EC-130A-10_Pre-Proposal_Conference_Slides_13_Mar_13.pptx

Pre-Proposal Conference

EC-130H/A-10

Contract Aircrew Training and Courseware Development

Davis-Monthan and Moody AFB

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

TO FAMILIARIZE CONTRACTORS WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUIREMENT

Clarify Requirements Answer Advance Questions Invite Additional Questions Review Courseware Tour Facilities

PURPOSE

AGENDA

0830 – WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

0840 – PROGRAM REVIEW AND EVALUATION CRITERIA

0915 – REVIEW ADVANCE QUESTIONS

0930 – BREAK

1000 – TOUR EC-130 Classrooms and Training Devices 1100 – TOUR A-10 Classrooms and Training Devices

1200 – LUNCH

1330 – VIEW Gateway/BRI/EGB 1400 – LMS and CBT ORIENTATION

1430 – VIEW COURSEWARE

1530 – WRAP UP / SUBMIT QUESTIONS

WELCOME

Opening Remarks

Admin Refreshments Restrooms Smoking Emergency Evacuation

INTRODUCTIONS

Mr. Steve Satava – ACC/TRSS Program Manager

Ms. Helen Vaughn – ACC AMIC/PKB Contracting Officer

Ms. Susan Dunnigan – ACC AMIC/PKB Contract Manager

Lt Col Kevin Eilers – 355 TRS/CC, A-10 Academic Sqdn

Lt Col Philip Acquaro – 42 ECS/CC, EC-130 FTU

Maj Michael Riordan – TRSS DET 3 Commander

Mr. Warren Priddy – TRSS Det 3 Deputy

Attendees

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

Total Small Business Set-Aside Awarded 11 Jul 2008 to C2 Technologies, Inc (C2T) One Sub-contractor CAE Expires 30 Sep 13 Combined A-10/EC-130 since 2004

WARFIGHTER MISSION

EC-130H

A-10C

Customers

355th Wing A-10 (DM AFB) 55th Wing EC-130H Compass Call (DM AFB) 23rd Wing Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) (Moody AFB)

A-10C Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ Moody AFB, GA

At DM – EC-130 has 2 ops sqdns and 1 FTU; A-10 has 1 ops sqdn and 2 FTU Moody has 2 A-10 ops sqdn

WARFIGHTER MISSION

EC-130H (COMPASS CALL)

DoD’s only world-wide capable, wide-area electronic warfare aircraft Performs airborne electronic attack against airborne, ground and sea-based electronic targets Continuously deployed supporting OIF (thru 2010) and OEF since 2001 Air-refuelable New EC-130 Flight Deck sim FY 14 New Mission Crew sim FY 15 Additional EC-130 aircraft / students FY 16 2 Ops Sqdns 41 & 43 ECS; 1 FTU – 42 ECS

Training for Flight Deck – Pilots, Navs and Flight Engineers Training for Mission Crew – “Back end” Acq/Analysis Operators, Airborne Maintenance Tech, Mission Crew Commander

WARFIGHTER MISSION

A-10 Provides Close Air Support to ground forces in direct contact with enemy forces Word-wide deployable and capable of operating from austere unimproved fields Utilizes Advance Targeting Pod (ATP) sensors, Situational Awareness Data Link (SADL), and a Helmet Mounted Cueing System Employs precision guided free-fall munitions and forward firing ordnance

2 FTU Sqdn – 357, 358 FS

DM – 354 FS Ops; 357 and 358 FTU plus 355 Training Squadron (Academics, Sims) Moody – 74 FS and 75 FS

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

KEY PWS REQUIREMENTS

Aircrew Training (CAT) EC-130/A-10 Formal Training Units (FTUs) Full Crew for EC-130; A-10 Pilots Classroom Instruction Training Device Instruction Instrument Refresher Course (IRC) Compass Call Mission Crew Simulator (CCMCS) Operator Weapon Systems Trainer (WST) Operator

Courseware Development (CWD) Instructor Led Lessons Computer Based Training (SCORM Compliant) AF ISD/ Develop New; Revise, and Review Existing CW

Scheduling – Wing and FTU positions Scenario Development for CCMCS, WST Distributed Mission Operations/Continuation Training

Training Devices:

A-10 - Full Mission Trainer [FMT]; Hands-on Throttle and Stick [HOTAS] EC-130H: Compass Call Mission Crew Simulator (CCMCS); Weapon System Trainer [WST]; Part-Task Trainer [PTT]

KEY PWS REQUIREMENTS, cont.

