FA4890-12-R-0012_Q A_7_Nov_2012.pdf

Numb er Question Answer

Can we use roman numerals for the pages that do not count towards the total count page for each of the three volumes (i.e. acronyms, cross reference matrix)? This will allow you an easier identification of the required 100 pages for Tech Volume II

We request that you adhere to the proposal format instructions as stated in the solicitation (i.e. sequential numbering). Only the Draft RFP has been issued at this time, so we suggest you continue to monitor FedBizOpps for the Final RFP (and Solicitation Amendments as needed) to ensure no instructions or requirements have changed.

PPQ Cover Letter (attach. 2 on page 48)- under 3. and 4. You say that PPQ needs to be returned no later than 26 Sep 2012; should it be no later than 26 Nov 2012, that is currently the projected proposal due date?

The Draft RFP’s PPQ response date of 26 Sep 2012 is not the actual cutoff date that will be utilized. We anticipate issuing the Final RFP in the near future, and the PPQ response date will be updated to reflect an updated cutoff date.

I have noticed the following statement on Sect 7 on page 49: “This is a best value procurement” (mid page). Are you going to delete this sentence in the Final RFP, since this is an LPTA source selection, as stated at the beginning of the page 50

The statement is valid, and we anticipate it remaining in the Final RFP. All source selections are set out to be best value procurements, which can be achieved through use of one or a combination of source selection approaches.

For this solicitation, the Government will obtain its’ best value through utilization of the Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable source selection methodology. “Best value” should not be confused with utilization of a Tradeoff process.

4 Is this project considered a new requirement? This is not a new requirement.

If this project is not considered a new requirement:

a. Who is the incumbent?

b. What is the contract number?

c. What was an estimated value?

a. Crew Training International, Inc.

b. FA4890-07-C-0015

c. $7.45M

Must we submit a completed EAL (Entry Access List, RFP Attachment 5) if we are already able to access

Beale AFB (ex. retirement military)?

We request that all parties interested in attending the pre-proposal conference submit a completed EAL to the contracting office. Please ensure you fill in all required data and that the EAL is received by the contracting office by the required deadline, as stated in the solicitation.

Companion Trainer (Whiteman) and ADAIR (Langley, Tyndall, Holloman) specifics are lacking. It appears that the two ACC contracts are being merged for this new let, but the specifics from the T-38 CPT and

ADAIR are not outlined.

a. PWS does not discuss 4 other locations for the T-38.

b. To our knowledge there are no T-38 ADAIR aircraft at Langley. Will this be changing in the future?

c. Holloman F-22 are moving to Tyndall – Are the T-38’s moving also?

d. Currently only one contractor at Whiteman – do they want both academic and simulator IP’s? (Qual

/Requal, IRC?)

e. ADAIR at Tyndall, Langley, Holloman – Does this include sims and academics?

The T-38 requirements in this contract are for Courseware Development and academic instruction at Beale only.

The other T-38 sites are operated by military personnel.

a. Beale operations support the other T-38 locations with syllabi and courseware support.

b. T-38 ADAIR aircraft are stationed at Langley.

c. Yes however no contractor platform or simulators training are required under this contract for that site.

d. Whiteman does not require simulator or platform instruction. Beale supports them with courseware and syllabi development.

e. No.

Only T-38 Academics are talked about @ Beale – any Sims required? The syllabi direct simulators; does the contract require simulator IP’s?

No simulator training is accomplished at Beale for T-38s. The device training listed in the T-38A syllabi is conducted in the T-38A Cockpit Familiarization Trainer, not in a simulator.

On page 37 of the Draft RFP, Table 1.9 references 18.5 Direct Instructional Hours per Class for U-2 Pilot

MQT. We show that there are only 7.5 Direct Instruction Hours per Class that are CAT taught in MQT.

7.5 hours direct instruction is correct. This item will be corrected in the Final RFP issuance.

10 Is the Courseware Development on at the Beale site, or can some of the work be accomplished off site? Courseware Development is only accomplished at Beale.

11 What format are the current CBT’s and courses in (E.G. Flash, Authorware, Word, PowerPoint, tec.,)?

PowerPoint, Word, Adobe Flash, MySQL database, PHP scripting language for Web development, Apache HTTP

Server, Internet Information Services (IIS) for Windows Server.

12 Is the learning center currently using an LMS, and if so, what program? No

13 What format are the existing databases in? Microsoft Access 2007

14 What format of SCORM is required (1.2, 4.0)? SCORM 2004 4th Edition

FA4890-12-R-0012 U-2/T-38 CAT/CWD Questions and Answers as of 7 November 2012

Under 1.5.5.2.4, there is a 60 day limit on producing courseware. Will the government allow for exemption when the new course complexity (Page counts) exceeds standard practices?

