Round_1_Q&As_FA3002-18-R-0018_SW_IQC_15Nov18.pdf

FA3002-18-R-0018 – SPECIAL WARFARE (SW) INSTRUCTOR QUALIFICATION COURSES (IQC)

Round 1 Question and Answers

# Contractor Question/Comment Government Response Action

1 What equivalent experience will the government except for personnel qualifications instructor's bachelors degree?

There will be no equivalent for degree requirements.

No change.

2 Is the ongoing instructor effort currently conducted by government or contract personnel?

This is a first time requirement. There is no ongoing effort.

No change.

3 How many instructors are currently teaching the courses? See answer to #2. No change.

4 What is the historical workload for each course and is that expected to increase, decrease or maintain the same?

See answer to #2. No change.

5 Will the current Audio Visual equipment and Training Aids available to the awardee?

See answer to #2. As paragraph 6.4.1. of the PWS states, the Government will furnish the required ADPE and applications software necessary for course facilitation as proposed in the technical proposal.

No change.

6 Background: PWS Appendix B states Contract Lead Instructor and Contract instructors must be “Experienced (three to four years) Instructor / Instructor

Supervisor in special operations community, and at least 10 years of SW or special operator experience with similar competencies.” Many SW operators leave active duty SW/special operator positions and have less than 10 years of experience however may have instructor credentials and additional professional experienced gained from contract instruction or training specialist roles. Also some operators may only possess an associate’s degree or a CCAF.

Question: Will the government accept a former operator with formal instructor experience and a mix of operational experience and professional experience equaling 10 years but less than 10 years of total mil service? In addition will the government accept a candidate with an associate degree or

CCAF per AFI 36-2648 Community College of the Air Force/ 2.12. Air

Education Training Command and the Air Force Personnel Center. Air

Education and Training Command in conjunction with Air Force Personnel

Center shall assign enlisted Airmen to instructor duty at affiliated schools in accordance with AFI 36-2110, Assignments. Civilian and contractor hires are at the discretion of the school; however, these faculty members shall meet the same degree and qualification requirements as military faculty.

Contract Lead Instructor and Contract Instructor qualification requirements are in line with needs of the Government for this requirement. They will remain unchanged.

No change.

Background: CLIN 0007 lists Initial Curriculum Development for all courses and states that scheduled payments will be invoiced and approved only after the Government provides clearance to proceed after each in-process curriculum development review meeting (25/50/75 and 100%). The pricing model seems to imply that all four courses are priced the same as the

Government is asking for a Quantity of four and a Unit of Each. The four

The Initial Curriculum Development CLIN will remain unchanged. The intent of this CLIN is provide a form of progress payments to assist with the cost of developing all four courses. The 25/50/75 and 100% review meetings function as check points to ensure progress is continuing as planned and agreed to.

No change.

courses vary in length and complexity and will need to be priced differently from one another.

Question: Will the Government please treat curriculum development for the four courses as four separate CLINs?

8 Background: PWS 4.7 provides estimates for the number of times each course is conducted per year, +/- 25%. An increase of 25% represents a very large increase in the amount of labor provided by the contractor. For example, one extra SW-IQC course (a 25% increase over the estimated 4 course occurrences per year) requires an extra 3 instructors that must be paid over the entire length of the course (up to a combined 18 weeks of additional payment). This represents a very large risk, especially for a Small

Business set-aside contract.

Question: Will the Government please revise the PWS to provide fixed numbers of course occurrences, with any additional courses accomplished through contract modification?

See change. PWS paragraphs 4.7, 4.7.1,1, 4.7.2.1, 4.7.3.1, and

4.7.4.1 were revised to remove the +/- 25%.

9 Background: PWS 4.7.2.3 states: “Travel will be necessary from the primary location to support the required courses at other stations. The best estimate for performance at each location is listed below. The number of classes held at each location may change.”

Question: Will travel to Kirtland AF and Pope AAF for the IQRC be billable to

CLIN X006, or should these travel costs be included in CLIN X003?

All travel will be on CLIN X006 (now X002). No change. NOTE: Travel CLIN numbering changed from X006 to X002 with Amendment 0001.

