FA4890-12-R-0002 Q A_1 May 12.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 27 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 57th Weapons School CAT/CWD
- Solicitation number
- FA4890-12-R-0002
About this file
UPDATED Q A SHEET
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| FA4890-12-R-0002-0001.doc | DOC document | |
| Attachment 2 - Pre-proposal Conference Slides.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - Pre-Proposal Conference Attendees.pdf | ||
| Pre-Proposal Conference Site Visit Meeting Minutes.doc | DOC document | |
| Contractor Taught Classes.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| WS Style Guide Atch to PWS.doc | DOC document | |
| FA4890-12-R-0002 Q A as of 17 Apr 12.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Atch 1 - PWS dtd 16 Apr 12.doc | DOC document | |
| Atch 2 - Draft DD254.pdf | ||
| FINAL RFP 17 Apr 12.doc | DOC document | |
| Atch 4 - Weapons School CBA.pdf | ||
| Atch 3 - DoL WD - CBA-2011-4374.pdf | ||
| DRAFT - FA4890-12-R-0002.pdf | ||
| Q A_23 March 2012.pdf | ||
| DRAFT - WS PWS 21 Mar 2012.pdf | ||
| DRAFT - PWS Atch 1 Style Guide.pdf | ||
| DRAFT - WS PWS 02 Mar 12.pdf | ||
| DRAFT - PWS Atch 1 Style Guide.pdf | ||
| DRAFT - FA4890-12-R-0002.pdf |
Show all 19
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| QUESTION | RESPONSE | |
| 1 | PWS para 1.6.5 Courseware Deliverables / Materials states: The contractor shall develop and produce the courseware materials in the format prescribed and agreed to in the style guide. The courseware includes the following: Lesson Strategy Report, Course Syllabus, Syllabus Review Report, Phase Manual, Lesson Overview, Lesson Plan, Simulator Lesson Plan, Lesson Presentation Package, Instructor Guide, Lesson Study Guide, Student Handbooks, Test Package, and Courseware Revision Summary Report. | |
| a. Request the Government clarify “Develop” Course Syllabus in this context as there are no “New” workloads required for syllabi in PWS Appendix 1, except for WR magazine. | A1.3.7.3 CWD WORKLOAD FY13-FY17 Tables new column account for what new materials that will be required to be developed. You are correct there are no new syllabi to be developed in the PWS just revised or reviewed. However, workload tables show a representative amount of new, revised and reviewed products. These numbers may be adjusted to meet the needs of the customer in the annual courseware delivery schedule, but the specific deliverables will not exceed the new lesson equivalent totals. | |
| b. Also, please verify workloads for Simulator Lesson Plans will be addressed in a contract modification vice this proposal? | Simulator lesson plans will not be required as those have been removed from the PWS. | |
| c. Please verify the same for para 1.7.1.2 Training System Media Chart, under “Training Devices,” as there are no training device workloads required in this PWS. | There is no training device workload required in this PWS at this time. | |
| 2 | PWS para 1.7.6 USAFWS Academic/Training Database states: The contractor shall be responsible for the USAFWS academic/training database. The database shall provide an internet based Courseware Management System and electronic grade book that identifies and tracks student deficiencies, tracks sortie/mission effectiveness, provides graduate critiques, and serves as the primary source for all instructor/staff academic and courseware needs. Does the Government intend the contractor simply use the USAFWS system for these purposes? | "The USAFWS Academic/Training Database" is not a Government system, it is contractor-furnished. The database has this name to differentiate the requirement as supporting the USAFWS only, and not other 57 WG agencies. PWS para 1.7.6 has been changed to clarify the contractor's responsibility. |
| 3 | PWS para 1.7.7.2 Instructor Training, Certification, Qualification, De-Certification, Retraining and Re-Certification states: Grand-fathering certification/qualification for previously certified/qualified employees shall be at the discretion of the TQAP’s. Can the Government provide an approximate number of personnel who will be grandfathered since this affects recruiting, hiring, training and placement costs for the contractor? | No. All proposed employees (incumbent or new) will have their resumes reviewed IAW PWS para 4.4.1 and the decision on grandfathering of qualifications will be made as part of this review. |
| 4 | PWS para 3.4.2 Equipment Maintenance states: The Government will provide all maintenance of the training equipment, audio, visual, and instructional equipment. Will the government provide maintenance to the Contractor’s servers and computers used on-site by the instructors? | No. Maintenance of CFE is the contractor's responsibility. |
