2) “will not be a determining factor unless necessary.” Can the Government confirm that Past Performance carries no discrete numerical weight and clarify the specific circumstances under which it would become determinative in the award decision? |
| R7.3. The technical portion along with the video carries the most significant weight. 66.6% versus pricing which is 33.4%. Not all companies will have government sized past performance references therefore, that factor will be rated in technical and will be rated fairly to all offerors regardless of size. |
| Q7.4. Curriculum Development Guide reference. The PWS references both “19 CTS CDG” and “319 CTS CDG” (and, in the final PWS, a generic “CGC CDG”). Which Curriculum Development Guide is authoritative for this effort? |
| R7.4. Thank you for pointing out the typo. It should read 319 for all. The CGC CDG will have primary authority, the 319 CTS CDG will be provided as it is a sister-school to the CGC and acts as a secondary authority. |
| Q7.5. Pricing workbook tabs. The pricing workbook’s “Sample TO-Total Evaluated Price” tab appears to contain content from a different (Marine Corps University) requirement, including unrelated locations and #REF! errors, while the “Unit Price Matrix” tab reflects the CGC CLINs. Which tab should offerors complete and submit? |
| R7.5. Please see new pricing workbook. Examples for each sheet are provided. If you do not understand or will not be offering on one of the tabs, indicate so by placing an N/A. |
| Q7.6. RFQ vs. RFP designation. The package alternately refers to this action as an RFQ and an RFP (SF-1449, the instructions addendum, and the evaluation section differ). Can the Government confirm the correct solicitation type and the corresponding submission requirements? |
| R7.6. RFP is the correct response. If there is an instance where it says RFQ please use RFP. Attempted to change all instances. |
| Q7.7. Past-performance recency window. The Instructions addendum permits references from the last 5 years, while the Proposal Checklist (Attachment 6) asks whether experience is within the last 3 years. Which recency window governs reference eligibility? |
| R7.7. Five years is the past experience |
| Q7.8 Reference: The Government will rank all offers determined to be technically acceptable. Reference: All technically acceptable offers after being rated with scores will have the pricing scored at 33.4% added to the technical and the offeror with the most advantageous proposal to the Government will be selected. Question 1: Are the "scores" the numbers listed in the Rating column of Tables 1 and 2? Question 2: Will the government define how they will "rank all offers"? Question 3: Will the government please provide further explanation as to what "pricing scored at 33.4% added to the technical" means? |
| R7.8. Scoring - Factor 1 – Technical Proposal (Volume I) |
Subfactor 1.A – Capabilities Video 33.3%.
Subfactor 1.B – Staffing and Subfactor 1.C – Support Management and Past Performance 33.3%.
Volume II, Factor 1 - Price Evaluation Factor - 33.4%.
Totaling a combined score of 100% if all factors receive the maxium rating.
Proposal will be evaluated as stated above and in the evaluation factors. The agency will determine best value by evaluating proposals against the technical requirements and cost factors, with cost being one of several factors considered. Award will be made to the technically acceptable proposal that provides the best overall combination value to the Government.
