Q&As_for_DRAFT_RFP_30Jul18.pdf

FA3002-17-RFI-BA_IQC -- BATTLEFIELD AIRMEN (BA) INSTRUCTOR QUALIFICATION COURSES (IQC) Responses to Draft RFP Posted to FBO on 13Jun18 # ID Contractor Question/Comment Government Response Action

1 B PWS Section 4.1. states “The contractor shall develop, sustain, enhance, and adjust curriculum materials as identified throughout this PWS to sustain performance outcomes.” We suggest that the Government allow that the work be conducted at the contractor’s site.

It will be the contractor’s decision where to conduct this work. A space on JBSA-Lackland will be made available for use, however this location is not mandatory.

PWS 4.1 now includes the statement “…The contractor shall develop, sustain, enhance, and adjust curriculum materials …at the site of the contractor, or at space provided by the Government on JBSA-Lackland, AFB.”

2 B PWS Section 4.2. states “During mobilization the contractor shall develop, in partnership with the Air Force, curriculum, as outlined in this PWS.” We suggest the Government specify the contractor use a Commercial-Off-the- Shelf (COTS) development tool, or specify which development tool is required.

It will be each offeror’s decision which tool(s) to use when developing the curriculum.

None

3 B PWS Section 4.2.1. states “The meeting will be attended by contractor leadership and the contractor curriculum development team, and for the Government the Training Advisor, COR, and BA TG Program Manager at a minimum.” We suggest the Government clarify whether the entire contractor development team is required to attend the in-process review meetings.

Contractor leadership and contractor team leadership attend in process review meetings.

PWS 4.2.1 now states, “The meeting will be attended by contractor leadership and the contractor curriculum development team leadership…”

4 B PWS Section 4.3. Can the Government please confirm whether this section is complete? The last sentence of the paragraph begins and ends with “Maintenance...”

“Maintenance” should not be at the end of 4.3. PWS Revision: Removed “Maintenance” from the end of 4.3.

5 B PWS Section 4.7. states “The Contractor shall develop, execute, and deliver BA Instructor curriculum for the following BA common instructor development courses in accordance with AETC guidance and to meet Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) accreditation guidelines.” We suggest the Government provide the estimated instructional hours for each of the four courses.

Offeror’s will provide course length in their proposals for all courses except BA-IQRC which will be one week in length. The Government will set a maximum number of weeks for each course.

PWS 4.7.1 now states, “The duration of the BA-IQC course shall be determined by the contractor, but shall not exceed 6 weeks in length.”

PWS 4.7.2 now states, “The duration of the BA-IQRC course shall be one week in length.”

PWS 4.7.3 now states, “The duration of the BA-TSQC course shall be determined by the contractor, but shall not exceed 6 weeks in length.”

PWS 4.7.4 now states, “The duration of the BA-AIC course shall be determined by the contractor, but shall not exceed 6 weeks in length.”

6 B PWS Section 4.7.2.3. states “The best estimate for performance at each location is listed below. The number of classes held at each location may change:

JBSA-Lackland, TX: up to 6 classes a year

Kirtland AFB, NM: up to 2 classes a year

Pope AAF, NC: up to 2 classes a year

*Alternate training locations: estimated 2 classes a year, as directed by the COR.”

We suggest the Government clarify whether the instructors will be on-site, full time at JBSA-Lackland, TX and travel to each of the locations when required.

The primary location for contractor instructors will be JBSA-Lackland. Travel from JBSA-Lackland will be required to support courses at other stations.

PWS 4.7.2.3 now states, “The primary location for instructors will be JBSA-Lackland, Texas. Travel will be necessary from the primary location to support the required courses at other stations.”

7 B PWS Section 4.8.3. states “Contract Instructional System Specialist shall design training courses, instructional materials, and measurement devices through the analysis of educational or instructional problems or questions.” We suggest the Contract Instructional System Specialist remain off-site, full time at the contractor’s facility during course development and sustainment efforts. This will allow for a more efficient course design, development, and sustainment process.