| 5 | PWS para 4.8.5 Briefing Room Interactive (BRI): Does development of BRI become a contractor responsibility, perhaps on other programs that are classified and at other sites than Nellis AFB? There are very little workloads under ICW/CBT in PWS para A1.3.7.3.1 USAF Weapons School FY 13 through FY 17. If so, is there a dedicated individual and specialized, stand-alone type computers required for development, review and updates? | There is no BRI in use at WS. Para 4.8.5. deleted |
| 6 | PWS para 1.6.1 states: Courseware materials will support formal course programs and CT programs, and may be used for resident and non-resident training. Does the Government intend that the contractor will develop, produce, update and distribute various MDS training courseware to the Combat Air Forces? | Yes, per PWS para 1.7.6.2 all WS courseware will be made available to graduates world wide and PWS, para 4.5, the Government has unlimited rights to any deliverables. |
| 7 | PWS Table A1.3.7.3.4.7: AFSOF U-28 WIC lists a requirement of 1.5 for new Handbooks and 1.5 for a new Phase Manual. Does the .5 represent a revision of a portion of a Handbook/Phase Manual? | Tables for the U-28 have been corrected to remove the decimals |
| 8 | PWS para 1.5.3.10 states: When required, perform as flight evaluation board or mishap (i.e., safety and/or accident) investigation board. (i.e., safety and/or accident) investigation board witness. Will the government confirm that this travel will be government funded? | If the government directs travel under these circumstances then the government will pay for this type of travel. |
| 9 | PWS para A1.4.2 states: As a minimum the contactor shall travel to support training at non-collocated bases. Will the Pre-Proposal Conference describe these various locations? If not, will the Government provide contractors the locations along with the expected number of trips per year? | Yes non collocated sites will be addressed at the preproposal conference |
| 10 | PWS para A2.1.1 GENERAL INFORMATION: As there are no syllabi listed for the U-28, does the Government intend for the contractor to develop, revise and review the syllabi? Also, since Para 1.6.5 and 1.7.1.2 call for development and review of syllabi, is the contractor responsible for development? Workloads only call for “Review” except for the WR magazine. | U-28 syllabi are currently under development and should be in-place in the event this option is exercised. |
| 11 | Is there a current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)? If so, will the Government provide the most recent CBA? | Yes, the most current CBA was posted to FBO with the Draft RFP |
| 12 | PWS para 1.5.1 states: If training devices are added, instructor duties will include providing Air Force or contract maintenance personnel with event data to transform training device events into software format for entry into the training device. Does the Government intend the CAT/CWD contractor to develop TIC/ Scenario Generation / mission files for the training devices or to perform as an SME? | While there is no current requirement for Training Device instruction in the PWS it may be added in the future. In this case the PWS would not require ScenGen or TIC files as those are provided under another MTC contract. |
| 13 | PWS para 1.1 SCOPE OF WORK states: The contract may be modified in the future to include additional crew positions and training. Does the Government intend the contract may be modified for additional MDS’s as well, so as not to artificially limit the scope of the contract? | Yes if it is determined that new MDS's need to be added to this contract then the contract will be modified. The Government has included expected new MDSs as optional CLINs and revised PWS para 1.1.1. to reflect the potential to add new weapon systems to the contract. |
| 14 | PWS para A1.3.7.3 CWD WORKLOAD FY13-17: The USAFWS and optional CLINs Instructor Led Lesson Packages (ILLP) total of 752.6 New Lesson Equivalents (NLE) appears extremely high. Applying current industry averages for ILLP development will result in a very large CWD team. Can you confirm that 752.6 NLEs is the correct Government ILLP workload estimate? | NLEs in the PWS are correct. Contractors will have the opportunity to review courseware at the pre-proposal conference and draw their own conclusions on the application of "industry averages" to USAFWS courseware development. |
| 15 | PWS para A1.3.7.3.1 through A1.3.7.3.3 lists the estimated CWD effort for the USAF Weapons School: The total annual Instructor Led Lesson Package (ILLP) effort for the USAFWS and UAS/F-22 is 642 lessons. The total contractor taught lessons per course for the USAFWS and UAS/F-22 WICs (para A1.2.1 through A1.2.3) is 342. This leaves an additional 300 lessons requiring contractor CWD (including I/SME expertise). To adequately staff our CWD team can you provide a summary of the types of additional lessons (including weapon system and classification) we can expect to develop, revise and/or review? | Referenced tables have been modified. The contractor builds courseware to support any syllabus listed in the PWS. That courseware is taught by both contract instructors and active-duty instructors. There is not a numerical relationship between classroom lessons taught by contractors and courseware developed. |