10 Background: PWS Appendix F estimates the Curriculum Sustainment, Enhancement, Adjustment, and Urgent Changes workload as 40 hours annually.

Question: Does the 40 hours reference hours of labor per course (for a total of 160 across all four courses), or for all courses combined? If combined, how are the 40 hours allocated between courses (e.g., 10 hours per course)?

Are the 40 hours annually all the contract labor hours that can be charged on this CLIN or is the 40 hours the hours of courseware that needs to be enhanced, adjusted, etc.?

The estimate is 40 hours total for all four courses. No change.

Background: CLINs 0001-0005 cover a period of performance of six months for the base year.

Question: Should the course totals for these six months be treated as half the annual estimate from PWS 4.7 and Appendix F (20 hours of Curriculum

Enhancement, 2 SW-IQC, 6 SW-IQRC, 2 SW-TSQC, and 3 SW-AIC)?

Yes, the course totals for the first six months (now CLIN 0001) of full performance should take into account half the estimated number of course occurrences – 2 SW-IQC, 6 SW-IQRC, etc. Regarding curriculum enhancement/etc., the estimate of 40 hours would apply to the six months of performance.

No change. NOTE: CLINs 0001-0005 were combined into one FFP CLIN, CLIN 0001 per Amendment 0001.

12 Background: RFP Section M states that “This is a competitive, best value, subjective tradeoff source selection, in which competing offeror’s Technical

Proposal will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations.” Section L.3.2 provides in part, “For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks.” Frequently, solicitations that allow for a best value, subjective tradeoff source selection also review offerors’ and subcontractors’ past performance to allow the

Government a fact-based and impartial source of data (such as PPIRS and

CPARS) to assess risk and rate the Government’s confidence in the ability to perform the contract as proposed, including factors such as timeliness, quality, management, etc.

Question: Will the Government consider adding past performance relevance and confidence as evaluation factors?

An evaluation factor for past performance will not be added. Past performance will be reviewed as a part of the contracting officer’s responsibility determination of the prospective awardee.

No change.

13 Background: RFP L.3.2.1.2 requires discussion of digital classroom technology in unorthodox training environments, including training tank areas, field training areas, physical fitness/human performance training areas and standard classrooms.

Question: Can the Government please specify to what extent wireless internet access for students and instructors will be available, not available but allowable (e.g., via mobile hotspot), or disallowed in each of these areas?

Landline internet will be available in standard classrooms. Special Warfare (SW) is exploring the idea of wireless in all location.

No change.

14 Section 4.14 of the PWS states that the COR will work to navigate student load in an effort to minimize/avoid course overlapping to the maximum extent practicable, and Section L.3.2.1.1 states that offerors will "Clearly define the notional schedule/agenda to include design rationale in relation to Appendix D."

However, any overlapping or concurrent classes may be part of the Offeror's approach to developing a notional schedule. Will Offerors be evaluated as significantly higher risk if the notional schedule includes overlapping courses? If the Government accepts the notional schedule developed by the Offeror but makes changes prior to contract start, will the Government issue contract change proposals to accommodate these changes, or would these changes to the schedule be considered within the scope of the contract?

The COR will provide the annual course schedule per PWS paragraph 4.14. Offerors are required to provide a schedule/agenda (facilitation hours, etc.)

for each class.

No change.

15 Section 4.7.2.3 of the PWS states the primary location for instructors will be JBSA-Lackland, Texas for the SW-IQRC and that travel will be necessary from the primary location to support the required courses at other stations. The other courses all state that the performance will be a JBSA-Lackland, Texas and that any to location will be considered in scope and require a

As stated under PWS paragraph 4.16, “When the Government requires the contractor to travel during performance of this contract, the contractor will be reimbursed for actual travel costs incurred.”

No change. NOTE: Travel CLIN numbering changed from X006 to X002 with Amendment 0001.

modification. Does the Government want potential bidders to price travel for the SW-IQRC in the FFP CLINs 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, and 4003 or will any travel needed for the SW-IQRC be billable against the CR Travel CLINs 0006, 1006, 2006, 3006, and 4006?