The contractor will determine what site the CISS works from. Space on JBSA-Lackland will be made available.

PWS 4.9.3 (formerly 4.8.3) now states, “The location of the Contract Instructional System Specialist can be either on-site or at a contractor facility.”

8 B PWS Section 4.17.5. states “As part of the course, all students will complete comprehensive course surveys to gain feedback on the quality, value, importance, and impact of contractor delivered training.” We suggest the Government clarify whether the contractor is responsible for design and development of the course surveys.

Contractor is responsible for developing course surveys to gain feedback.

PWS 4.18.5 (formerly 4.17.5) now states, “These course surveys will be developed by the contractor and approved by the COR and Training Advisor. The contractor shall submit a draft course survey no later than 10 business days prior to the end of the first course of instruction. The Contractor shall solicit responses to approved course surveys immediately after completion of the final course objective/event.”

9 B PWS Appendix D Will the Government provide terminal and enabling learning objectives for all courses?

Appendix D provides the terminal and enabling learning objectives for all courses.

None

10 B PWS Appendix D Can the Government please clarify whether the contractor is responsible for development of learning objectives, to include the performance, condition, and criteria (or standard) statements?

Appendix D provides the learning objectives that meet the CCAF accreditation program’s requirements.

None

11 B Section L.1.8. states “Proposals must be submitted in both electronic and paper format as specified in L.2.2. Organization/Distribution/Number of Copies/Page Limits. In case of conflict between paper and electronic proposal copies, the paper version will take precedence.” We suggest the Government accept electronic submissions only. Benefits of an electronic submission include:

1. No need to cross check electronic versus hard copy submissions

2. Easy search capabilities for the Source Selection Authority (SSA)

3. No need to archive and dispose of hard copies

4. Eco-friendly; much easier on the environment

5. No need to meet contractors to receive hand-delivered hard copies

6. No need to issue a visitor pass to contractors making hand deliveries in order to gain entrance to the JBSA-Randolph facility

Hard copy proposals will no longer be required. Section L revised to account for digital proposals via

CD/DVD.

12 B Section L.4.11. states “The offeror is required to provide complete financial statements for the last three years, as well as year-to-date financial information through the last quarter available. If a new business without three years of financial statements, then the offeror must provide a statement indicating such and provide financial statements for as many years as possible.” If the Government intends to require this information from subcontractors, we suggest providing instructions for redacted/un-redacted versions. We also request that the Government accept a bank letter on letterhead or a signed letter from a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) to verify financial ability and small business size.

This information will not be required for subcontractors. Per L.4.11 The year-end financial statements must be certified by an independent accounting firm, if practicable, or at least by an authorized officer of the organization.

None

13 B Section L.5.1. states “The offeror shall provide recent and relevant past performance information on a minimum of one (1), but no more than three (3) contracts in the format specified in paragraph L.5.5 below. If the contractor submits past performance references for a major subcontractor the maximum number of references is four (4).” We suggest the Government define what constitutes a “major subcontractor.” We also request that the Government allow three (3) Past Performance examples from the prime contractor and one

(1) from each subcontractor regardless of whether they are considered a major subcontractor or not.

Major subcontractor/partner defined as conducted 15% or more of the work as calculated by dollar value of the proposal. Section L re-written to allow for a minimum of 1 but no more than 3 past performance efforts for each subcontractor/partner.

Section L paragraphs L.5.1, L.5.1.1, L.5.1.2, and L.5.1.3 were revised and L.5.1.5 was added.

14 B Section M.3. states “Evaluation of offers will be made IAW the criteria outlined in this section. The proposals will be evaluated against the following two (2) factors: Volume I/Factor I: Technical and Volume II/Factor II: Price.” Based on our 15 years serving the Government, we understand that performance on contracts of similar size, scope, and complexity is the greatest indicator of how a contractor will perform on upcoming contracts. Therefore, we suggest the Government include Volume III, Responsibility Information, which includes Past Performance examples, as an evaluation factor.