| 16 | PWS para A1.3.7.3.1 USAF Weapons School FY 13 through FY 17: The data in both Courseware Development Tables is identical except for the titles. Will the data in either of the tables change? | Referenced FY13 table has been changed and prorated for a 10 month base year. Data for FY14-17 is correct. |
| 17 | PWS para 1.1.6.4 USAF WEAPONS REVIEW MAGAZINE states: A Weapons Review webpage will be maintained for posting of partial or complete WR editions on unclassified Local Area Network or Secure Protocol Routing Network. Who is responsible for maintaining the webpage? | Correct PWS reference should be para 1.6.6.4. The contractor shall maintain the Weapons Review website. |
| 18 | PWS para 1.7.1.2 Training System Media Chart:There is no training device workload identified (PWS para 1.5.1) at this time. Should “Training Devices,” in the Training System Media Chart either be removed or annotated “if required” as is done for the BRI in same chart? | Training device requirements removed from Training System Media Chart |
| 19 | PWS para 1.7.6 USAFWS Academic/Training Database states: The contractor shall be responsible for the USAFWS academic/training database. The database shall provide an internet based Courseware Management System and electronic grade book that identifies and tracks student deficiencies, tracks sortie/mission effectiveness, provides graduate critiques, and serves as the primary source for all instructor/staff academic and courseware needs. Does the Government intend the contractor simply use the current USAFWS Academic/Training Database for these purposes? | The USAFWS Academic/Training Database is not a Government furnished system, it is contractor-furnished. PWS paragraph 1.7.6 has been modified. |
| 20 | PWS para 4.2.3 Personnel Security Clearances states: “One complete courseware development team (i.e. Instructional Developer, Education Technologist, Graphic Artist, and/or other specialties required for CWD) will also require TS/SCI and SAP.” How much of the courseware is classified and how much unclassified? How much of the graphical material is of a classified nature? | The courseware break out is roughly 25% unclassified, 65% Secret, 5% Top Secret and 5% SAR. |
| 21 | PWS para A1.4.2 states: As a minimum the contactor shall travel to support training at non-collocated bases. Will the Pre-Proposal Conference describe these various locations? If not, will the Government provide contractors the locations along with the expected number of trips per year? | Yes non collocated sites will be addressed at the preproposal conference. |
| 22 | General: Does ACC want the TWMP workload broken out by the PWS individual CLINS or may we combine the workloads into WS, WIC, Optional (or similar format)? | Do not combine workloads. Build your TWMP based on current PWS workload. |
| 23 | General: Numerous references are made to CBT development but the only workload assigned to them is in the optional CLINS (PWS A1.3.7.3.10). Are there current CBTs in use? If so, are they SCORM-conformant to work with a Learning Management System? | OLD RESPONSE: The only CBTs required support the 57 ATG optional CLIN. The question concerning SCORM compliance is still undetermined. REVISED RESPONSE: CBT workload has been removed from the PWS. Any references to ICW/CBT retained apply to future use if required. |
| 24 | Reference RFP, Page 92, Paragraph 10.1. Proposals shall be prepared in three (3) separate and distinct volulmes: Vol I – Price – Mission Capability, and Vol III – Past Performance Information. However, Paragraph 10.5, Copies and Page Limit lists the volumes as: Vol I – Past Performance, Vol II – Mission Capability, and Vol III – Price. Please clarify. | The RFP has been changed, the correct order is Volume I: Price, Volume 2: Mission Capability, and Volume 3: Past Performance. |
| 25 | Reference RFP, Page 96, Paragraph E, Subparagraph 1: "Submit one (1) sheet for each contract reference to include an overview..." Does "one (1) sheet" mean the past/present performance description is limited to one (1) page? | 1 "sheet" means front and back or 2 pages. |
| 26 | Reference RFP, Page 96, Paragraph F, Subparagraph 1: "Submit one (1) sheet for each contract reference to include an overview..." Does "one (1) sheet" mean the subcontractor/teaming partner/joint venture partner is limited to one (1) page? | 1 "sheet" means front and back or 2 pages. |
| 27 | Reference RFP, Page 107, Addendum to 52.212-2, paragraph 3.0, Sentence 7:"Proposal will be ranked by Price, from lowest to highest." Will Phase-In be included in this ranking? | Yes, please reference Section 7, Evaluation Factors for Award, par. 4.1 Factor 1 - Price. |