General Tasks Develop/ Manage/Maintain A-10/ EC-130 Academic/ Training Database and Learning Management System (TMS/LMS) Maintain Master Files Deliverables/ Reports Curriculum/ CW Review Meetings Employee Training/ Qualifications/ Recertification/ Decertification, etc Quality Control/ Performance Evaluation Meetings Plans:

– Instructor Training and Certification Plan Security

Training Workload Management Plan, Transition Plan with proposal, no stand alone – TWMP PWS para 1.9.13, Transition Plan para 1.7.3.

Others delivered with proposal AND as stand alone after award. ISDMP/QCP para 1.5.2; I Trng and Cert para 1.9.1 Strike Mitigation Plan as stand alone after award - PWS para 1.2

Ms. Susan Dunnigan Contract Specialist

ACC AMIC/PKB

susan.dunnigan@langley.af.mil

(757) 225-6037

SOURCE SELECTION AND CONTRACTUAL ISSUES

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

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

Questions during this conference should be directed to the briefers and must be submitted in writing for response

Government is not liable for expenses incurred by offerors prior to contract award

Conference minutes/slides/Q&A will be posted on FEDBIZOPs (http://www.fbo.gov/)

PROCUREMENT HISTORY/DATA

Authority FAR Part 12: Commercial Contracts FAR Part 15.3: Negotiated Contracts AFFARS 5315.3: Source Selection as revised 4 Aug 2011 DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2011

Notice to Offerors Sufficient number of Proposals/Competition is expected Government intends to make award without discussion but reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed necessary. Therefore, you are cautioned that the initial proposal should contain your best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

PROCUREMENT HISTORY/DATA

Follow-on acquisition; 100% small business set-aside NAICS Code: 611512 Size Standard: $25.5M

The incumbent is C2 Technologies, Inc.

Contract Type Commercial (FAR Part 12) Non – Personal Services Firm – Fixed Price Contract / CLIN Structure Deliverables – NSP Cost Reimbursable Travel Fiscal year contract

NOTIONAL MILESTONE / TIMELINE

PROCUREMENT HISTORY/DATA

Funding Fixed Priced CLINS – Incremental / monthly basis Cost Reimbursable CLINS – as required

Performance Period

SOLICITATION REVIEW

SF 1449

Ensure all blocks are filled in as necessary

SECTION 2 – Continuation of SF 1449 Ensure all required information is filled in

SECTION 3 – Schedule of Supplies and Services Ensure all pricing is included (round to nearest dollar) Include travel (NTE provided amounts) as part of your price

52.217 – 8, Option to Extend Services

SECTION 4 – Contract Clauses Ensure you READ all clauses Complete all applicable clauses/information

SECTION 4a – Addendum to 52.212-4 Local Instructions

SECTION 5 – List of Attachments

SECTION 6 – Instruction to Offerors READ all provisions

SECTION 6a – Addendum to 52.212-1 Instruction for proposal submission and format Letter of Consent for Past Performance Information (PPI) PPQ Template/Request Cover Letter template Sample Manning Charts

SECTION 7 – Evaluation Criteria Pay special attention to Addendum to 52.212-2

SECTION 8 – Offeror Reps & Certs READ and complete all applicable provisions Include ORCA

SPECIAL CLAUSES/CONSIDERATIONS

Collective Bargaining Agreements

EC-130

A-10

CBA Labor Categories Listed in CBAs and RFP Section 4 / Clause 52.222-42

Moody AFB:

Service Contract Act / Area Wage Determination (SCA/AWD)

Both CBAs and AWD were provided as attachments to the solicitation

EVALUATION AND AWARD CRITERIA

BASIS OF AWARD

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)

One award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9;

Whose proposal conforms to the solicitations requirements;

Is the lowest evaluated price with an “Acceptable” rating in all Technical Subfactors and the Past Performance factor;

Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings;

If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that offeror;

The LPTA source selection process does not permit tradeoffs between price and non–price factors.

