Question and Answers - AFCCC Mixed Reality LIVE Simulations.pdf

FA330025Q1515

COMBO SOLICITATION

AFCCC Mixed Reality LIVE Simulations Questions and Answers

Question #1: We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services?

Answer: This is a new requirement.

Question #2: The RFP lists CLINS 0001 through 0004, are offerors to assume that the awarded contract is a one year PoP?

Answer: This requirement is for a Base Year only.

Question #3: Does the government want each Factor submitted in a separate volume or in a single volume?

Answer: All Factors should be submitted within One (1) single PDF. Any supporting documentation can be separate.

Question #4: The Evaluation Factor for Factor 1 - Technical Evaluation states that: “The evidence [of performance capabilities] could be previous contracts with accompanying Statement of Work or Performance Work Statement, company website showing where the requested technical solution has been implemented, or any other means that will validate such evidence.” How would the government like offerors to present SOWs and PWSs for previous work for to satisfy requirements of the Factor 1 – Technical Evaluation requirements in the RFP? Since each SOW/PWS could be hundreds of pages, would the government allow offerors to submit as attachments with references to those attachments in the technical approach narrative??

Answer: The Offeror can submit supporting document (i.e. PWSs and SOWs) in a separate attachment as long as the supporting documentation is referenced appropriately.

Question #5: Attachment “Provisions and Clauses” implies offerors are required to submit Representations and Certifications with their responses. Can the government confirm that offerors may attest to their Representations and Certifications being up to date on SAM.gov (provision (b) of the Provisions and Clauses attachment) within Part III – Price of their responses to satisfy this requirement??

Answer: Yes, Offerors can provide their response to their Representations and Certifications being up to date on SAM.gov (provision (b) of the Provisions and Clauses attachment) within Part III – Price of their responses to satisfy this requirement.

Question #6: As Thanksgiving is the day before submission due date, would the government please consider extending the due date to 6 December?

Answer: No extension will be given for this solicitation.

Question #7: What are the hardware requirements for this RFP? Do we need to supply the hardware for this project?

Answer: Any hardware required would be provided by the Contractor.

Question #8: Could you clarify the subcontractor clause, including the scope of work and specific requirements? Are foreign subcontractors allowed on this RFP?

Answer: Subcontracting will also fall under Buy American Act which prohibits countries of business that they can use as a subcontractor. Also, if you are subcontracting, they cannot subcontract more than 49% of the work to a large business or 60% if it is a small business. The Scope of Work and specific requirements are within the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the Request For Proposal (RFP) Document itself.

Question #9: What is the expected time frame for the completion of the entire contract? What is the time frame of the entire contract?

Answer: The answer to both questions is 365 days after the Period of Performance has begun.

Question #10: Regarding clause 3.1.1, "Provide access to simulation for simulation execution," does this imply supplying hardware or another type of interface?

Answer: Interface will depend on contractor. An example would be the use of zoom for part of the simulation.

Question #11: For the evaluation rating (TEP), will we receive the ratings before or after the contract is awarded? If we are among the top three or in a tie, will there be an opportunity to reevaluate the pricing?

Answer: The Offeror may receive the rating after the contract has been awarded and there will not be an opportunity to reevaluate pricing, so the best price should be submitted with the initial proposal.

Question #12: For clause 3.1.2, "Provide access to Immersive Learning Specialists for simulation execution," can you elaborate on what this entails and specify the requirements for Immersive Learning Specialists? Could you also give a rough estimate of the number of Immersive Learning Specialists required.

Answer: The information on Immersive Learning Specialists is within para 3.4. The amount of Immersive Learning Specialist will be up to the Contractor, but it is stated in the PWS when they are required.

Question #13: Can you clarify the requirements outlined in clause 3.4.1.3? Specifically, what is meant by "experience and ability to provide sentiment analysis"? Does this involve analyzing conversations to detect changes in empathetic tone during learning sessions and dynamically adjusting responses to achieve the desired outcomes? If so, could you elaborate on the scope, tools, or methodologies expected to fulfill this requirement?

