MQ_1 9_Questions_from_industry_as_of_24_Jan_13.docx

Solicitation FA4890-13-R-0001

MQ-1&9 CAT/CWD

Posted to FBO on 24 Jan 13

Questions from Industry during the Pre-Proposal Conference held 12 Dec 12

1. Question: Must the offeror bid labor using current CBA rates?

ANSWER: Yes, refer to FAR 22.1008-2. Note the JICO position is not currently under the CBA and is exempt from wage determinations.

2. Question: PWS Appendix 1. Each course shows (pilot/sensor) and the classroom estimate totals are “academic hours” versus “instruction hours” for PMATS estimates. Are academic hours equivalent to instructor hours? If not, what is the estimated percentage of academic hours that require both pilot and sensor instruction?

ANSWER: In Appendix 1, with regard to Academic instruction, vs Instructional hours. The Total academic hours is the instructional hours required. For example, Table in para A2.2.1 identified 1,106 academic hours. This is the instruction required to be performed by the contractor.

3. Question: The required insurance is tied to optional CLINs. At what point is the company required to have proof of insurance? At contract award or at the exercise of the options (flying)?

ANSWER: It is currently the plan of the government to exercise the optional flying CLINs in the base year of the contract, which is dependent on the availability of funding.

4. Question: What is the current reteach % ages with 18-xx students? Do hours reflect current or future needs?

ANSWER: The re-teach rate in insignificant to the PWS workload for 18XX as well as any student. The contract is required to provide the workload identified in the PWS.

5. Question: Since the contractor must use the CBA rates for incumbant employees, will the government provide the union seniority lists for each site?

ANSWER: The incumbent contractor will not be providing the seniority lists for each site.

6. Question: The draft PWS included work at Nellis and at the 26 WPS. This work was deleted from the pre-solicitation PWS posted on 10 Dec. Will this scope be added back with the final solicitation? If not, will it be added after contract award?

ANSWER: No, there is no current scope of work to be performed at Nellis AFB. There is only live flight instruction required as described in para A3.3 at Creech AFB for the 26 WPS.

7. Question: CWD of 180 new courseware: what is planned; what about blk 30/50/SAR etc; when does syllabus need to be ready?

ANSWER: There is no blk30/50/SAR in the current workload requirement.

Questions from Industry after the Pre-Proposal Conference held 12 Dec 12 and before Receipt of Proposals

1. Question: RFP. During the 12 Dec Pre-proposal Conference, the Government briefed that the bidders were to be mindful when allocating cost to the CLIN in accordance with the PWS references. Some of the CLINs do not have PWS references (e.g.: 0001 – 00004). Please clarify?

ANSWER: The first four CLINs (0001-0004) are the two months required for the transition period; see PWS para 1.3.1. and Technical Subfactor D in Addendum to provision 52.212-2.

2. Question: RFP, CLIN 0104 and PWS para 4.1.2, 4.3.1.1, Appendix 1, paragraph A1 and A3.3. During the 12 Dec Pre-proposal Conference, the Government briefed that the Nellis work was performed from Creech AFB. References identified for this question implies that work may be required at Nellis AFB. Please clarify if work is performed on Nellis AFB? If so, to what extent is work performed at Nellis AFB?

ANSWER: There is no work performed on Nellis AFB. All work supporting the USAF Weapons School is performed at Creech AFB. The two paragraphs cited will be updated and “Nellis” will be deleted.

3. Question: RFP Instruction to Offerors para 10.5. The instructions for electronic copies indicate that Section 3 of Volume III, Schedule of Supplies and Services (CLINS) shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format only. Is contractor format acceptable or does the government intend to provide a blank Excel file for contractors to complete?

ANSWER: The government does not intend on providing a blank Excel file so each offeror’s format is acceptable.

4. Question: RFP Instruction to Offerors para10.6 states Volume I closing date is 31 January 2013, but in para 12.1 it states “Past Performance Volume and PPQs are due no later than the proposal due date. Closing date for receipt of proposals is 11 Feb 2013, 5:00 EDT.” When is Volume I due 31 January 2013 or 11 Feb 2013?

ANSWER: Para 12.1. will be updated to clarify that the past performance volume is due 31 Jan 13 and price/technical are due 11 Feb 13.

5. Question: RFP Instruction to Offerors para 12.5.F. Due to the proprietary nature of the information contained in subcontractor CPARS, request Government’s concurrence that CPARS can be submitted to the Government directly from subcontractors under separate cover (much in the same way as a subcontractor would provide detailed cost and pricing data).

ANSWER: Para 12.5.E. applies to the submission of CPARS information whether the past performance was performed as a prime or as a subcontractor.

6. Question: RFP Instruction to Offerors para 12.5 subpara 2. Since the first paragraph requires information for the Prime Contractor (including name, address, and phone number), it appears that the second paragraph requests the Subcontractor’s name, address, and phone number twice. Please clarify if the name, address, and phone number in the second paragraph is duplicative for the Subcontractor, or if the “Organization” in reference is to another company.

ANSWER: The intent of this is to capture performance as a subcontractor and identify who the customer was for the work performed. Amendment 1 changes this to mirror the Past Performance Questionnaire verbiage of “Customer/Agency”.

7. Question: RFP Instruction to Offerors para 13.2. E.1. and Attachment 3, Table 1 – Overall Manning Chart. Please clarify how the Government wants the bidders to use Table 1.

i. Question: Does the Government want a Table for each PWS specified workload (e.g.: A2.2.1, A2.2.2.1, etc); or, just one Table for the specific location (e.g.: Creech AFB) that encompasses the entire level of effort for that site?