At this time the Government is not willing to pay more for above satisfactory performance. The Contracting Officer will review the same level of past performance as required for a past performance evaluation factor utilizing an acceptable/unacceptable rating scale.

None

15 D PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/ SUGGESTIONS

NAICS Codes NAICS code 611519 is for Other Technical and Trade schools. While this NAICS code could be used for instruction, the type of companies and instructors you needed for this work are more often found in the DoD Training and Professional Services NAICS codes. We recommend either 611430: Professional and Management Development Training or 541990: all other Professional, Scientific and Technical Services. These NAICS codes used for most instructional development in US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and Department of Defense (DoD).

The Government will continue to utilize NAICS code 611519. It is agreed 611430 could fit, however 611519 is considered more applicable.

None

16 D Course Scheduling Can the Government provide a calendar year of course scheduling? Specifically, we are interested in the overlap of courses. That affects the number of required instructors and the price to the government. E.g. If the bigger IQC course which requires multiple instructors, is not run concurrently with the smaller courses, all of which require one instructor, we would be able to use the same instructors for both courses. Without knowing the answer to this scheduling

The COR will work with the contractor on a draft student load schedule 10 business days prior to the start of course implementation during the mobilization period and 10 business days prior to the beginning of each fiscal year thereafter. It will be up the contractor, based on projected student load, to develop the course schedule. It is the Government’s

PWS 4.14 (formerly 4.13) now states, “The COR will work to navigate student load in an effort to minimize/avoid course overlapping to the maximum extent practicable.“ question, the industry has to cover risk and bid more instructors assuming the overlap prohibits dual use. In turn, this raises the cost bid on proposals.

desire to minimize course overlapping as much as possible.

17 D Course Durations Can the government state the expected duration of each individual course? The answer to this enables offerors to identify requirements for FTEs or potential 1099 employees.

That will be developed by the contractor in their proposal, as long as they meet the requirements, please see Question #5

18 D Instructor Qualifications Appendix B outlines specific qualification requirements; it could be in the customer’s best interest to provide additional experience requisites to ensure that a sufficient number of instructors are available. We recommend the following:

• At least 2 years as an Instructor Supervisor (IS) or 3 years as an instructor for Experience Qualification Standard: 3-4 years as an Instructor/IS could be offset with less total time if the Instructor Supervisor position was held. The Instructor Supervisor position is attained through superior instructor performance and becomes an evaluator of other instructors. They evaluate other Instructor’s ability to properly execute didactics as well as performance-based instruction.

• Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) degree in place of Bachelor’s degree for Education personnel qualification: Special Operations personnel, like Battlefield Airmen, have experience sets in two basic groups, 20+ years or 4-6 years. Recommend 10 years of BA or special operator experience or 6 years with one or more named operations deployments. The requirements for the Contract Instructor states a bachelor’s degree is mandatory. Currently for BA instructors, a Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) degree is the standard, and instructors are afforded 1 year from the time they arrive on station to complete. Requiring a bachelor’s degree for the Contract Instructors will significantly reduce the ability to recruit for this position and impede contract staffing.

• Permit a combination of 10 years in special operations or battlefield airmen career fields and instruction on one of these DoD courses: There are several very large training contracts currently being operated by the U.S. Government.

Examples include the CN&GT Training Support Services ($450M) and GATA II ($1B). All of these contracts require instruction sponsored by the DoD or DoS training special operations and Border Security Forces for our allies. The instructors are former special operations or federal law enforcement personnel.