Answer: Providing Sentiment Analysis is meant by analyzing conversations to detect changes in empathetic tone during learning sessions and dynamically adjusting responses to achieve the desired outcomes. There is not one desired method of performing sentiment analysis, that will be contingent upon the situation and conversation.

Question #14: Can you provide more details about the proof of capabilities requirement? Specifically, what type of proof is expected?

Answer: Proof of Capabilities are required for any abilities that Offeror states they have.

The best example for Proof of Capabilities are Past Performance and detailed Capability Statements, describing in detail what abilities that the Offeror posses.

Question #15: (Para) 3.1.4. – Does this refer to 5 sims that are linked to each other with reactive avatars/personnel involved in those sims or, 5 sims (autonomous of one another) being executed at the same time?

Answer: 5 simulations autonomous of one another. There can be one primary link with 5 breakout rooms connected to it.

Question #16: Para 3.2. – Can you provide an example of 1-2 different scenarios and 1-2 examples of the “background” referenced?

Answer: There are no current examples of scenarios.

Question #17: Para 3.3. – For scheduling purposes, can we utilize Calander scheduling support software vs email and phone calls?

Answer: As long as the calendar scheduling support is compatible with DoD systems and can communicate without interference.

Question #18: Will we be responsible for developing the web-based platform for connecting to the simulation platform or is there already a web-based platform in place that we’d utilize?

Answer: Dependent on the capability of the vendor, the web-based platform can be one that is already available (i.e. Zoom, Teams etc.).

Question #19: If we are responsible for the development of the web-based is there any particular desired features apart from simulation connection and execution?

Answer: No.

Question #20: Due to the application being accessed through the web is there any specific DoD cybersecurity requirements that need to be adhered to?

Answer: Some of the references can be found: DODI 8500.01, National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-53 (NIST SP 800-53), NIST 800-171, and NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0. Also reference known good cybersecurity practices.

Question #21: Regarding Scenario and Environment Design Would the ability to allow the faculty creation and editing of scenarios and avatars from already created models and functionality be beneficial?

Answer: Yes.

Question #22: Is there a timeline for support on the creation of scenarios and avatars?

Answer: The scenarios and avatars must be ready before 13 Jan 2025.

Question #23: Could you please advise whether the learning management system (LMS) will be hosted within the government’s environment or if it is expected to be hosted on the vendor's network?

Additionally, could you specify the networks that personnel will use to access this technology and outline the associated security parameters?”

Answer: The web-based platform will be hosted by the vendor (i.e. Zoom, Teams, etc) and the meeting link provided to AFCCC. Both vendor and government (AMNET) will use their respective networks.

Question #24: Is the Virtual Avatar Laboratory an existing program with an asset library?

Answer: No program currently exists.

Question #25: If so, what is the gaming engine used – Unreal or Unity?

Answer: N/A.

Question #26: Is the intent for the AFCCC to engage in the training via a VR headset? If so, is there a preferred hardware vendor? Meta Quest, HTC VIVE, etc?

Answer: Government will utilize current equipment which is smartboards.

Question #27: Is there interest in developing AI driven avatars in order to scale access to training and augment the use of human in the loop actors?

Answer: No, AI was utilized in the past with a previous requirement that was similar and did not produce the outcomes required by the Government.

Question #28: Is there a current baseline system in use for web conferencing and for the mixed reality live training?

Answer: Other requirements currently utilize Zoom Government.

Question #29: Are there existing 3D assets, environment and scenarios in current use for this project?

Answer: No.

Question #30: Is there an existing scheduling platform in use? Will this project require integration into the existing scheduling tool?

Answer: As long as the calendar scheduling support is compatible with DoD systems and can communicate without interference.

Question #31: If there is an existing platform in use for this program, will the awarded vendor be provided access to the existing platform, code and 3D assets?

Answer: N/A.

Question #32: Will the awarded vendor be responsible for recruiting, training and sourcing actors for the simulations?

Answer: Yes.