No. PWS 1.5.5.2.4 states the contractor will deliver the courseware within 60 days after all information is provided.

LMS’s vary in cost based on complexity, Scorm Levels, database tracking and COTS limitations. If the

Government wants full capability, can a LMS/DBA analyst be added to the Labor requirements?

The option of adding an LMS/DBA analyst requirement is up to the contractor.

We are requesting a clarification regarding the Past Performance recency as addressed in Draft RFP page

39, in regards to the word "active":

9.1 Past Performance Recency - Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of six (6) months) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. References for contracts with less than six (6) months of performance will not be considered.

a. When you say active, do you mean that the contract has to be a current contract? Can be a contract terminated 2 years ago as long as we have over 6 months PP in the last 3 years? Yes or no?

b. Can it be a contract awarded more than 3 years ago and still current? Yes or no?

c. Does the PP contract award date need to be within 3 years? Yes or no?

a. Active does not equate to current performance. Thus, a contract terminated two years ago that has had a minimum of six months of performance occurring within the three years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation will be considered for recency.

b. A contract awarded more than three years ago, which has had a minimum of six months of performance occurring within the three years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation, will be considered for recency.

c. The past performance contract award date does not need to be within the three years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation to be considered for recency, so long as the contract had a minimum of six months of performance occurring within the three years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Reference Attachment 1, PWS for U-2/T-38 CAT/CWD dated 12 Oct 2012, Page 37-38, Table 1.8 T-38

Academic Inventory and Table 1.9 Total U-2 & T-38 Contractor Academics. In Table 1.8, the T-38 Basic courses such as AS-1 Aircraft – Systems Overview, AS-2 Electrical System, AS-3 Fuel System, etc. are not listed, while Table 1.9 shows CAT instructors teaching 11 courses for 20 hours. Will the Government please delineate the basic T-38 courses the contractor will be teaching?

The PWS was updated with new tables for issuance of the Final RFP, and these were deleted in error. The PWS will be updated again and will be posted via Solicitation Amendment 0001, which will show the classes that will be taught by both the contractor and the Government.

Reference RFP page 1 standard form 1449: block 6 “Solicitation issue date” 10-Oct-2012. Are you going to make an amendment to change the date to the final RFP release 16 Oct 2012?

An amendment will be made to update the Solicitation Issue Date to reflect 16 Oct 2012, which is the correct date the solicitation was released and posted on FedBizOpps.

Reference Draft RFP 18 Sept 2012 and RFP 16 Oct 2012 (pages 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13) Item 005, 1004, 2004, 3004, 4004: (“Proposed rate_____%”) is highlighted in yellow. Please explain and clarify.

We request that all offerors input their respective G&A rate into the highlighted areas. The travel CLINs have a

$10,000.00 not-to-exceed limit, so this is the maximum amount of expense that can be incurred and invoiced, inclusive of travel and G&A expenses.

Looking at block 11 of the SF 30: In block 11 you states that "Offerors must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in this solicitation.". Do we need to sign and return

Amendment 1 based on the date change and return to you before submitting the proposal on 26 Nov

2012? Or just include amendment 1 with proposal in the Price Volume I?

All offerors must acknowledge Amendment 0001, in addition to all other Solicitation Amendments (as applicable), before the Proposal Response Deadline. SF30 Block 11 describes 3 different methods through which this acknowledgement may be accomplished.

Also, the Amendment 1 shows 16 Oct 12 in 9B as the date, however, the PWS at the bottom identifies 18

October 12 and the Effective Date of the Amendment is 19 October 12. Should we refer to the document as 16 October 12, in the proposal Volumes?

If the document you are referring to is Amendment 0001, then you may refer to it as "Amendment 0001". If the document you are referring to is the PWS, you may refer to it as the "PWS". Ensure that all Amendments are acknowledged, and that the most recent solicitation documents, including the PWS, are used when preparing your proposal.

Reference the answer to question 20 on G&A rates. Will the reimbursable travel CLINs burdened with

G&A be part of the overall price evaluation?

Your G&A rates should be placed in the blank space provided in the appropriate CLINs. All contractor price proposals should contain the $10,000.00 not to exceed amounts, do NOT add your G&A costs to the $10,000.00

NTE amount listed in the CLINs. The $10,000.00 NTE amounts should be included in your total price proposal and your price proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the solicitation.

According to the PWS security requirements for the LMS, only one commercially available product meets the specification (Blackboard). Since Blackboard will only sell government COTS directly to the government…

a. Can the blackboard LMS purchase be a “Cost” item purchased by the government? Or,

b. If not, are there any security exceptions for the LMS so that another product can be considered?

a. The LMS must meet all security requirements in the PWS. The LMS will not be a separate cost CLIN purchased by the Government.

b. Any LMS that meets all the requirements of the PWS will be considered.