| 28 | Reference RFP, Page 107, Addendum to 52.212-2, paragraph 4.1: In order to level the playing field for non-incumbents, will the Government consider excluding a limited amount of contractor furnished equipment such as new computers and servers from the overall cost evaluation? | No, incumbents are also provided the opportunity to provide updated contractor furnished equipment and incude these in the overall cost proposal. |
| 29 | Reference RFP, page 108, paragraph 4.3; and Draft PWS, Page 46, Appendix 2, Para A2.1.1—latter paragraph presents a list of syllabi used at the Weapons School and other support units (AGOS, 57 ATG). In order to level the playing field for non-incumbents, will the Government provide all WIC syllabi and course schedules (to show start and end dates for each course) at final RFP release? These documents are critical to determining accurate Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) estimates and in providing the Government an efficient, sustainable, and best value manpower solution | Several WIC syllabi will be available for review at the preproposal conference but will not be released to contractors. All USAFWS courses run on the same schedule with new classes starting in January and July. There is no overlap of classes. |
| 30 | Reference RFP, page 113, paragraph 4.7.2. The description listed in Criteria #1 reads "effectively managed an aircrew training program supporting DoD aircraft....."Because the 57th Wing and the USAF Weapons School have CAT/CWD requirements that are not aircraft related (i.e. CAOC, Space, Cyber Warfare, Intelligence, ICBM, ground-based ABMs). Will Government consider revising the criteria to be more representative of the broader scope of the curriculum and thereby read: "Effectively managed an aircrew support training program supporting DoD aircraft and/or other subject matter, such as space operations, intelligence, cyber, and command and control ......."? | The referenced verbiage was modified to incorporate "operator" training for other DoD Weapons Systems. |
| 31 | Reference PWS page 4, paragraph 1.5.1. Second to last sentence references "device" instructors, however, there is no reference table in the attachments. Is there a certification requirement for simulator instruction? | While there is no current requirement for Training Device instruction in the PWS, it may be added in the future. If added, training device instructors will be certified. |
| 32 | Reference PWS page 19, paragraph 3.5.2: Will contractors have an opportunity to visit the host base Communications Squadron to observe the current server / router configuration during the pre-bid conference? | Tours of base comm squadron will not be available. Paragraph 3.5.2 has been changed. |
| 33 | Reference: Draft PWS, Page 21, Para 4.2.3. Paragraph mentions "Members requiring SAP access must have a NACLC (Secret access) or SSBI (Top Secret access) investigation completed within the last five years." Recommend investigation requirement: five (5) years for Top Secret, and ten (10) years for Secret. | Paragraph 4.2.3. changed to reflect 10 years for NACLC and 5 years for SSBI. |
| 34 | Reference: Draft PWS, Page 33, Appendix 1, Para A1.2.1. The table lists ADWC as one of the schools but, ADWC is not spelled out in the preceding paragraph or included in the list of acronyms. What does ADWC stand for? | "ADWC" should have been AWDC for Advanced Weapons Directors Course and the reference has been changed. |
| 35 | Reference: Draft PWS, Page 34, Para A1.2.4 (Draft RFP CLINs 0008, 1008, 2008, 3008, and 4008). PWS Para A1.2.4 presents workload for Weapon School SPACE WIC academic instruction (CAT). However, referenced CLINs only refer to SPACE WIC CWD for pricing purposes. Recommend CLIN titles be changed from “SPACE WIC CWD” to “SPACE WIC CAT/CWD,” and service description in Line 3 of each CLIN be changed from “SPACE WIC CWD” to “SPACE WIC CAT/CWD.” | PWS Paragraph titles changed to clarify whether the CLIN is CAT or CWD. RFP CLIN descriptions have been corrected to reflect the PWS |
| 36 | Reference: Draft PWS, Page 35, Para A1.2.7 (Draft RFP CLINs 0011, 1011, 2011, 3011, and 4011). Same situation as cited item #1 above. Recommend CLIN titles and service descriptions change from “MAF WIC CWD” to “MAF WIC CAT/CWD.” | PWS Paragraph titles changed to clarify whether the CLIN is CAT or CWD. RFP CLIN descriptions have been corrected to reflect the PWS |
| 37 | Reference: Draft PWS, Page 35, Para A1.2.8 (Draft RFP CLINs 0012, 1012, 2012, 3012, and 4012). Same situation as cited item #1 above. Recommend CLIN titles and service descriptions change from “ICBM WIC CWD” to “ICBM WIC CAT/CWD.” | Paragraph titles changed to clarify whether the CLIN is CAT or CWD. CLIN descriptions have been corrected to refelct the PWS |
| 38 | Reference: Draft PWS, Page 36, Para A1.2.10.4 (Draft RFP Optional CLINs 0019, 1019, 2019, 3019, and 4019). Same situation as cited item #1 above. Recommend CLIN titles and service descriptions change from “JTAC-I WIC CWD” to “JTAC-I WIC CAT/CWD.” | PWS Paragraph titles changed to clarify whether the CLIN is CAT or CWD. RFP CLIN descriptions have been corrected to reflect the PWS |