| Q7.9. As the threshold standard, you reference AFMAN 17-1203 (per para 3.4.3) There is a DAFMAN 17-1203 but no para 3.4.3. What is the correct Threshold standard? |
| R7.9. The D was left out of DAFMAN 17-1203 by mistake, that is the correct document. Para 3.4.3 is in reference to page 20 of the PWS. |
| Q7.10. Transition Plan Reference: PWS Section 3.1, p. 15. The PWS references a transition plan submitted with the proposal, but the solicitation provides no instructions or evaluation criteria for such a plan. Should offerors include a transition plan within the Technical proposal? Will the government expect the Quality Control Plan to be a part of the technical. |
| R7.10. Great question. You may include in your technical a brief Transition/Handoff Plan within the Technical Proposal. This plan should outline the contractor's methodology for transferring final courseware, source files, and wargame materials to the Government, including instructor-led training (ILT) familiarization sessions, to minimize delays to the course's initial operational capability. A quality control plan will be expected after contract award. In the technical area you are free to describe your quality management approach. |
| 8. Solicitation Version Discrepancy & Structure (3 July 2026 SAM.gov Version) |
| Q8.1. Set-aside status — governing version (PRIORITY). The 1 July 2026 solicitation states this action is a 100% Small Business set-aside under NAICS 611430 ($15M size standard). The 3 July 2026 SAM.gov version instead states the acquisition is competed under NAICS 611430 with “all categories of business concerns will be considered,” while small-business clauses (FAR 52.219-14 and 52.219-27) remain incorporated. Page 1 of the pre-solicitation document has the size standard of 15 million checked as well. Can the Government confirm whether this action is a 100% Small Business set-aside or unrestricted, and which version governs? |
| R8.1. The solicitation is no longer in draft and is out for full and open competetion. If small business clauses do not apply please ignore. The purpose for the clauses was if small businesses were going to apply any and all applicable clauses would be available for their use. Simultaneously, Large Business, University and Colleges may suggest another NAICS code and will be able to fill out all appropriate clauses for their business size category. |
| Q8.2. Proposal volume structure. The Instructions to Offerors addendum defines a four-volume submission (Volume 1 Administrative, Volume 2 Technical, Volume 3 Past Performance, Volume 4 Price), while the Proposal Checklist (Attachment 6) and the evaluation section consolidate the submission into Volume I (Technical — including administrative content, past performance, certifications, and key personnel) and Volume II (Price). Which volume structure governs, and how should offerors organize and label each file? |
| R8.2. This has been cleared up. Thank you for point out the inconsistencies. |
| Q8.3. Past-performance instrument. The instructions reference a “Present and Past Performance Questionnaire” completed and submitted by references, while the solicitation body and Attachment 3 reference a “Relevant Experience Project Template” completed by the offeror (up to three references). Which instrument should offerors submit, and if both are required, how do they relate? |
| R.8.3. Please use the Template provided which is the Relevant Experience Project Template filled out by the offeror. |
| Q8.4. Capabilities Video rubric and AI-integration scope. Table 2 rates the Capabilities Video on Community, Methodology, and AI/Tech integration, and the PWS (TLO 2.4 / ELOs 2.4.1–2.4.3) requires teaching Guardians to employ AI as a “sparring partner.” To ensure comparable submissions, can the Government confirm the expected depth of AI-integration detail within the 5–10 minute video, and whether the required index/table of contents (with timestamps) counts against any technical-volume page limit? |
| R8.4. The GOV is looking for concrete examples of how KTR lessons prompt/require students to engage with AI. The index/table of contents with timestamps will not count against any page limit. |
| 9. Submission Instructions and Instructions to Offerors |
| Q9.1. The ITO specifies the submission email subject line be “Your Company, RFQ, Pricing Sheet.” This is not representative of offeror proposal packages. May offerors submit proposals with the following email subject line, “Your Company, RFQ, Proposal Submission”? |
| R9.1. Yes either is acceptable. |
| Q9.2 . Will the government confirm cover pages and acronym lists are also excluded from page count? If cover pages are permitted, please confirm offerors are allowed to include the company logo, color font, and color graphics? What happens if the video exceeds the size limit should we send multiple emails? |
| R9.2. Cover pages, acronym lists are excluded from 25 page count. You may use logo, times new roman font size 12, color of font to highlight sections, and/or graphics as long as it does not impact the email size restrictions. Video is to be submitted via youtube and is not a part of the email size standard. Please do not attempt to email the video. Any offeror who submits the video via email, if it is not able to be watched will receive a 0% for the video. |
| Q9.3. Where should we fill in required clauses. |
| R9.3. - Fill-In for FAR/DFAR clauses. Please review all fill in clauses located in the solicitation and/or in section 5. |
| Q9.4. Attachment 4 requires offerors to list "Contract Type" in Attachment 3; however, there is no field in Attachment 3 for Contract Type. |
| R9.4. The solicition outlines the type of contract. If when you offer you would like to suggest another CLIN structure, include it in your technical proposal. If you are discussing the relevant past performance include contract type by the contract number. |
| Q9.5 - Will you be requesting resumes or should we submit with the offer? May we use one person for more than one CLIN? |
| R9.5. Resumes will not be requested nor should you submit them. When submitting your staffing plan you may stipulate to the educational or technical experience for the proposed positions. You may multicategorize an employee using the same employee for different roles. |