Three (3) FACTORS:

FACTOR 1 – Past Performance FACTOR 2 – Technical Subfactor A: Manning Requirements and Workload Analysis Subfactor B: Training Management and Approach Subfactor C: Courseware Development Approach, ISDMP, and Quality Program Plan Subfactor D: All Other Plans and Contractor Furnished Equipment FACTOR 3 – Price

All factors are equal in importance All subfactors are equal in importance

SUBFACTOR A: MANNING REQUIREMENTS AND ANALYSIS

Aspect 1: Manning Requirements and Workload Analysis. The offeror’s proposed approach must provide an effective organizational structure to successfully accomplish mission requirements.

Aspect 2: Personnel Qualifications. The offeror’s proposed approach provides for personnel that are qualified IAW the PWS requirements.

Aspect 1: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all of the following:

A. Manning personnel charts were used to outline sufficient labor categories, skill level and number of personnel per labor category for both CAT and CWD ,and are supported by contractor’s workload analysis utilizing PWS Appendix 1.

B. Workload analysis sufficiently demonstrates how manning levels were determined including all direct, indirect and ancillary workload hours (PWS Appendix 1).

Aspect 2: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all of the following:

A. Proposal identifies by position, the required qualifications for Site Management, I/SMEs and Courseware Development personnel commensurate with requirements set forth in PWS 4.2.

SUBFACTOR B: TRAINING MANAGEMENT AND APPROACH

Aspect 1: Training Management and Approach. The offeror’s proposal provides an effective Training Workload Management Plan IAW PWS paragraph 1.9.13. The Plan will be evaluated on its management approaches, methods, innovations and policies for managing the training program including, methods for mitigating scheduling risks associated with workload fluctuations.

Aspect 2: Effective Management of Personnel Resources. The offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates effective management of personnel resources.

Aspect 3: Training Management System/Learning Management System (TMS/LMS). The offeror’s proposed TMS/LMS provides processes for managing the EC-130H/A-10 training programs as described in PWS paragraph 1.7.5.

Aspect 1: This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly identifies and explains their processes and understanding of the following:

A. Proposal clearly demonstrates the contractor’s approach and policies for managing the Training Program.

B. Proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of, and a process for scheduling.

C. Proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of, mitigation of scheduling risks associated with workload fluctuations.

Aspect 2: This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates clear processes for all of the following:

A. Proposal clearly defines the duties and responsibility of the Site Manager/Alternate Site Manager.

B. Proposal demonstrates clear lines of authority and lines of communication between key USAF and contactor personnel.

C. Proposal provides an organizational chart clearly defining the prime and subcontractor/ partner(s) roles, duties and responsibilities.

Aspect 3: This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the proposed TMS/LMS will provide the following functions and capabilities:

A. TMS/LMS clearly demonstrates management of instructor, supervisor, student and organization support resources, aircraft simulator and facility resources.

B. TMS/LMS clearly demonstrates management of all squadron syllabi, courseware, electronic training references, CBT and other academic instruction to include course flow, prerequisites checking, initial qualifications, upgrades, requalification, grade books and grade sheets.

C. TMS/LMS clearly provides both scheduling and training management functions for the administration of academic and simulator training.

D. TMS/LMS unclassified material is clearly accessible through a portal on the FTU/TRSS unclassified LAN and all classified material is located on stand-alone computers/networks that can be accessed with PASSWORD controls.

E. TMS/LMS LAN access is in accordance with local site operating procedures and is in compliance with all government security regulations.

F. TMS/LMS is standardized across all site locations and available to all FTU’s and associated squadrons.

G. Offeror clearly provides all TMS/LMS required software, licenses, and appropriate servers for use at all workload sites.

SUBFACTOR C: COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH AND INSTRUCTIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN (ISDMP) AND QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

Aspect 1: Courseware Development Approach and ISD Management Plan. The offeror’s proposal provides an Instructional Systems Design Management Plan (ISDMP) IAW PWS 1.5.2. which demonstrates a thorough understanding of, and application of the principles and processes outlined in the AF’s current model of ISD. The reference is AF Handbook 36-2235, Information for Designers of Instructional Systems.