Question #33: Will all simulation training take place onsite at the AFCCC facilities, or is training distributed across AF Chaplains CONUS/OCONUS?

Answer: The simulation training will take place at the AFCCC facilities. The vendor does not need to be on site to conduct the training. They would only need to provide the simulation training through the use of Zoom-Government, Teams or a different video conferencing platform where the avatar will be used for the training. They can communicate with AFCCC through a phone call for coordination before the training.

They should be able to pause a scenario as needed during training.

Question #34: Approximately how many existing scenarios will the contractor receive after contract start-up?

Answer: The RFQ has a Quantity of 2 for CLIN 0002 (Scenario Design – New) which is the amount that is currently required. AFCCC require the contractor to work with them to develop the scenarios.

Question #35: Does the 36-hour timeline in PWS 3.2.1 refer to developing a new scenario, or modifying an existing scenario? If it is for developing a new scenario, request the Government extend this to 5 workdays.

Answer: Negative, this is for both creating and modifying new scenarios.

Question #36: Can the Government quantify the typical amount of time (in days or weeks) the contractor will have to develop a new scenario and to modify an existing one when the requirements are not expedited per PWS 3.2?

Answer: These timelines are based on course scheduling and course feedback. AFCCC requires the quick turn to adapt to necessary real world circumstances and changes.

Question #37: Request the Government clarify the phrases “Mixed Reality Live Simulation” and “Lab Simulation Session” as described in PWS 3.0 and 7.0:

a. Does one MR Live Simulation mean one-student engaging one-avatar?

Answer: Yes, it is one student engaging one role-play actor represented by an avatar. The actor is important so that we dialog with and the contractor can adapt in real-time to provide the experience necessary for each student.

Question #38: Does one Lab Simulation Session refer to one (1) or more MR Live Simulations conducted in a 2-to-5–hour window of time.

Answer: In a one hour session we have approximately 3 students each go through an individual scenario.

Question #39: During a single Lab Simulation Session must the contractor be capable of delivering up to five (5) MR Live Simulations at the same time (PWS 3.1.4)? We ask this question because PWS 3.1.4 says “up to five MR Live Simulations”, while the third row of the table in PWS 7.0 says “five … lab sessions.”.

Answer: Classroom size fluctuates from course to course, we need to be able to have up to 5 rooms going at the same time to accommodate our largest classroom sizes.

Question #40: Is there a requirement to conduct more than one Lab Simulation Session at the same time (e.g., up to 5 concurrent Lab Simulation Sessions, each with up to 5 simultaneous MR Live Simulations)?

Answer: Yes we need 5 rooms going at the same time to accommodate course scheduling and to accommodate our class sizes.

Question #41: In the count of 132 simulations does the Government anticipate a need for any students to repeat a scenario to generate data for measuring student progress, or is the intent solely for 132 simulations across 132 different students? If a student repeats a scenario, is the vendor required to provide a different live avatar/actor for that student?

Answer: Depending on cost, class size, and student progression it might be required for a student to go through a scenario again. New avatars/actors will provide the reset necessary for the student to experience the same issue with a different person.

Question #42: Do any of the existing scenarios call for one student to engage multiple avatars together?

Answer: There are currently no Scenarios that the Government owns that can be utilized within this requirement.

Question #43: To provide context for the pace of Lab Simulation Sessions, can the Government provide a table that maps a portion of the 132 total simulations to the AFCCC FY25 Academic Course Schedule?

Answer: The schedule is subject to change but we will provide to the Contractor once awarded. We anticipate on average 3 students an hour or about 15 minutes per scenario with the actor/avatar.

Question #44: Will the government provide a longer turnaround time for any new simulations requested to be completed concurrently?

Answer: No. The time is based on class size and course schedule.

Question #45: Would AFCCC consider partnering with the contractor to develop a framework for measuring both initial engagement and the long-term impact of these simulations on skill development and retention? Such a framework could provide actionable insights to align outcomes with mission-critical objectives.

Answer: AFCCC is willing to consider at a later time.

A total of 45 questions were received in response to this solicitation as of November 22nd, 2024