Questions_on_F-16_WSSC_RFP.pdf

FA3002-13-R-0005 WSSC Responses to Questions #2

Question # Document Reference Question/Issue Government Response

1 RFP Attachment 2 Exhibits What is the contractual relationship between the I/SME and CWD Revision Exhibit Line Item

Numbers (ELINs) which have varying amounts and the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) which contain only the Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs)? In other words, at what point will a determination be made as to departure from the BEQs shown in the CLIN schedule in favor of some other item in the ELINs? Will the contractor know with some lead time what ELIN items will be chosen for the coming year, or does the government intend to use the varying ELIN figures throughout the year in response to changes in workload?

Concerning courseware the 30% BEQ is level of effort for example if it takes an I/SME 30 hours labor on a new lesson then he/she should only be expending 9 hours labor for a revision. The same is true for the CWD team. The numbers in the revised table may change ever so slightly if we delete or add courseware but for the most part, I expect the contractor to provide 167 lesson guides revisions, 74 workbook revisions etc for each contract period. The only number likely to change will be new lessons and that is based on hardware or mission changes. We discuss these issues at every monthly

TSR meeting.

2 RFP Attachment 2 Exhibits A, B and J outline I/SME BEQ hours in support of PWS 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.9, 3.10 and 3.11.

Should these hours be considered only direct instructor time in support of those PWS areas, which then need to be burdened with some amount of indirect time for instructor preparation and PWS

3.12.6.2 continuation training, ancillary training, safety meetings, etc?

All trainers and courses have prep, brief and debrief time associated with them. Additionally there are a number of hours allocated to ancillary activities.

3 RFP Attachment 2 It is our understanding that the total number of training squadrons will remain the same throughout this contract, with the only variation being the movement of a second squadron to Holloman in

Option Year 1. However, I/SME BEQs total 49,270; 45,816; 43,366; 47,250 and 47,250. This reflects a significant reduction in I/SME workload over the first three years, followed by an increase.

Is this the government’s intent?

The I/SME hours are the Best Estimated Quantity and are associated with our estimate as to what the

Programmed Flying Training will be in the out years. Each exhibit has a number of CLINs associated and will be adjusted if required by contract modification. PFT is released on an annual basis and therefore it is the governments best guess as to the number of students in the out years.

4 RFP Attachments 2 and 11 Is it the government’s expectation that the CLIN price in the Attachment 11 Excel Sheet be the combined value of all ELIN items provided in the Attachment 2 Exhibits for CLIN lines which do not include a BEQ? For example, CLIN 0003 includes ELINs 0003AA through 0003AG, so would that

CLIN value be the total of those seven ELINs in a given FY? On the other hand, CLIN 0001 includes

ELINs 0001AA through 0001AL, but the we assume the government will choose just one of these in a given FY, so do we understand correctly that CLIN 0001 pricing in the Excel sheet should include only ELIN 0001AF?

The intent of the Government was to delineate the expectations for personnel at each operating location in association with CLINS 0003, 0004, 0008, 0015,0016 and 0017. The expectation is that each offeror will price those individual CLINS and come to a total which will be billed to the

Government. The only CLINS this does not apply to are 0001,0002, 0005, 0006, 0007, 0011, 0012, 0014, 0019. The I/SME CLINS the BEQ is the initial number of hours the government will place on the contract but the government would like pricing for the additional in the event the government decides to change those based on a change in PFT. The same applies to the CWD for Luke. The

Electronic Schedule B at Attachment 11 has been revised to clarify how pricing should be shown and was posted with RFP Amendment 0001.

5 RFP Attachment 2 Exhibit F CWD new lessons for Luke does not match the new lesson requirements in PWS Appendix

6. Is this intentional? Also, PWS Appendix 6 contains new lesson requirements for Holloman, but this does not appear to be captured in the Attachment 2 Exhibits. Was it the government’s intention to include all new lesson CWD requirements for Luke and Holloman in Exhibit F?

The question is unclear. Exhibit F is a revision cycle. Exhibit E matches the appendices in the PWS for new courseware at Holloman and Luke and yes the government intent was to combine since all courseware in the long term will be developed and revised at Luke AFB.

6 RFP Attachment 2 What is the purpose and contractual application of the various rate figures in the Exhibit F and G

ELIN tables? If courseware revision labor is considered to be 30% of a new lesson, then it seems this figure should remain constant and it is the actual number of lessons to be revised which could change. As an example, can the government outline a situation in which a revision effort would require 52.5% effort rather than 30%? If the government considers the revision effort per lesson to potentially vary, by what metrics will the other various ELINs be chosen and agreed upon?

This CLIN gives the government the ability to react to major upgrades to the aircraft without ordering a new course. The government does not anticipate needing to change the BEQ for CWD revisions but reserves the right to make a change and wants to know the associated pricing.

7 RFP Attachment 2 Exhibits C and K require unit pricing for Scheduling, Computer Repair/IT management, Learning

Center Management and Training Evaluation & Analysis. Although the PWS contains general tasking for these areas, there is little detail to allow bidders to analyze total annual workload in these areas. Can the government provide either estimated or historical workload in terms of labor hours or expected Full Time Equivalent (FTE) tasking for the Training Support task areas?