All travel expenses IAW 4.16 will be paid via the Travel CLIN which is cost reimbursable.

16 Section 4.7.2.3 of the PWS references travel to projected locations. Based on this uncertainty the Government should provide plug figures for the CR Travel CLINs 0006, 1006, 2006, 3006, and 4006 for purposes of evaluating the Total Evaluated Price.

Since travel is cost reimbursable under CLIN X002 (was X006 prior to Amendment 0001), it will not be included in offerors’ Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

Only FFP amounts will be included in TEP.

No change.

17 Section 4.1 of the PWS states that the foundation of all curriculum shall be based upon the training standards located in Appendix D; Section 4.2 of the PWS states that during mobilization the contractor shall develop, in partnership with the Air Force, curriculum, as outlined in this PWS; RFP Section L.3.2.3.1 states the Offeror will provide a detailed plan with "internal milestones as well as formal reviews with Government participation for the kick-off meeting, 25/50/75 and 100% complete briefiends/milestones as well as courseware validation."

Offeror requests that the Government define the extent of the partnership with the Air Force, as well as its level of involvement in the review/curriculum development process? How much course content, if any, does the Government currently have available that the successful Offeror may use to develop course curriculum? Does the Air Force have content from other courses that will be expected to be used in the development of the SW IQC curriculum? Will there be any SOF SMEs comprising the Government team or curriculum reviewers, or will SOF SMEs be 100% contractor provided?

The COR will provide oversight and approval at the 25/50/75/100. The government does not have content from other courses. SOF SMEs will be provided by the contractor. The partnership is based on the relationship with the COR and the curriculum reviews.

No change.

18 There is a requirement for the Program Manager to be on-site at JBSA- Lackland, Texas. This same requirement does not appear for the Instructors.

The only requirement is that the vast majority of courses performance will be at JBSA-Lackland, Texas. Does the Government want the instructors to be on-site at JBSA-Lackland, Texas as well?

Primary for instructors is JBSA-Lackland. Reference PWS paragraphs 4.7.1.3, 4.7.2.3, 4.7.3.3, and 4.7.4.3.

No change.

19 RFP Section L.3.2.1.2 asks offerors to "describe how digital classroom technology will be fused with up to date learning methods in unorthodox learning environments." Can the Government please explain its expectations for digital classroom technology with regard to the execution of this contract?

The Government is looking for offerors to propose an approach for fusing digital classroom technology with up to date learning methods for unorthodox learning environments.

No change.

Reference Pricing Model for base year. The RFP Identifies CLIN 0008 as (6) MO; can you confirm that the quantity and unit requested in the pricing model of (1) LOT is equivalent to 6 months?

The mobilization period is six months. RFP Attachment 2, Pricing Model, now reflects a unit of Month and quantity of six. NOTE: CLIN numbering for mobilization has changed from CLIN 0008 to CLIN 0004 per Amendment 0001.

21 Reference PWS Sections 4.7.1, 4.7.3, and 4.7.4. Would pre and post course assignments/requirements be included in the 6 week maximum?

Pre and post work is included in the length of the course.

22 Reference PWS Sections 4.9.2 and 4.10. Is there a difference between "Contract Instructors" and "Instructor Role"? Can you confirm that these two sections are referring to the same personnel?

PWS Section 4.10 is not specific to only contract instructor positions. Performance requirements of this section could be fulfilled by contractor personnel other than instructors. For example, one sentence in 4.10 states, “Contractor shall provide and maintain a plan for contract instructor development to ensure effective instruction is maintained…” This could be fulfilled by the lead instructor or program manager.

No change.

23 Reference PWS Section 5.0. Should/Will the billing schedule be developed based on deliverable due dates or monthly progress or another structure? This will help to articulate the financial resources and plan based on the barriers, requirements, and available financial resources for Small Businesses.

Billing for CLINs X001 (formerly X001-X005) will be monthly. After a full month of performance is completed, an invoice can be submitted.

No change.