Aspect 2: Quality Control Plan. The offeror’s proposal provides a Quality Control Plan IAW PWS 1.9.7. and Atch 1. As a minimum, the QCP will contain ISO 9001-based quality management systems.

Aspect 1: This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates all of the following:

A. Complies with the format and content, and includes specific explanations of items in PWS paragraph 1.5.2. and Atch 1.

B. Understanding of the ISD phases and functions by describing the employment of ISD principles and processes throughout the lifecycle of the training systems.

C. Knowledge of the methods and procedures used in the application of the ISD process for tracking courseware development milestones and methods of validating courseware effectiveness.

Aspect 2: This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates all of the following:

A. Complies with the format and content, and includes specific explanations of items in PWS paragraph 1.9.7. and Atch 1.

B. Describes the quality controls and procedures to employ throughout the lifecycle of the training systems.

SUBFACTOR D: ALL OTHER PLANS AND CONTRACTOR FURNISHED EQUIPMENT

Aspect 1: Phase-In/Phase-Out Plan. The offeror’s proposed approach provides an executable plan and sufficiently addresses Phase-In and Phase-Out per PWS paragraph 1.7.3.

Aspect 2: Training and Certification Plan. The offeror’s proposed approach provides for personnel that are qualified, trained and certified to successfully accomplish PWS requirements.

Aspect 1: This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposed plan thoroughly covers the following:

A. Milestone chart with phased timelines for implementation to ensure transition is completed to support on-time full contract performance.

B. Personnel are identified for interfacing with the incumbent contractor at each site.

C. Ability to hire, train and certify non-incumbent personnel in the event that hiring goals are not met.

D. Provides detailed list of Contractor Furnished Equipment that is compliant with Air Force Network Integration Center (AFNIC) approved products list and sufficiently meets Base Communication Squadron system integration requirements.

Aspect 2: This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposed plan demonstrates clear processes for the following:

A. Clearly defines initial employee training and certifications and how these will be conducted to meet mission requirements IAW PWS para 1.9.1 through 1.9.5.

B. Clearly defines employee continuation training currency and certifications and how these will be conducted to sustain mission requirements IAW PWS para 1.9.6.

FACTOR 1 - PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance will be rated “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” at the overall factor level.

Past performance is evaluated to appropriately consider each offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance.

Offerors shall submit information on contracts they consider relevant to their abilities to perform this effort. Information shall include:

Rationale supporting their assertion of relevance Explain what aspects of the contract references are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate

Up to 12 references total (combined) Prime Contractor, up to 4 recent and relevant past/present performance references Sub-Contractor (as applicable), up to 4 references for each proposed sub-contractor, teaming arrangements or joint venture

Past performance is judged based on the whole record and not solely on the number of records.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation:

First is to determine if the performance information is recent;

Second, determine if the performance information is relevant to this acquisition;

Third, determine how well the offeror performed on those contracts (quality of product or service) provided.

Recency: Performance occurring within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. References for contracts with less than six months of performance will not be considered.

Relevancy: Relevant performance for this acquisition is to have effectively managed an aircrew training program that consists of academic or simulator instruction or courseware development which utilizes an Instructional Systems Development (ISD) model where cost, schedule, and performance were measured/evaluated.

Performance Quality: The Government will evaluate the quality of work performed and assessed ratings/narrative.

FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL

Focus is on the ability of the offerors proposal to meet the minimum requirements of the PWS.

Proposals will be assessed a rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" at the subfactor level In assessing the acceptability of each subfactor, any weaknesses or deficiencies will be noted Proposals that receive a weakness in a subfactor may receive an “Unacceptable” subfactor rating Proposals that receive a deficiency in a subfactor will receive an “Unacceptable” subfactor rating

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

There is a great expectation of competition; thus offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front.

Price will be evaluated to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price.

Price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing.

Where an offeror receives acceptable technical and past performance ratings, yet proposed prices appear exceptionally low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s).

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

The Government reserves the right to request other than cost and pricing data from the offerors.

FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. This clause allows for up to an additional 6 month continued contract performance if required. Interested offerors shall not include pricing in their proposal for this clause. The Government will add fifty percent (50%) of the last option period price to cover clause 52.217-8.