Required qualifications will remain unchanged. None

19 D Student to Instructor Ratio Will the Multiple Instructor Requirement (MIR) have to be adjusted to account for the +/- 25%? For example, the Faculty Development course, such as the BA - Advanced Instructor Course (AIC), has a maximum of 12 students for 1 instructor. However, 2 additional students can be force gained with approval and no additional instructor is required. Therefore, adjusting the MIR to a 1:14 Instructor-to-Student ratio. If the MIR is 1:8 for the BA-IQC Course, will 3 Instructors be sufficient regardless of the possible +25%?

The PWS was revised to more clearly state the estimated maximum student load and thereby provide a known instructor number for each course.

PWS 4.7.1.2, 4.7.2.2, 4.7.3.2, and 4.7.4.2 were revised to state estimated maximum student load per class with minimum instructor requirements.

20a D CLIN STRUCTURE COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS Pricing Format Recommend the government release an expanded Workbook sheet or Work Breakdown Sheet for more accurate costs calculations. It helps the contractor and contracting office get an “apples to apples” comparison. If you send out the pricing in its current format, it will cause the offerors to add their thumb to the scale to cover the risk inherent in lack of specificity. For this reason, we specifically recommend:

Travel: Use a plug number that specifies to offerors, or give a specific number of trips for a specific number of instructors to specific locations. This provides an “apples to apples” comparison. The location differentials and factors such as hazard and OCONUS hardship pay makes travel very difficult to calculate, therefore bid as a general number. If every bidder makes their own assumptions about travel, you will receive very different assumptions and/or higher quotes to cover the worst-case number of trips to the most expensive locations.

Offerors will not propose cost for travel. Travel will be a Cost type CLIN with an estimated amount established by the Government for the base and all option periods. Travel will not be included in the Total Evaluated Price.

None

20b D Curriculum Enhancement. The current structure has the same inherent risks as travel. Without knowing how much many enhancements, adjustments, urgent changes or sustainment hours are required, every bidder makes their own assumptions. You will get very different assumptions and/or higher quotes to cover the worst-case number adjustments and the highest number of hours required for each. The other approach this format opens entails the contractor making a list of assumptions with their bid in the pricing volume, and when one of those assumptions becomes invalid, they will ask for a modification to the contract to cover a “change in scope”. Those modifications will then have to be separately priced, but without competition, so you will get a higher price. To mitigate uncertain and varying contract adjustments as well as modifications, we recommend the following:

• Give a specific number of changes with a specific number of hours that you estimate it will require for each, along with a required deliverable for each. Ask all of the bidders to price that so you, again, for a point-by-point comparison.

An estimated workload of 40 hours total per year for curriculum enhancements, adjustments, sustainment, and urgent changes was added to the PWS.

Appendix G, workload estimates, added to the PWS.

20c D Initial Curriculum Development. If you have a specific set of deliverables that allows the bidders to estimate materials, labor hours, editing, etc., then a FFP bid on curriculum development is a reasonable methodology to ask of your contractors.

Please see section 4.2.2 of the PWS None

21a D

Instructor Pay We recommend requiring offerors to pay instructors an annual salary and demonstrating their labor compensation structure in the spreadsheet. This enables the government to get an accurate comparison of salary against contractor load. This directly affects ability to retain qualified instructors.

The Government agrees salary of instructors is important to ensuring a contractor is able to recruit and hire qualified personnel. For this reason a requirement to provide a breakout of instructor salaries under the technical subfactor “Staffing Plan” has been added.

Section L, paragraph L.3.2.2.1 and Section M, paragraph M.4.9.1 revised. L.3.2.2.1 states, “Provide a saffing plan that identifies and provides:

a) The title, full or part time status, and duties for all personnel the offeror plans to employ to accomplish requirements of the PWS as proposed

(management, administration, curriculum development, sustainment, enhancement, and adjustment, course instruction, quality control, etc.)

for the mobilization period as well as all periods of full performance. Also, include a salary breakout for all planned instructor personnel….