| 39 | Reference: Draft PWS, Pages 38-44, Appendix 1, Para 1.3.7.3; Pages 33-36, Appendix 1, Para A1.2. CWD workload for all courses is presented in a table for the 10-month base period, followed by a table for an option year (full year). The CWD workload is pro-rated to account for the shorter base period of months. Should the instructional (CAT) tables reflect a similar pro-rated amount for the 10-month base period? | No, USAFWS classes start in January and July with the preponderance of contractor-taught academics early in the syllabus. Therefore it is expected the contractor will teach the full amount of classroom academics in the shortened base year. |
| 40 | Reference: Draft PWS, Page 46, Appendix 2, Para A2.1.1. Paragraph presents a list of syllabi used at the Weapons School and other support units (AGOS, 57 ATG). In order to level the playing field for non-incumbents: (a) request copies of the syllabi be made available along with schedules of course offerings to show start and end dates for each course; (b) request the percentage of courseware newly developed annually for determining WBS level; and (c) request the percentage of courseware undergoing annual minor and major revision to determine proper WBS. | Several WIC syllabi and course schedules will be available for review at the preproposal conference but will not be released to contractors. All USAFWS courses run on the same schedule with new classes starting in January and July. There is no overlap of classes. Ref part "b" and "c" of question: CWD tables currently include expected breakout of new, revised and reviewed courseware. |
| 41 | RFP: Section 3 - Schedule of Supplies and Services (CLINS): Regarding FY13 Base Year CLINs: Different than most of the other CLINs which read “WIC CAT/CWD,” the above CLINs only read “WIC CWD” even though their Contract Aircrew Training Workload Estimates are broken out separately in PWS Appendix 1. Is this is an oversight? We are trying to determine where to account for the CAT PFT requirements for these particular CLINs. | PWS Paragraph titles changed to clarify whether the CLIN is CAT or CWD. RFP CLIN descriptions have been corrected to reflect the PWS |
| 42 | RFP Evaluation Criteria, Pg 112 of 130: Subfactor B, Training Management and Approach, Aspect III: Academic / Training Database, 3rd bullet: Proposed system provides electronic gradebook capability…As there are no device training requirements, will you please provide your expectation of what this incorporates? What actual requirements or gradesheets will need to be collected in the electronic gradebook? Is the contractor responsible for the flying gradesheets generated by Air Force instructors for example? | Electronic grade book will be used by military personnel as well as contractors. It will identify and track student deficiencies, tracks sortie/mission effectiveness, provides graduate evaluations (IAW ACCI36-2250). PWS Para 1.7.6. This includes flying gradesheets, test scores, and any other data required to track student progression through the syallabi. |
| 43 | RFP Evaluation Criteria, Pg 112 of 130: Subfactor B, Training Management and Approach, Aspect III: Academic / Training Database, 4th bullet: Proposed system provides capability to track student deficiencies, sortie/mission effectiveness, provide graduate evaluations…As there are no device training requirements or flying training requirement, is your expectation the successful contractor will track sortie/mission effectiveness information? | Electronic grade book will be used by military personnel as well as contractors. It will identify and track student deficiencies, tracks sortie/mission effectiveness, provides graduate evaluations (IAW ACCI36-2250). PWS Para 1.7.6. This includes flying gradesheets, test scores, and any other data required to track student progression through the syallabi. |
| 44 | PWS Paragraph A1.2.6, STRAT WIC: Please verify Total Lessons should be 48 vice 24? | Referenced table changed. |
| 45 | PWS Paragraph A1.3.7.3.5 SOF WIC (Option Years) Table: Please verify the Handbook NLE should be 2.7 vice 2.2? | Referenced table changed. |
| 46 | Pricing: What dollar amount is the Offeror supposed to include in the pricing for Travel CLINS 0004, 1004, 2004, 3004 and 4004. | NTE amounts for CR CLINS were included in the most recent DRAFT RFP under the extended description. |
| 47 | Pricing: What dollar amount is the Offeror supposed to include in the pricing for Reproduction CLINS 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005, and 4005. | NTE amounts for CR CLINS were included in the most recent DRAFT RFP under the extended description. |
| 48 | Pricing: What dollar amount is the Offeror supposed to include in the pricing for Deliverable CLINS 0004, 1004, 2004, 3004, and 4004. | The Deliverable CLINs (0014, 1014, 2014, 3014, 4014) are Not Seperately Priced (NSP). Do not include a price for these CLINs. |