ANSWER: Each offeror’s methodology will be tailored to their approach in meeting the PWS requirements and should contruct their manning charts accordingly.

ii. Question: Does the Government want the bidders to distinguish between the funded and optional CLINS?

ANSWER: See the answer to 7.i.

iii. Question: How much flexibility does the bidder have to modify the Table to accommodate workload nuances to meet the evaluation criteria: “Provide a detailed…?”

ANSWER: Individual table format should conform to the tables listed in Solicitation Attachment 3 but each contractor can modify the tables to provide additional data, as required.

8. Question: RFP Instruction to Offerors para 14.1. The paragraph states that “A Not to Exceed (NTE) amount has been pre-established for the Travel CLINS. These pre-established amounts are to be included in the offerors proposal.” However, the NTE amounts were not included in the RFP. The paragraph goes on to state that, “The Travel and New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax CLINs will not be evaluated for pricing, therefore offerors shall not include these CLINS in their pricing.” Can the government clarify?

ANSWER: Amendment 1 added the NTE amounts for each Travel CLIN and changed the end of the second sentence.

9. Question: PWS para 1.2.2.8, para (2). Pre-proposal Conference Q&A #26 references the use of SCORM standard 4.2 or the most current at the time the RFP is published. The current standard is SCORM 2004. Is SCORM 2004 the required standard for CWD under this contract?

ANSWER: 2004 version 4.2

10. Question: PWS para 1.2.2.8 Courseware Development Standards

i. How much of the current courseware is SCORM compliant?

ANSWER: All courseware is SCORM compliant

ii. What is the authoring language of the courseware?

ANSWER: The courseware is primarily authored in Flash and Microsoft Office.

11. Question: PWS para 1.2.3.5. and 10 Dec Q&A #27f. During the 12 Dec Pre-proposal conference, the Government briefers implied that the TMS/LMS does not interface with PEX, that PEX is a standalone GOTS system with limited use for “Go/No” requirements and documentation. PWS 1.2.3.5 specifies a requirement for the TMS/LMS to “…interface with all Patriot Excalibur features that support remotely piloted aircraft operations.” Please clarify; does an interface requirement exist between the two systems?

ANSWER: For the purposes of this solicitation, LMS/TMS will only required to interface with go-no-go and stan/eval functions. As PEX develops additional modules to support RPA ops (crew scheduling, airspace scheduling, aircraft scheduling etc.) the PWS LMS/TMS requirement will evolve to interface with additional data.

12. Question: PWS para 1.2.3.5 (last sentence) and 2.0 (#8). Please clarify the operational availability requirement for the TMS/LMS. The two references appear contradictory.

ANSWER: The LMS/TMS shall be operational 24/7/365 as identified in para 1.2.3.5. The government also understands that that LMS/TMS will at times be down for maintenance. As Section 2 #8 identifies , the metric for LMS/TMS availability shall be that it is operational during normal duty hours. Maintenance or down time will be accomplished outside normal duty hours.

13. Question: PWS para 1.2.3.5 TMS/LMS. Machine vs. Human: Currently, what percentage of LMS and/or TMS is being performed using Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Access software?

ANSWER: Contractor currently uses proprietary tools and methods for the TMS and LMS.

14. Question: PWS para 1.2.4. The paragraph states that, “The contractor shall determine the number of personnel required to complete these duties except as noted. NOTE: If sites have quantified workload for a support position identified in Appendix 1, in these instances, the contractor will use the provided workload for manning requirements.” The ambiguity presented for those positions with no quantified workload appears to run in direct conflict with the government’s desire to evaluate proposals purely on technical acceptability. For example, one contractor could choose to man all Registrar and Training Specialist positions one-deep at each location based on the duty descriptions. Another could assume the need to man all support activities to cover the entire 16 hour window called out in PWS 4.5.2. This would result in a significant disparity in proposed support personnel manning and price between the two bidders, when there should have been adequate information in the RFP for bidders to arrive at similar manning for those positions. Request the government provide quantified workload estimates for all support positions at all sites.

ANSWER: The govt considered the question of quantifying workload for support position and decided that it is in the best interest of all parties to quantify all the work for FTU support. A change has been made to the PWS to reflect this workload.

15. Question: PWS para 1.2.4.6. Only Creech, March and Hancock are mentioned in the included paragraphs in this section. Does this mean there is no PMATS Console Operator requirement at Holloman in the base year or option years?

ANSWER: Yes, Holloman has no console operators as they are under a different contract not associated with this solicitation.

16. Question: PWS para 1.3.1. Will the contractor have access to the TMS/LMS data during normal operational hours during the transition period, or does the data transfer effort to the new TMS/LMS need to be planned for off-hours and weekends? Also, in what format(s) will TMS/LMS data be provided?

ANSWER: Yes, TMS/LMS data will be available during a transition period during normal duty hours. TMS files will be available in SQL back-up files and all courseware will be available in the current format (ref question 9b).

17. Question: PWS para 3.4.8 and 3.5.2. Please clarify who is responsible for the reproduction of courseware and related materials. The two references appear contradictory.

ANSWER: PWS para 3.4.8 and 3.5.2 are deleted. New para 1.2.4.7 is added. The Govt will provide all materials and the contractor will reproduce and distribute.