Attch_2-Q A.docx

Questions on Draft Solicitation FA4890-13-R-0122

1. Question #6 of the 16 October Q&A document addresses the lack of workload description in the PWS associated with Continuation Training. The answer indicates that the PWS was updated to reflect estimated workload requirements. However, the 5 November version of the PWS only addresses the courseware development effort required to support CT, with no apparent CAT or simulator operator workload other than the PWS 1.3.2 annual AOCP/MSCP training (CAT) and the AFRES and DMO events in PWS 1.4.3.3 and 1.4.3.4 (Simulator Operator). Can the government provide further information regarding CAT and simulator operator workload to support annual Continuation Training for qualified aircrew?

Answer: PWS Para 1.3 was updated to clarify CT requirements: Continuation Training (CT) is not required for academic and simulator training, but is required for simulator operator support.

2. PWS 1.4.3.3 indicates that AFRES support requires 1 exercise director and up to 5 APSs, but subsequent paragraphs in section 1.4.3 do not make the distinction. Table C1.1, Note 1 provides some additional breakdown showing when exercise directors are required. Is it expected that the mix exercise directors to normal simulator operators are to be derived by bidders based solely on this information?

Answer: Yes. PWS para 4.9 was updated to include exercise directors under simulator operators.

3. The PWS and CBA both break out exercise director as a higher level of qualification than a simulator operator, but PWS 4.9 only provides required qualifications for simulator operators. Are there additional qualifications necessary to be an exercise director or is this an internal contractor upgrade which should be addressed in the ITCP?

Answer: No, there are not additional qualifications for exercise directors. PWS para 4.9 was updated to include exercise directors under simulator operators.

4. PWS 1.4.3.5 through 1.4.3.7 indicate a requirement for a two-shift (16 hour) daily schedule of simulator operators to support 3 simultaneous events with 6 or possibly 7 operators. That translates to a daily requirement of 36-42 simulator operators, before taking into account additional staffing necessary to support 12 Saturdays annually (PWS 1.4.3.3), scenario development under PWS 1.5.4 and allowance for absences. Such capacity appears to exceed the total annual requirements for formal training described in Appendix C. Can the government confirm that such a robust level of simulator operator support is actually required since it has the potential to be a cost driver?

Answer: The simulators are running 16 hours a day as stated in PWS para 1.4.3.6 and 1.4.3.7. They are not utilized on a normal basis for 16 hours of training. Also, not all training requires simulator operators. Each offeror will provide their technical approach to perform to PWS paragraphs 1.4.3.3 – 1.4.3.6, which were updated to remove numbers of personnel.

5. PWS 1.5.4 addresses the two levels of complexity of scenario development based on 30 and 60 workday cycles, but it is unclear on the actual workload in terms of labor hours or man-days necessary to complete this tasking. As written, only the incumbent contractor has insight into the actual labor effort required to construct and program these scenarios in the training system. Can the government provide labor hour information on the estimated workload for normal and complex MSTP scenarios? In addition, what mix of skill sets is typically required? In other words, are the scenarios built by simulator operators, instructors or a mix of the two skills?

Answer: PWS para 1.5.4.1 quantifies the work required for MSTPs. Contractor personnel are expected to be familiar with AWACS mission simulators that support AWACS mission crew training.

6. PWS 1.6.1.2 indicates that the contractor is required to develop and deliver CT courseware material not to exceed 24 modules per year. Table C1.4 indicates CT Lesson Package New Equivalents of 28.2 per year. What is the relationship between these two requirements? Is the PWS 1.6.1.2 requirement contained within the 28.2 figure or are these mutually exclusive?

Answer: PWS para 1.6.1.2 was corrected to 28.2.

7. PWS 1.6.1.2 states that, “Each CT module shall be delivered to support paper-based training and be capable of web-enabled/based delivery.” Previous Q&A responses and PWS updates have removed all references to ICW/CBT. Should bidders simply interpret the “web-enabled/based delivery” requirement to mean that CT lessons should be built as files which can be accessed electronically (e.g., PowerPoint)?

Answer: PWS para 1.6.1.2. was updated to clarify hard copy and electronic delivery.

8. The CBA Section 15.1 Rates of Pay table provides no direct reference to a simulator operator. Are simulator operators the same as Radar Mission Simulator Specialists? Also, are Tape Developers the same as scenario developers?

Answer: Yes, simulator operators are the same as Radar Mission Simulator Specialists and Tape Developers are the same as scenario developers. FAR Clause 52.222-42 in the RFP has been updated to reflect these classifications.

9. CBA Section 15.8( c ) makes reference to an RMSS Instructor and says they shall be paid at the Instructor Rate during the course of instruction. PWS 4.9 is silent on simulator operator instructors. Do RMSS Instructors have to complete some sort of Instructor upgrade training? What is the typical number of RMSS Instructor-qualified personnel required?

Answer: The simulator operators will have to get training from the OEM or during the transition period. There is not any certification for simulator operators. However simulator operators should have experience in AWACS missions.

10. Draft RFP Section 6, Instructions for Volume 3 – Price Proposal. Recent ACC AMIC solicitations which were also released under LPTA evaluation criteria have contained the following clause in this section:

“14.3. Supporting Price Backup Data. Certified cost or pricing data is not required. However, supporting price backup data is requested. This data should explain the methodology used in developing proposed CLIN prices. Supporting data includes, at a minimum, breakdown (by CLIN) of labor (labor category, number of positions and productive hours), breakout of Other Direct Costs (ODC), direct and indirect rates, and subcontract costs, proposed OH, G&A and profit. Supporting data may be submitted in a format selected by the offeror. The Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals.”

Is there some reason the government is no longer requesting any backup data on pricing methodology?

Answer: As stated in RFP Provision 52.212-2, there is great expectation of competition for this requirement. As such, the determination for fair and reasonable pricing will be based on total price, which includes phase-in, basic period, option years and fifty percent (50%) of the last option period price to cover the Option to Extend Services clause 52.217-8.

11. What companies/organizations can we expect to establish ACA’s with to support this contract and future system mods?

Answer: Ingenuite maintains maintenance in the Legacy simulators and Plexsys maintains maintenance in the Mission Training Center (MTC). For the MTCS (40/45) Boeing maintains maintenance for that system.

12. What contract vehicle will be used, will it be CAAS IV?

Answer: No, it will be five year firm-fixed price stand-alone contract.

13. Will facilities be provided at no cost for courseware development?

Answer: The PWS was updated to add Appendix G Shared Facility. Additional space required will be upon the contractor to provide at their own cost.

14. Are these simulator events four hours each for PWS para 1.4.3.3 and 1.4.3.4?

Answer: The PWS was updated to clarify the number hours per event.

15. Can you provide information on how long 30 and 60 day scenarios are, i.e. what the duration of each is?

Answer: PWS para 1.5.4.1 defines this requirement.

16. How are the plans referenced in PWS para 4.8 going to be evaluated in the technical evaluation criteria?

Answer: Refer to the technical subfactors B, C and D listed in RFP Provision 52.212-2.