Breakdown by CLIN:

Labor Category

Number of Positions

Productive hours Breakout Of:

Other Direct Costs

Direct & Indirect Rates

Subcontract Costs

Proposed OH

Proposed G&A

Proposed Profit/Fee

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

Supporting price back-up data includes, at a minimum:

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Quality assurance/inspection/acceptance for the Government will be conducted by the appointed Contracting Officer Rep (COR)

Appointed Quality Program Coordinators (QPCs) at each site

Training QPC(s) – FTU Squadrons; Moody Courseware QPC(s) – TRSS DET 3

COR appointment(s) will be provided to the awardee in writing

Program Manager / COR ACC TRSS: Mr. Kevin Riebsam

Please submit written questions to the following POCs:

Helen Vaughn – Contracting Officer helen.vaughn@langley.af.mil

Susan Dunnigan – Contract Specialist susan.dunnigan@langley.af.mil

Thank You For Attending

1. The solicitation clearly states that there is a minimum small business subcontracting goal of 20 percent of total contract dollars.

Question: Due to the fact that this is a small business set aside acquisition, as defined in The SF1449 block 10, are the small business prime contractors required to further subcontract 20 percent of the total contract dollars to another small business?

Answer: Since this is a small business set aside, the requirement for a small business subcontracting plan is not applicable.

2. RFP Section 6, page 90, paragraph 12.5, E,1. This paragraph references a “…worksheet for each contact reference…” Question: Is it the government’s intent to provide a worksheet for the offeror to fill out? Is there a page limit for the worksheet?

Answer: The worksheet is to be drafted by the offeror. It is summation of the work you performed as Prime, subcontractor, etc, under the effort to include an explanation of how that work is relevant to this acquisition. Please limit the worksheet to one page.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

3. Reference: Final PWS, Pages 2-3, Paragraph 1.4.4, Training Device Instruction Specific Tasks.

Question: Do DMO/CT missions at D-M and at Moody require review of student grade book prior to events, entries into grade sheets for electronic grade book, and “end-of-phase and end-of-course critiques of training device instruction”?

Revised Answer: Gradebook review for continuation training (CT) will depend on the mission. If the DMO mission is for an upgrade program, i.e. Flight Lead upgrade, then there will be a gradebook associated with the mission. Most CT/DMO work will not have gradebook requirements. CT has no end-of-phase and end-of-course critiques, those are only associated with formal training unit syllabi. In the FTU contract instructors are required to review the students’ grade book prior to the training event.

4. Reference: Final PWS, Pages 9-10, Paragraph 1.7.5 and 1.7.5.1-1.7.5.9, A-10/EC-130 Academic/Training Database.

Question: Could the Government provide historical workload estimates or actual data for performing database requirements?

Answer: No. The database workload is directly related to the LMS/TMS provided by the contractor, and historical data is not kept by the Government.

5. Reference: PWS Page 15, Paragraph 3.2.2, Government Furnished Property.

Question: Can the Government provide a break-down of items by location (Davis-Monthan AFB and Moody AFB)?

Answer: Not at this time. The Government will provide sufficient office furnishings for the number of contract personnel at each location. The specific inventory will be conducted and documented during Phase In per PWS para 3.2.2.

6. Reference: PWS Page 30, Paragraph A1.3.1, EC-130H Flight Deck Academic and PTT Instruction, Table A1.2, Note with asterisk: The AC Upgrade program includes specialized flight simulator events instructed at simulator facilities away from Davis-Monthan AFB until the EC-130H WST is ready for training. Contract instructors will travel to conduct this training until the WST at DM AFB is operational.

Question: What is the location of the specialized simulator training, how often are the specialized simulators sessions required, and how long do contractor instructors spend at this location per simulator session?

Answer: McChord is the normal location. TDY is normally 4 days with a travel day on both sides, total 6 days. Frequency is 4 times per year.

7. Reference: CBAs: No wages are shown for Scenario Developers nor Console Operators (CCMCS and WST).

Question: Should these wage rates be derived from the latest Pima County, AZ, Wage Determination?

Answer: They are classified/paid under the FTU Instructor rate.

