U-2_Pre-Proposal_Conference_Slides_19_Oct_12.pdf

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

Pre-Proposal Conference

U-2/T-38

Contract Aircrew Training and

Courseware Development

(CAT/CWD)

Beale AFB, CA

• TO FAMILIARIZE CONTRACTORS WITH THE

GOVERNMENT’S REQUIREMENT

• Clarify Requirements

• Answer Advance Questions

• Invite Additional Questions (in writing)

• Review Courseware

• Tour Facilities

PURPOSE

AGENDA

0900 – WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

0910 – PROGRAM REVIEW AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

1000 – BREAK

1020 – REVIEW ADVANCE QUESTIONS

1100 – TOUR SCHOOL FACILITIES

1130 – LUNCH

1300 – VIEW COURSEWARE

DEMO ACADEMIC DATABASE

1500 – WRAP UP / SUBMIT QUESTIONS

INTRODUCTIONS

Mr Doug Barnard - ACC/TRSS Program Manager

Ms Lisa Pena – ACC AMIC/PKB Contracting Officer

Mr Travis Marshall – ACC AMIC/PKB Contract Manager

Lt Col Matthew Moeller – TRSS DET 11 Commander

Mr Ken Tupper – TRSS Det 11 CDQA

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

• Contracting Office (ACC AMIC/PKB) is the POC for information.

• Any remarks, explanations, or answers to questions at this conference shall not qualify the terms of the solicitation.

• Terms of the solicitation and PWS remain unchanged unless the solicitation is formally amended in writing and issued by the contracting officer.

• Questions must be written to be addressed in the minutes.

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

• PROCUREMENT HISTORY

• WARFIGHTER MISSION

• PROCUREMENT / DESCRIPTION

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

• Customers:

• 9th Reconnaissance Wing

• 1st Reconnaissance Squadron

PROCUREMENT HISTORY

• Current Contract U-2

• Small Business Set-Aside

• Awarded 5 Jun 07 (6 yr contract)

• Services Currently Being Provided by:

• Crew Training International

WARFIGHTER MISSION

• U-2

• Provides high altitude intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support world wide

• Equipped with an electro-optical infrared sensor, Advanced

Synthetic Aperture Radar System, Optical Bar Camera and other sensors

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

WARFIGHTER MISSION

• T-38 Companion / ADAIR

• T-38 Contract Aircrew Training and Courseware Development

(CAT/CWD) at Beale AFB CA,

• Courseware Support forT-38 companion trainer operations at

Whiteman AFB MO, and T-38 Adversary Air (ADAIR) at Joint Base

Langley-Eustis VA, Holloman AFB NM, and Tyndall AFB FL.

PROCUREMENT / DESCRIPTION

• Contract Requirement:

Contractor to Provide All Personnel, Equipment, Tools, Materials, Supervision, and Services Necessary to

Perform:

• Contract Aircrew Training

• Courseware Development

• General Tasks

• Contract Aircrew Training (CAT)

• U-2 Formal Training Unit (FTU)

• Classroom Instruction (Beale)

• Training Device Instruction (Beale)

• Instrument Refresher Course (IRC)

12 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

• Courseware Development (CWD)

• Instructor Led Lessons

• Computer Based Training (SCORM

Compliant)

• Develop New; Revise, and Review

PROCUREMENT / DESCRIPTION

13 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

http://www.pearsoned.com/professional/technical.htm

• General Tasks

• Academic Scheduling

• ISD Management and Quality Program Plans

• Employee Training

• Instructor Training and Certification Plan

• Maintain Master Files

• Academic Database / Learning Management System

• Ensure Security Requirements are Met

Mr. Travis Marshall, ACC AMIC/PKB

SOURCE SELECTION AND

CONTRACTUAL ISSUES

PROGRAM REVIEW

• Terms of the solicitation and PWS remain unchanged unless it is formally amended in writing and issued by the Contracting Officer

• Questions during this conference must be in writing

• RFP issued 16 October 2012

• Proposals due NLT 4:00pm Eastern on 26 Nov

• Conference minutes will be posted on FEDBIZOPPs (http://www.fedbizopps.gov/)

PROCUREMENT HISTORY/DATA

• Follow-on acquisition; 100% small business set-aside

• Contract Type

– Non-personal services

– Firm-Fixed Price

– Cost Reimbursable Travel

– Fiscal year contract -- Funding

-- Performance Period

PROCUREMENT HISTORY/DATA

• The authority for the obligation of funds is FAR Clause

52.232-18, Availability of Funds.

• Incremental funding is required due to the constraints of the Government's continuing resolution authority. The authority for incremental funding is DFARS 252.232-7007, Limitation of Government's Obligation.

• FY13 Phase-In (Aug-Sept)

• Base Year FY14

• FY15-18 - Option Years (if exercised)

CONTRACT STRUCTURE

• FFP Contract

• Commercial (FAR Part 12)

• Firm-Fixed Price CLINS

• Unit of Issue – Monthly

• Cost Reimbursable Travel CLINs

• Unit of Issue – Lot

• Not To Exceed $10,000.00

• Data Deliverables – Not Separately Priced (NSP)

CONTRACTING ASPECTS:

MILESTONE TIMELINE

• Draft Solicitation on Internet 18 Sep 12

• Issue Final RFP 16 Oct 12

• Pre-proposal Conference 24 Oct 12

• Proposals Due 26 Nov 12

• Anticipated Award 17 May 13

EVALUATION AND AWARD

CRITERIA

• LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE

• Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, is the lowest evaluated price with an “Acceptable” rating in all technical sub-factors and past performance.

• Factors –

• Factor 1 – Price

• Factor 2 – Technical Capability

• Subfactor A - Manning Requirements and Analysis

• Subfactor B - Training Management and Approach

• Subfactor C - Courseware Development Approach, Instructional Systems Development Management Plan (ISDMP), and Quality Program Plan (QPP)

• Subfactor D - All Other Plans and Contractor Furnished Equipment

• Factor 3 – Past Performance

SPECIAL

CLAUSES/CONSIDERATIONS

• Collective Bargaining Agreement

Current CBA wage rates / benefit packages are in effect for the following labor categories:

Simulator Instructor / SME

Educational Technologist

BRI Programmer

CBT Specialist

Graphic Artist

Word Processor I

QUALITY ASSURANCE

• QAP has been replaced with Contracting Officer

Representative (COR)

• COR appointments will be provided to the awarded contractor in writing

• Quality Program Coordinators (QPCs)

• COR’s “eyes & ears” on site

• Program Manager / COR

• ACC TRSS - Mr. Kevin Riebsam

ADVANCE QUESTIONS

• 1. 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.

• 2. 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.

• 3. 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.

• 5. 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

• 6. 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.

• 7. 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.

• 8. 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.

• 9. 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

• 15. 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.

• 16. 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.

• 17. 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.

• 18. 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.

• 19. 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.

• 20. Reference Draft RFP 18 Sept 2012 and RFP 16 Oct 2012 (pages 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13) Item 0005, 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.

QUESTIONS?