Scheduling is required for all times the squadron is flying and the expectation is that there is a FTE for each squadron. It is not the government's intent to tell offerors how many personnel they need to hire in order to accomplish the tasks. The PWS sufficiently outlines the duties of the positions mentioned with one exception and that is para 3.12.3.3. This para changed in RFP Amendment 0001 From

"3.12.3.3. The COR may designate additional/ancillary functions to be performed from the LC such as storage and distribution of tech orders, manuals and other student academic material." To: "3.12.3.3.

LC duties also include storage and distribution of tech orders, manuals and other student academic material."

8 RFP Attachment 2 Exhibits C and K capture requirements for Flying Squadron Scheduling at Luke and Holloman. In

Option years 1-4, it appears that Scheduling support for two Flying Squadrons is required at

Holloman AFB, but the Luke requirement remains at three. Should the Luke Flying Squadron

Scheduling ELINs be dropped to just two in the Option years?

In option year 1 there is a requirement for a scheduler to be at Luke for the squadron that is moving and one to be at Holloman for the last 6 months of the fiscal year as the squadron begins to move.

Following Option 1 there is only a requirement for 2 schedulers. The Exhibits were revised with RFP

Amendment 0001.

9 RFP Attachment 2 Exhibits D and L require unit pricing for GTIMS Support. Can the term “GTIMS Squadron

Associate” listed separately under each ELIN item be interpreted as one Full Time Equivalent (FTE)?

If not, does the government have additional information which would assist bidders in determining total GTIMS workload on an annual basis? Also, can the government verify the total number of intended ELINs for GTIMS squadron associates at Luke and Holloman? It appears that the government is requesting GTIMS Squadron Associate support for four squadrons at Luke and three at

Holloman in the base and all option years. Finally, some option year ELINS in Exhibit L show quantity 11. Should this figure be 12 for all option years?

There was an error in the Exhibits. The Exhibits were revised with RFP Amendment 0001.

10 RFP Attachment 2 Exhibits H and M contain numbers of months which differ from the expected 11 for the base year and 12 for the options years for the Area Security Monitor at both locations. Can the government clarify the intent of the application of these different figures? Does this imply less than full-time support over the entire year or full-time effort over a period less than a year for each CLIN? Also, if the figures less than the 11 and 12 month values are correct, it appears that totaling the ELIN unit prices and inserting them in the Attachment 11 Excel sheet will lead to erroneous CLIN values.

The ASM will initially be at Luke AFB for the base year and for 6 months for option 1. When SEAD moves to Holloman the ASM will move as well and is reflected in 6 month at Luke and 6 months at

Holloman in option 1. There is no requirement for an ASM at Luke after Option 1. There is a requirement for security management at Luke for the entire contract.

11 RFP Attachment 11 WSSC Section B Excel sheet contains numbers of months (12) which conflict with the ELIN tables for the base year (11). Is it the government’s intent that the unit prices be multiplied by 12 rather than 11 in the base year on this worksheet?

The Electronic Schedule B at Attachment 11 will be revised with Amendment 0001 to correctly match the months in the spreadsheet with the appropriate ELINs.

12 RFP Attachment 11 WSSC Section B Excel sheet appears to have erroneous periods of performance listed in the titles for

Option Periods 2, 3 and 4. Can vendors correct these dates or will the government issue a corrected version?

These periods of performance will be corrected with the revised Electronic Schedule B at Attachment

11 with RFP Amendment 0001.

13 RFP Section L Paragraph L.2.4.3 allows for position qualifications or staffing/manpower matrix to be provided as uncounted pages. Does “position qualifications or staffing/manpower matrix” mean resumes or other tabular listings of personnel qualifications to support Sub-factor 4 – Manpower Capability? We would just like to be clear on exactly what this means to avoid inadvertently providing information which debits against the allowed page count.

Resumes are appropriate and expected.

14 RFP Section L Paragraph L.2.5.3 indicates that the QCP will not be counted against the 50 page limitation for

Volume I. Since a Security Management Plan, Training Program Development Management Plan and Instructor Training and Certification Plan are also required; would the government consider allowing the page count for those plans to lie outside the 50 page limit as well?

Yes all plans are not included as part of the page count and will become part of the contract once it is awarded.

15 RFP Section L Paragraph L.3.2.3 Past Performance Information Sheets indicates that Quality and Satisfaction ratings provided in the sheets are included in the 5 page limit. Is it the government’s intent that government CPARs should be included in the sheets or should this only be additional Quality and

Satisfaction information outside the CPAR system? Our concern is that providing copies of government CPARs could potentially push an information sheet over the 5 page limit, and this may not be necessary if the government intends to review CPAR information independently.

The government intends to review the CPAR information independently.

16 PWS Paragraph 3.12.11.6 PWS 3.12.11.6 outlines requirements for GTIMS support at the Operations/Maintenance Group level in addition to the Squadrons. Is this type of support required at Holloman as well as Luke?

The expectation is that the TRS GTIMS support will also provide support for FG/MX at Holloman.