21b D Qualification and Advanced Courses. To avoid bidders making varying assumptions about labor hours while having visibility on the load that the bidder is applying, we recommend you build a labor spreadsheet that is required from each bidder. If you require, labor rate, G&A, Overhead, Fringe and Fee in separate columns, you will get a fair comparison and will be able to see how much of the contractors pricing is going to salaries and how much to load. This enables you determine if the price realism is being met.

The government should specify the number of hours per week or year that you estimate each instructor will use in preparation and teaching. As one of the courses, has a variable number of instructors depending on load, we recommend you have one instructor per course that is bid as an FTE. For the variable instructors, ask us to bid those as a 1099 employees, but give us a specific number of hours you estimate will be needed based on your estimate of number of courses and course load that need more than the single FTE instructor. Your estimate may not be perfectly accurate, but by giving a specific number of hours to bid for the overflow instructors, you get a fair comparison.

If you allow each bidder to make their own assumptions, you will get a higher bid to cover risk and future modifications to the contract that will almost certainly be more expensive.

The Government is not able to provide estimated instructor hours since course duration will be proposed and awarded. It will be up to each offeror to determine the most appropriate staffing plan to fulfill their proposed solution.

None

21c D Non-Labor Costs of Qualification and Advanced Courses. We recommend using a plug number for materials and any other non-labor costs of the qualification as well as advanced courses that you provide to the offerors. To reiterate, this provide a fair comparison. It will not be perfectly accurate but it allows bidders to not calculate risk and add money to cover that risk of uncertainty.

The Government will not be providing advanced courses to the offerors. Materials/non-labor costs will not be broken out our provided as a plug number.

None

22 D SECTION L AND M COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/SUGGESTIONS

Cursory Responses Section M states Statements such as “will comply,” “noted and understood,” “in accordance with best/industry practices/standards,” etc. without supporting narrative are not acceptable. Cursory responses or responses that merely reiterate or paraphrase the PWS language will not be considered to satisfy the requirements of the RFP. However, in the PWS there are a host of directives that require no explanation or “how to” guidance such as reporting lost keys, obeying post traffic laws and complying with AT level 1 training, employees having a state driver license etc.

For those type of directive statements that require a specific action that are a single directed action and have no reasonable requirement for an explanation of how to accomplish that directed action, you should expect to receive cursory

Technical subfactors do not require offerors to address every PWS paragraph in their proposal. Each subfactor includes those areas of the requirement the Government has determined most critical and discriminating for making an award decision.

Offeror’s are required to demonstrate their approach and capability through the narrative provided in their proposal.

None.

responses to ensure the proposal is compliant unless you specify that the proposer acknowledge the requirement without having to restate it.

23 D Program Manager Section M specifies the lead instructor as the only key person. Most contracts of this scope require a Program Manager (PM) that manages the administration of the contract, invoicing, reporting, recruiting, etc. Industry will apply that guidance in one of two ways. It will push the tasks onto the lead instructor, taking time he could be using for making instruction more effective, or increase the overhead cost applied to labor to cover those tasks. We recommend you identify a requirement for a PM with a cap of 520-1040 annual hours so that industry must document the time spent performing those tasks for government review.

The PWS was revised to include a requirement for a Program Manager as not to confuse the lead instructor for the PM.

PWS 4.8 has been created addressing the requirement for dedicated PM and identified alternate(s).

24 E PWS 4.1.1 Can the government please clarify if the expectation is to develop syllabi or plans of instruction?

BA TG expects contractor to develop Syllabi and POI based off of AETC-I’s that are open source/public in regards to training.

None

25 E PWS 4.2.1 How will completion of initial development of curriculum be assessed? What distinguishes initial development from enhancement? Would the government be willing to put an annual percentage cap on future curriculum enhancement?

Initial development will be assessed by our training development staff, once given an overview, and implemented the complete validation will be in accordance with AETC-I 36-2641 Chapter 11

None

26 E PWS 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3 and 4.7.4 How long is the training for each course? See question and answer #5.