| 49 | Pricing: CLIN 1014 date is incorrect, CLIN 2017 description states F-25 vice F-35, CLIN 3004 description is incomplete, CLIN 3014 does not include “Option” under item number. | Errors have been corrected. |
| 50 | Who will host the WR Webpage, the Government or the contractor? | The contractor shall maintain the WR webpage per PWS para 1.6.6.4. |
| 51 | Provide or identify an unclassified website that we can access to view each MDS syllabus. Looking for information such as course, course duration, etc. (all unclass). | As the Government stated in the response issued at the pre-proposal conference for a similar advance question: "Several WIC syllabi will be available for review at the pre-proposal conference but will not be released to contractors." There is no web-site potential bidders can access to view the Weapons School syllabi and the Government will not create one for this solicitation. The PWS contains sufficient information on the direct workloads and contract instructor duties required to prepare an accurate workload analysis and manning proposal. |
| 52 | Is the current version of Sharepoint used in the USAFWS Academic/Training Database freeware? Does it have to be licensed? If Licensed, how many current users are there? | No, SharePoint is not "freeware". Yes, all licenses are owned by the incumbent contractor. Currently there are over 400 users. |
| 53 | What is the value of current contract? | The current contract value is $22.5 million. Please note that the requirements for this solicitation are not the same as the requirements on the current contract. |
| 54 | Define which courses are taught by contractors for each MDS. It's understood that changes, however, a snap shot could provide a baseline. | Workloads under the old contract and the new contract may not be exactly the same, however, the classes taught by contractors in the most recently completed WIC class 11B are in the attached contractor taught lesson document. |
| 55 | Request all pieces of the RFP that need to be sent to other parties to be filled out (consent letter templates, PPQs, etc.) be released in MS work format. | The final RFP will be issued to FBO in MS Word format |
| 56 | How will the Government evaluate each proposal? Will you evaluate each proposal in turn, lowest to highest priced until you find one technically acceptable? Or, will you evaluate all and then rank all that are acceptable? | Reference RFP, Section 7, Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award, par. 3.0 Evaluation Methodology |
| 57 | Are Key personnel resumes required? | Key personnel resumes are not required, however they may be submitted for consideration under Past Performance if the key personnel have relevant experience per FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iii) |
| 58 | What is the Air Force standard software list for the current contract? | Per PWS para 3.5.1 all contractor furnished computer equipment shall be compatible with the AF Evaluated/Approved Products List. The AF Evaluated/Approved Products List (E/APL) is maintained by the Air Force Network Integration Center (AFNIC) at Scott AFB, IL. Distribution of the AF E/APL is authorized to U.S. Government Agencies only. Submit requests for this document to afnic.evsn.cots@us.af.mil and explain your requirement for the E/APL to prepare a proposal for this solicitation. |
| 59 | With the F-15C being phased out of active AF, will there still be a need for F-15C CAT/CWD? | There is work to support the F-15C WIC in the current PWS. The contract will be modified if this requirement changes in the future. |
| 60 | At pre-proposal conference we were told that the computer work stations in the classified work areas cannot be removed. Does that mean the incumbent will be leaving them behind? | The winning contractor will supply their own equipment per PWS para 1.1.1 and 3.5. If the incumbent does not win the follow on contract, it will be their decision as to what to do with all of their equipment currently on site. If any computers are removed from the classified area they will be de-classified IAW current AF computer security procedures. |
| 61 | Reference Weapons Review printing and mailing. How many copies are shipped to how many locations? And, how many times per year? | Per PWS para 1.6.6 the WR is published 4 times per year, 2 classified and 2 unclassified editions. PWS and Style guide have been changed to reflect that the document will be distributed electronically. |
| 62 | Are the copiers in Bldg 102 leased or owned? | They are contractor furnished equipment. |
| 63 | What type database is currently in use…Format? Is it compatible with standard industry database products such as Microsoft Access? | Microsoft SQL Server. Compatibilities will vary. All licenses are owned by the incumbent contractor. |
| 64 | What types of content do you want on your Learning Management system? (pdf, ppt, video, audio?) | The current courseware uses all of these types of content. |