8. Reference Page 89, Section 6, paragraph 12.5.D.2. “For references where the offeror performed as a Subcontractor:”

Question: Under this section, you requested current Point of Contact information in two (2) places: “PRIME CONTRACT” and “SUBCONTRACT.” Are these POCs the same? Please specify the exact POC information what you want in these two blocks.

Answer: Yes, these POCs are the same.

9. Reference Page 90, Section 6, paragraph 12.5.F. “Offeror’s Proposed Subcontractor.” Under this section, you did not request a Table as described in Paragraph D.

Question: Is a Table required for the Proposed Subcontractor as requested in Paragraph D? If the information is required, should the “Subcontractor Table” be included in Paragraph D or included with the response to Paragraph F?

Answer: Yes, a table is required and it should be included with the response to paragraph 12.5.F.

10. In Section 7, 4.2.1, it is possible for a vendor to reiterate the qualifications listed by the Government in PWS 4.2 to acceptably respond to Aspect 2 of this section.

Question: Would the Government please consider elaborating on the response requirement to this Aspect?

Answer: The proposal should state how the contractor will comply with the hiring requirements in PWS para 4.2, i.e. your proposal should answer questions such as: Will the employees just meet the minimum qualifications or will the employees also meet the desired qualifications? What (if any) qualifications will the contractor require that may be in addition to the Government-defined minimums?

11. Question: In Section 7, 4.2.2, please describe how innovations are evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Answer: Per RFP Section 6, para 1.2 “The proposal shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail to provide for adequate evaluation and for substantiation of the validity of stated claims. Submitted documents must contain adequate information to enable the evaluation board to fully ascertain offerors capability to perform contract requirements…” Therefore, any innovative procedures for how the contractor will manage the training program must be sufficiently explained to meet Subfactor B, Aspect 1.A. and earn an overall subfactor rating of “Acceptable”.

12. Question: Reference PWS para 1.2. This is not an industry in which strikes are prevalent. Considering this, would the Government consider its removal from the requirements?

Answer: No. The Government requires a strike mitigation plan. This plan is not required as part of the proposal and will be delivered during phase-in per PWS para 1.2.

13. Question: Reference PWS para 1.4.3.14. What is the anticipated volume of this requirement?

Answer: The reference is to maintaining a library of all the lesson materials. Lessons currently exist to support all the syllabi in PWS Appendix 4. All of this material will be made available to the contractor per PWS para 3.3. and all of this material will be maintained in the library until replaced by updated versions.

14. Reference PWS para 1.4.4.6. The students hold significant responsibility in the outcome of their studies.

Question: Please consider revising the language to read “Contractor shall also ensure” to “Contractor shall endeavor to ensure”.

Answer: The Government doesn’t see the need to change the wording in paragraph 1.4.4.6. Anyone being trained for Simulator Console Operator duties must meet the requirements of PWS para 4.2.5 or 4.2.6. before entering training. The PWS will be revised to correct the paragraph references.

15. Question: Reference PWS para 1.5.3.7. As this is a FFP contract type, can the Government please establish a quantity threshold for this requirement beyond which a contract adjustment will be made?

Answer: Courseware development required by an Urgent Action Directive is required to maintain safety of flight and will displace lower priority work in the annual courseware delivery schedule. As per PWS Appendix 1 para A1.2., the contractor shall be responsible for increases in the total estimated workload up to 10% without a contract modification.

16. Reference PWS para 3.5.1 regarding equipment upgrades, this is an unpredictable requirement.

Question: As this is a FFP contract type, can the Government please establish a quantity threshold for upgrades the contractor will be responsible for that beyond which warrants a contract adjustment?

Answer: No. As this PWS reference is for contractor furnished equipment, upgrade is a contractor responsibility. Any plan for contractor furnished equipment purchase and/or upgrade should be included in the Phase-In Plan and will be evaluated per Subfactor D, Aspect 1.D. The proposed price will include funds for any proposed equipment upgrades.

17. Question: Should PWS paragraph 4.6.27 be read to mean these are unallowable costs to the contract?

Answer: No, indirect time should be included in your workload estimates and will contribute to the overall price. The PWS workload tables in Atch 1 are direct time, and your workload analysis and manning calculations should include all direct (PWS para 4.6.17), indirect, and ancillary time (PWS para 4.6.2) per RFP Section 7, para 4.2.1. Aspect 1.B. Your price will include all the manpower you propose to accomplish all the PWS work.