24 Reference RFP Section L.3.2.1.1. Much of Appendix D – SW Course Training Standards; seem be a Rubric based on Bloom’s Taxonomy principles, is this the preferred foundational instructional methodology of the Government?

It is assumed the Bloom's taxonomy referenced here is the one covering the cognitive domain and not the psychomotor or affective domains (Bloom's team has a taxonomy covering each of the 3 learning domains). Alignment of learning objectives, content, and measurement will be done using the AF's proficiency code key (PCK) as found in AFI 36-2201/PWS Appendix D. For subject and task knowledge, the PCK uses Bloom's cognitive taxonomy as its foundation. However, the PCK expands on Bloom's to also cover psychomotor learning. The PCK is part of IQC course content.

No change.

25 Reference RFP Section L.3.2.1.2. Will the Government identify their preferred LMS system and software used for training and development?

The government will not identify a preferred system.

No change.

26 Reference RFP Section L.3.2.1.2. Can they provide insights into the type of digital learning environments they want to create so we can assess the types of technology we will need to incorporate to work (migrate) effectively and efficiently with their current technology? For example; Gaming environments, branching scenarios with live videos where the characters speak to the learner?

The government will not provide any insight. It is up to offerors to describe how digital classroom technology will be fused with up to date learning methods in unorthodox learning environments.

No change.

27 Referring back to the question related to RFP Section L.3.2.1.1 (#24); in order to best meet the goals of the Government, the use of Bloom’s Taxonomy can provide a good foundation for alignment of the curriculum to practical and theoretical evaluation of the learning outcomes and learner proficiency.

Do they want to incorporate Passive and Participatory learning methods?

Instructional methodologies such as: self-directed learning incorporating behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, connectivism.

Learning styles, and Knowle’s 4 principles of Andragogy.

It is assumed this is a question about instructional methods, not learning methods. By definition, learning is not passive. Learners must engage with the material actively to learn, to secure enduring changes of behavior or cognition. In terms of instructional methods, the government wants the learning design (i.e., selection of methods) to support the potential for learning. This requires analysis of the learning situation to determine the

Kolb’s Model; incorporating Tasks and Mental Process into 4 learning types:

Feeling and sensing, watching, thinking, and doing.

Ultimately – will the contractor have the freedom to incorporate a variety of learning and instructional methodologies to support learner proficiency?

And will this be broken down into:

· Instructional Design

· Media Design and Story Boards

· QA Review

· Prototype QA within LMS

· Go Live Date optimal method to teach the content in the given situation to increase the potential for learning.

The CTS is as written.

The selection of instructional methods always depends on the analysis of the instructional situation with the explicit goal of increasing the potential for learning.

28 Reference PWS Section 4.13. The PWS references simulators as a tool, but not specific to which and if any would be made available. Will the Advanced

Joint Terminal Attack Control System (AJTS) at Randolph/JBSA be available for our use? And if so, will we have access to currently developed scenarios to tailor towards the Insctructor courses?

The AJTS will not be made available. No change.

29 Is this a new requirement of a recompete? If it is a recompete who is the incumbent and what is contract number?

Reference response to #2. No change.

30 PWS Section 4.0 says refer to Appendix F for workload estimates but Appendix F only states 40 hours annually. Is this correct that the only workload requirements for the entire section 4.0 is 40 hours annually or should this be 40 hours weekly?

40 hours annually. No change.

31 Reference PWS Section 4.5. Is there a maximum amount of workload for this section as it currently seems like a very open ended requirement.

Urgent changes are included in the 40 hours. No change.

32 Reference PWS Section 4.8. During the mobilization period if the Curriculum Development is being done offsite at the contract facility does the PM still need to be onsite during this period or can he be onsite during reviews and onsite at the end of mobilization?

The program manager does not need to be onsite (JBSA-Lackland) during curriculum development.

Revised PWS paragraph 4.8.1.

33 Reference PWS Section 4.10. This is an unclassified contract but in section

4.10 it states operational lessons. Can this contract be changed to requiring a facility clearance and cleared instructor personnel so classified operational lessons can be delivered?

This will remain unclassified. No change.

34 Reference PWS paragraph 4.11.2. In this section the term Contract and Alternate Contract Manager is used are these the same as the Program Manager or are these to be considered different people?

Contract Manager should be Program Manager. Revised PWS paragraph 4.11.2

35 Reference PWS Section 4.14. In this section it states COR will navigate student load in an effort to minimize/avoid course overlapping. Is this overlapping between similar courses (example is SW-IQC class 1 and class 2) or is this overlapping between different courses (example is SW-IQC class 1 and SW-AIC class 1)?

The same type of course will never be overlapped.

Overlapping refers to two different courses.

No change.

36 Reference PWS Section 4.16. In this section it references travel for SW-IQC but in section 4.7.2 it reference travel under SW-IQRC and all of the other

This is referring to all travel IAW 4.16. Revised PWS paragraph 4.16 for clarity.

courses will require a contract modification. Will the government please clarify the travel requirements for each course as it will affect staffing?

37 Reference PWS Appendix B. Is the requirement for every contract instructor to have a Bachelors Degree or is there an experience in leu of degree. Many enlisted SOF personnel have not had the opportunity while on active duty to attend college and have chosen deployments and experience over that option. We recommend 5 years SOF experience in leu of degree.

See response to #6. No change.

38 Reference PWS Appendix F. The annual workload is for 40 hours annually but that does not match the pricing model or the requirements in the PWS will the government please clarify?

See change. Attachment 2, Pricing Model, and Schedule B of the solicitation were updated to combine curriculum enhancement/etc with course instruction and management. Appendix F of the PWS remains unchanged.

39 Reference RFP Attachment 2. There is a requirement for a PM but the pricing model does not provide an allocated location to account for this key personnel. Will the government provide instruction on where or how they would like us to price the PM as either blended across all courses or in the Curriculum Enhancement CLIN for each year.

See change. Program Management should be rolled into the new CLIN X001 for Course Instruction, Management, and Sustainment.

40 Reference RFP Attachment 2. The pricing model shows each course independent but the qty and unit in the spreadsheet does not match the PWS qty and unit. Can the government please clarify what the expectation is for pricing. An example is AIC is 36 total weeks (6 annually x 6 weeks) is the expectation for these instructors to be full time year round employees even though there is 16 weeks unused. By having each course broken out is the expectation to invoice in WAWF by CLIN even if a course is not going? This eliminates the cross usage and leveling of instructors can the government please clarify?

See change. All courses were combined into the new CLIN X001 for Course Instruction, Management, and Sustainment.

41 Reference RFP Attachment 2. Initial Curriculum Development in the Pricing Model states 4 mobilization but PWS section 3.0 states 6 months. Can the government please clarify?

See response to #7. No change.

42 Reference RFP Attachment 2. If the four courses are not yet developed, what is the expectation on pricing an undeveloped and not yet approved curriculum or program? Will the government be conducting a mod after Mobilization based off any adjustments required? Is the pricing only for labor and not for materials, simulations, role players etc that may be developed during the mobilization/curriculum development period?

Recommend that a CR (CPFF) CLIN be added with a plug number that can be utilized as required based off the approved curriculum for each course.

See response to #7. All projected expenses for the first six months of contract performance should be captured under FFP CLINS 0003 and 0004.

No change.

43 Reference RFP Section L. In Section L.4 it states “All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the Price volume (Volume III/Factor III). Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal.”

See response to #44. No change.

Price is Volume II and Factor 2 will the government please clarify where they want this information placed in the proposal volumes.

44 Section L.3.2.2.1 states:

Provide a staffing 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

However Section L 4.1 states that:

All data relating to the proposed price, including all required supporting documentation, must be included in the Price volume (Volume III/Factor III).

Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal

QUESTION: Personnel salaries directly relate to the proposed price. Should they be included in the Technical Volume / Staffing Section as required by L 3.2.2.1?

Offeror’s shall include salary breakout for all planned instructor personnel in the technical volume.

The statement “Under no circumstances shall this data and documentation be included elsewhere in the proposal” refers to data supporting required documents outlined (a-j) in L.4.1.