| 65 | Who is responsible for the IA cert of system? | Per PWS para 3.5.1 Contractor equipment shall be compatible with the Air Force Network Integration Center (AFNIC) Evaluated/Approved Rroducts List (APL) and standard desktop configuration (SDC)-compliant computer hardware and software configurations. |
| 66 | What is the number of users? | There are currently over 400 users. |
| 67 | Where will the servers be installed? | Per PWS para 3.5.2. the proposed location of contractor-furnished servers shall be described as part of your Instructional System Development Management Plan. |
| 68 | Will the LMS reside on a closed network or will it reside in a SIPR or NIPR network? | Per PWS para 1.7.6.1. All approved unclassified USAFWS courseware material shall be accessible from the USAFWS unclassified LAN, while all classified and unclassified material shall be located on a classified server that can be accessed via a SIPRNET and/or JWICS web pages as applicable. |
| 69 | Do you have an issue with your current LMS? | The current LMS meets the requirements of the current contract. Refer to PWS para 1.7.6 for the requirements under this solicitation. |
| 70 | Are there CAC/PKI requirements? | Yes. Per PWS para 3.4.6 The contractor must ensure that all DOD, USAF, ACC, and local computer security procedures are followed. The contractor will be held accountable for all actions that he or she initiates while on the network and will conduct his or her business IAW Air Force policies. |
| 71 | Is the Academic/Training database unclassified only or does it also support classified courseware? | Per PWS para 1.7.6.1. All approved unclassified USAFWS courseware material shall be accessible from the USAFWS unclassified LAN, while all classified and unclassified material shall be located on a classified server that can be accessed via a SIPRNET and/or JWICS web pages as applicable. |
| 72 | RFP p. 109, Table 3, Sample CWD Manning: Chart appears to confuse hours with manning full time equivolents (fte). Detain top portion (e.g. labeled "Interactive Coursware", Instructor Led Package") are expresssed in hours. Total hours/unit is correct sumation. Final row displays totals in each column by hourly data. How does the final row represent "proposed manning" in terms of FTEs? | RFP Tables on page 105 have been modified to provide example tables. Table 2 has been removed and table 3 last row should be labeled total hours rather than proposed manning. |
| 73 | Is there a classified location in the weapons school where the classified and unclassified servers are located? | Yes. Per PWS para 3.5.2. the proposed location of contractor-furnished servers shall be described as part of your Instructional System Development Management Plan. |
| 74 | How many servers are currently being used? Where are they located? | The current server configuration supports the requirements of the current contract and has not been evaluated as to its ability to meet the requirements of this solicitation. See PWS para 1.7.6 and 3.5 for USAFWS database requirements and instructions for Contractor Furnished Equipment. |
| 75 | Will Primes be required to validate their size standard with financials? | Yes, vendors proposing as the Prime Contractor must validate that they qualify as a Small Business under size standard 611512. Size standard must match and will be verified in Central Contractor Registration and Reps and Certs/ORCA |
| 76 | What safeguards or factors are in place recognize unreasonable low pricing (i.e. manning) | Reference RFP, Section 7, Addendum to 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award, par. 4.1.2 Materially Unbalanced Offer. |
| 77 | Will contract options be partially or fully funded at time of execution? | All contract options are subject to the availability of funds. If options will be partially or fully funded at time of execution will depend with the current FY Continuing Resolution Authority (CRA). |
| 78 | How often do contractor I/SME travel to the GSUs? | In FY 11 contractors traveled to GSU's 17 times and made 10 other trips to conferences, training events, or other locations related to their subject matter expertise. |
| 79 | Reference PWS par. 1.6.6 and PWS Attch 1 Style Guide par. A.19.2: PWS paragraph 1.6.6 states in part “…the contractor will furnish all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and all other items and services required to produce, publish, and distribute …approximately 8,800 copies of the WR…” |
Style Guide paragraph A.19.2.2 states in part “…Printing shall be completed by DAPS or its designated subcontractor and is funded by the Government.”
It is unclear if the contractor or the Government/DAPS is responsible for WR printing and print funding.
Please clarify (1) who is responsible for printing for both classified and unclassified editions of WR, and (2) are printing costs Government funded or contractor funded.