18. Question: Please explain the 5% adder to workload estimates in Appendix A. If the contractor is responsible for increases up to 10%, should this adder be 10%?

Answer: The 5% added to the workload estimates in Appendix A is for re- teaching a class due to a student failing that class or missing a class or simulator due to illness, scheduling conflict, etc. It is an historical estimate. The 10% increase without a contract modification applies to the total workload in these tables per PWS para A1.2.

During the Pre-Proposal Conference it was stated that a copy of the conference presentation would be released on FBO.

Question: Can you say when this will occur?

Answer: We anticipate having all the information i.e., slides, minutes and Q&A posted by NLT 26 Mar 13.

20. Also during the conference it was stated that we would be told which software programs were GFE and which needed to be proposed.

Question: Can you say when we will be provided this information?

Answer: We anticipate having all the information i.e., slides, minutes and Q&A posted by NLT 26 Mar 13.

21. Question: Does the Government require that the proposed LMS and TMS software solutions be COTS, and not proprietary?

Answer: No. However, for items developed during the term of this contract, PWS para 1.7.5.5.9 states: “The academic database, master files, courseware, specifically developed software and associated websites, etc. are all considered deliverables IAW Appendix 3 of this PWS and as such are the property of the Government IAW PWS paragraph 4.3.”

22. Question: What programming language(s) and database(s) software products does the A-10 Electronic Grade Book use? (e.g. SQL, C++).

Answer: Web based, uses classic ASP 3.0 and JAVA script.

23. Question: What type of programming environment is used in the A-10 EGB? (e.g. .NET, Windows, Vista).

Answer: Windows, on DM intranet.

24. Question: On average, how many hours per year does an I/SME spend monitoring self-paced CBTs in the student learning center?

Answer: Limited, perhaps an hour per week or less - instructors are available from the instructor offices to answer questions or problems. They do not directly monitor the students while they watch the CBTs.

25. Question: Ref question 3: Does the amount of time differ between A-10 and EC-130? If yes, by how much per year?

Answer: No, the time spent by I/SMEs monitoring CBTs about the same for both weapon systems.

26. Question: How many users (accounts) are involved on the LAN? Who are the main users? (What units or categories of personnel).

Answer: Main users are students, AF instructors, contract instructors and courseware developers. These personnel require passwords to access different systems (CBTs, EGB, Gateways and Critiques). Approximate number of users are: 10 Det 3 personnel, 80 A-10 AF Instructors, 70 EC- 130 AF Instructors, 50 contract instructors and courseware personnel, and an average of 30 A-10 students and 30 EC-130 students at any given time.

Question: On average, how many users are on line simultaneously at any given time?

Answer: Estimate up to 40 – 50 personnel using different parts of the system.

Question: What access controls allow students and other users to access the LAN/systems?

Answer: Password and Windows authentication.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Question: What data base is used (SQL, version)?

30. What are the system requirements for current applications (e.g. RAM, processing power, storage capacity, operating system)?

Answer: Per PWS para 1.5.3.10.3, 3.5.1, and 4.7: All contractor-furnished computer equipment will comply with the Air Force Network Integration Center (AFNIC) approved products list (APL) and standard desktop configuration (SDC) for computer hardware and software configurations. Contact AFNIC at http://www.afnic.af.mil/ for information on E/APL.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

31. Question: What components of the current A-10/EC-130 Academic/Training Database are considered proprietary by the incumbent?

Answer: Per PWS para 1.7.5.5.7. the “C2 Learn” portion of the current system is proprietary and is not considered Government-furnished software. C2 Learn includes the LMS, Electronic Gradebook and Gateway systems. PWS para 1.7.5.5.8. states the brief/debrief program “Wedge” is Government furnished. All of the master files and other data files resident on the current system are also Government property.

image2.png image3.jpeg image4.jpeg image5.jpeg image6.jpeg image7.jpeg image8.jpeg image9.png image10.jpeg image15.jpeg image11.jpeg image12.jpeg image13.jpeg image14.jpeg image1.png