| PWS and the Style guide have been modified to reflect a new electronic distribution of the Weapons Review magazine. It will not longer be put in hard print. | ||
| 80 | The question is that in the Draft RFPs the CLINs in the Option years started with WS CAT CLIN XX02 and in the final RFP they start with WS CAT XX01. I just want to make sure that CLIN numbering stays like it is in the Final and doesn’t revert back to how it was in the drafts after we renumber our spreadsheets. | The CLIN structure will remain as is in the final RFP issued 17 Apr 12. |
| 81 | Reference: Final RFP, Pages 6-53, Section 3, Schedule of Supplies/Services. Typically individual CLIN numbers track by a similar number each year of the contract (example: labor CLIN 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001). The referenced section does not do that (example: Weapons School CAT CLIN numbers are 0002, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001). Also, travel and ODC numbers typically track by a standard acceleration each year of the contract (example: 3% acceleration per year). The referenced section does not do that; travel acceleration between contract years are: 3.00%, 6.00%, 9.00%, and 12.00%, and reproduction acceleration between contract years are: 3.00%, 2.91%, 2.83%, and 2.75%. Granted these are plug numbers, but was this the Government’s intent? | The CLIN structure will remain as is in the final RFP issued 17 Apr 12. The cost acceleration for both Travel and Reproduction CLINs should be approximately 3% per year. NTE amount for Travel CLINs are changed as follows : CLIN 2003 $48,760; CLIN 3003 $50,140; CLIN 4003 $51,520 |
| 82 | 1. Reference: RFP Page 26, CLIN 2002; Page 36, 3002; and Page 46, 4002, Line 3 (in all cases).CLIN 2002 reads, “…Contract Aircrew Training (CWD)…”CLIN 3002 reads, “…Contract Aircrew Training (CAT)…”CLIN 4002 reads, “…Contract Aircrew Training (CWD)…”Since these CLINs correspond to 0003 and 1002, which deal with courseware development, should the wording in the referenced CLINs be changed to “…Courseware Development (CWD)…”? | Correct, this was an error. The extended description of CLINS 2002, 3002, and 4002 will be changed to read "Courseware Development (CWD)" in an upcoming amendment. |
| 83 | 1. Reference: RFP Page 32, CLIN 2013; Page 42, CLIN 3013; and Page 52, CLIN4013, Line 4 (in all cases).CLIN 2013 reads, “…1 Dec 14 – 30 Sep 15…” |
CLIN 3013 reads, “…1 Dec 15 – 30 Sep 16…” CLIN 4013 reads, “…1 Deb 16 – 30 Sep 17…” Since these are full-year periods of performance for each of the option years, should the starting date for each referenced CLIN be 1 Oct of each respective year?
| Correct, this was an error. The extended description of CLINS 2013, 3013, and 4013 will be changed to read "Period of performance is 1 Oct" respectively in an upcoming amendment. Also, note that the periods of performance under "Delivery Information" (p.58-63) are correct and accurate. | ||
| 84 | 1. Reference: Final RFP, Pages 107, Past Performance Questionnaire Cover Letter, Para 3. The cover letter currently states “Please return the completed performance questionnaire not later than COB 17 May 2012.” However, proposals (including past performance questionnaires) are due no later than 17 May 2012, 4:00 EDT. It is possible for a responding agency to comply with the cover letter instructions, yet have the completed questionnaire arrive too late for inclusion in the proposal materials. Request permission to modify the due date in the cover letter to ensure delivery prior to the proposal due date/time. | The PPQ template will be edited to read "17 May 2012, 4:00 EDT". This change will be reflected in an upcoming amendment. |
| 85 | 1. Reference: RFP, Page 108, Table 2.This example table is labeled “CWD Manning Chart,” but the only data displayed is level of effort expressed in hours. How does this table relate to manning (numbers of personnel) and what is the intent of this chart? | The chart title will be changed Sample CWD Chart. The intent of this chart is to illustrate to the Government how the offeror derived the man-hours required to produce courseware products and to substantiate the offeror's manning analysis. |
| 86 | 1. Reference: RFP, Page 110, Paragraph 1.0, “Basis of Award,” Sub-paragraph 5, First Sentence.This reference states, “This is a best value award.” However, preceding “Basis of Award” information above this sub-paragraph indicates LPTA. Should the referenced sentence be deleted? | No, the overall objective is to obtain the best value to the Government using LPTA procedures. Not to be confused with the Tradeoff Source Selection procedures. Please reference DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2011 for further information. |
| 87 | 1. Reference: Final PWS, Page 13, Section 1.7.7.2.3 Instructor Certification. The last step in a certification is typically an evaluation. What is the local area procedure for contract instructor certification by the TQPC? Is it a formal evaluation in a classroom setting with students present or does the TQPC just review and approve/certify qualification paperwork and recommendation from the contractor? | Instuctor qualification and certification will be accomplished IAW the offeror's Instructor Training and Certification Plan, see PWS para 1.7.7.2.1. The offeror's certification process will include a certification from the government TQPC per PWS para 1.7.7.2.3. |
57th Wing Weapons School CAT/CWD Question & Answer 23 March 2012
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .