Industry_Q A_as_of_16_Oct_13.docx

E-3 Mission Crew Training Solicitation FA4890-13-R-0122 Questions from interested offerors for Draft PWS dated 29 Aug 13 posted to FBO

INDUSTRY QUESTIONS/COMMENTS – CONSOLIDATED LIST AS OF 16 Oct 13

1. QUESTION: PWS 1.1 Scope of Work. There is a reference to proficiency level training in accordance with (IAW) 552 Air Control Wing (ACW) MCT Training Task Lists (TTLs). It would be beneficial to industry to make the TTLs available for consideration in determining level of effort.

ANSWER: At this time TTLs can’t be reviewed pending release of information by approval authority. If approved, they will be available at the pre-proposal conference at Tinker AFB.

2. QUESTION: PWS 1.1.1 Goals. Given the security classification of the E-3 System, the PWS needs to clearly state who is responsible to determine what is or is not releasable to foreign nationals.

ANSWER: The Air Force will make that determination upon the beginning of courseware development.

3. QUESTION: PWS 1.2 AWACS Mission. There were a number of discrepancies between the E-3 mission crew training listed in paragraph 1.2 and the courses listed in Appendix C Workload Estimates. The discrepancies are listed below:

(1) E-3 Operator Introduction

(2) Mission Crew Commander

(3) Air Weapons Officer

(4) Senior Director (SD) UGT - No CT listed in Appendix C

(5) Air Surveillance Officer - No UGT listed in paragraph 1.2, but Appendix C references it as UGT

(6) Electronics Combat Officer - No UGT listed in paragraph 1.2, but Appendix C references it as UGT

(7) Senior Surveillance Technician - No UGT listed in paragraph 1.2, but Appendix C references it as UGT but no CT

(8) Air Surveillance Technician - No CT listed in Appendix C

(9) Airborne Radar Technician - No CT listed in Appendix C

(10) Computer Display Maintenance Technician - No IQT or CT listed in Appendix C

(11) Airborne Communications Technician - Appendix C lists this as Airborne Communications Specialist (ACS) IQT course and has as no TPR or workload

(12) Communications Systems Operator - No IQT or CT listed in Appendix C

(13) Communications Technician - No IQT, MQT or CT listed in Appendix C

(14) Flight Instructor Course

(15) Mission Crew Instructor Course

(16) Subject Matter Course Appendix C list course with no information for workload

(17) Multi-Link Interoperations Course for Initial Qualification Training (IQT) ANSWER: Paragraph 1.2 was referencing the whole AWACS training program under their scope, so we removed all but the first sentence to eliminate any confusion.

4. QUESTION: PWS 1.7 Block 40/45 IQT/MQT/UGT Upgrades. This paragraph is confusing and does not specify exactly what the 552 ACW needs now or in the future in reference to the Block 40/45 acquisition. The paragraph says IQT/MQT/UGT in the beginning, but the last sentence states, “The contractor shall be capable of conducting Block 40/45 Difference Training in the classroom and MCTS.” Normal aircrew training for weapons system major modifications and upgrades begins with difference training given to previously qualified aircrew on the new modifications. Thus, difference training is given to mission qualified E-3 Block 30/35 aircrew into the E-3 Block 40/45 configuration. At some predetermined point in the future when the conversion of aircraft from the previous block to the new block is closer to being complete, the 552 ACW would need to begin IQT/MQT for entry-level aircrew into Block 40/45. It would be helpful for industry to have some visibility into the 552 ACW plan to determine when the Block 40/45 will become the same as the Block 30/35 requirements. If this situation exists as of award of this contract, it should be made clear in the PWS.

ANSWER: Block 40/45 is not expected to transition from Block 30/35 till the FY17 time frame. Block 40/45 difference training will be conducted by Air Force personnel until transition to Block 40/45. This will happen after contract award. Block 40/45 is a one for one swap with Block 30/35.

5. QUESTION: PWS paragraph 1.1.1. This paragraph requires the delivery of training services to “Foreign National Students.” Will the contractor be required to have Technical Assistance Agreements (TAA) with the applicable foreign nation recipients in order to satisfy International Traffic In Arms Regulations (ITAR)?

ANSWER: No TAA required; determination by government; see question #2.

6. QUESTION: PWS paragraph 1.3. This paragraph requires the contractor to provide training for annual student throughput in accordance with applicable training products and directives including Continuation Training (CT). Likewise PWS paragraph 1.6.1 requires the contractor to maintain and revise developed CT courseware. However, there is no definition or quantification of expected CT training efforts or workload estimates for contractor academic instruction (CAT) or courseware development (CWD). The only mention of simulator operator support is for DMO events (DPWS para 1.4.3.4). Appendix C does not address CT CAT or simulator operator support workload requirements. Appendix D provides a listing of the various CT topics but there is no definition of CT CWD requirements. Appendix E does not address CT courseware products. In order to accurately estimate the workload and associated CT CAT and CWD staffing it is imperative the CT requirement be fully detailed.

ANSWER: The PWS was updated to reflect the estimated workload requirements. Information will be available for review at the pre-proposal conference.

7. QUESTION: PWS paragraph 1.3.2. This paragraph levies the requirement to provide annual AOCP and MSCP E-3 Switch Action capability training. However this requirement is not addressed in the Appendix C, Workload Estimates. In order to accurately estimate the workload and associated CAT and CWD staffing it is imperative the level of effort for this requirement be fully detailed.

ANSWER: This annual class provides the 552 Airborne Computer Squadron with a better understanding of the computer system. Para 1.3.2. provides sufficient information for this requirement.

8. PWS paragraph 1.4.2 states: “The contractor shall manage the mission simulator schedules of the Legacy, MCTS, and MTC systems based on console utilization, availability, simulator to simulator events and simulator operating hours from Monday thru Friday 0700 to 1700 hours.” Is 0700 to 1700 a definition of the available operating hours for the various training devices (3 Legacy MCS, 1 FIT, 3 MTC and 1 MCTS) or is the period only a description of the operating hours for the scheduler co-located in the 552 OSS?

ANSWER: These are the operating hours for the scheduler, who works in the 552 Operation Support Training Squadron.

9. QUESTION: Ref PWS paragraph 1.4.2: What are the available operating hours for the various training devices (3 Legacy MCS, 1 FIT, 3 MTC and 1 MCTS)?

ANSWER: This scheduling requirement in para 1.4.2 is based on scheduled training of the students but the scope of work requires operating hours from Monday thru Friday 0700 to 1700 hours.

10. QUESTION: PWS paragraph 1.4.2.5. This paragraph levies a requirement for the MCT scheduler to coordinate with Northrop Grumman. What is Northrop Grumman’s involvement with the E-3 MCT effort? Will it be necessary to arrange an Associate Contractor Agreement to support the involvement?

ANSWER: The contractor will not have any interaction wih Northrop Grumman but will with Plexsys; the PWS was updated accordingly. There is no known ACA requirement at this time.

11. QUESTION: PWS paragraph 1.6.4.1. This paragraph calls for the review of courseware, syllabus and supporting media (simulator) {for} all courses on a bi-annual cycle beginning 1 May 2015. What is the Government’s intention regarding the period beginning at contract start (~ 1 April 2014) and the first review period of 1 May 2015?

ANSWER: The requirement has been changed to reflex bi-annual cycle beginning at the start of the contract (currently projected to be Jul 2014 at this time).

12. QUESTION: PWS paragraph 1.6.4.1. This paragraph calls for the review of courseware, syllabus and supporting media (simulator) for all courses on a bi-annual cycle beginning 1 May 2015. The PWS goes on to state as a minimum all courseware materials and lessons will go through the review/revision/survey process once every other year. PWS paragraph 1.6.5 calls for a Courseware Development Schedule based on fiscal years. Likewise the PWS Section 2 – Service Summary, Item 5 links annual CW deliveries to the Fiscal Year. What is the Government’s intention regarding the relationship of the non-standard review cycle starting 1 May and the Fiscal Year delivery milestone?

ANSWER: See question #11.

13. QUESTION: There is no definition of the annual CWD workload other than the reference to the requirement all CW materials and lessons will go through the review/revision/survey process once every other year. There is no listing of specific products (Lesson Plan, Syllabus, Tests, etc.) or lesson equivalents for each year or the expected distribution of new/revise/review to which the work factors (100% New, 10% Review and 50% Revise) would be applied. Appendix E provides some CW information but many of the courses tasked for CW support in Appendix C are not included in Appendix E. In order to realistically and fairly estimate the workload requirements and staffing more detail is needed regarding the CWD effort.

ANSWER: Appendix C has been updated with a Courseware Development workload table. Also, courseware examples will be made available for review at pre-proposal conference.

14. QUESTION: PWS paragraph 1.6.4.1. This paragraph refers to the “review/revision/survey process” for the CWD effort. Definitions/effort rates are provided for new, review and revision but nothing is mentioned for the “survey” process. What is the Government’s intention regarding CW survey?

ANSWER: Para 1.6.4.1 was updated to reflect this requirement.

15. QUESTION: PWS paragraph 1.6.4.3 and 1.7. These paragraphs refer to Difference Training; however, there is no mention of support for Difference Training CAT or CWD in Appendix C or E. What is the Government’s intention regarding contractor support for Difference Training?

ANSWER: The contractor shall not perform any service associated with difference training; para 1.6.4.3 was updated accordingly.

16. OBSERVATION: The PWS calls out the requirement for the Instructional Systems Development Plan (ISDMP) to be submitted concurrently with the contractor’s proposal. The ISDMP Risk Management section must address the contractor’s methods and systematic approach to identify and manage risk associated with the application of the ISD process. However, there is no requirement to identify specific financial, transition, staffing or overall performance risk factors. As the risks associated with a contract of the complexity of this effort are considerable, particularly for a Small Business, we recommend the Risk Management requirements be expanded and included as a specific evaluation criterion.

ANSWER: The source selection process for this requirement is Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA), which will not be evaluating risk in the technical evaluation criteria.

17. QUESTION: Page 4, paragraph 1.3.1. This paragraph discusses ...required mix of academic, training device and flying instructor personnel....yet Appendix C only addresses the PFT. Missing is the Flying workload estimates and associated contractor requirements. Is the contractor responsible for flying instruction?

ANSWER: The contractor is not responsible for flying instruction as it will be accomplished by Air Force Personnel; the PWS was udpated accordingly.

18. QUESTION: Page 5, paragraph 1.3.2.1 a. Does MSCP include Block 40? If not, should other Block 40 software products, such as Mission Computing Software or the PAD, be included?

ANSWER: No, this course is not geared towards a specific Block for the E-3. This is a course which is conducted once a year to educate Air Force Personnel who work in near and around the legacy simulator equipment.

19. QUESTION: Page 6, paragraph 1.4.2.2 . “Coordinate with MTC, MSLITE and Legacy contractor as necessary.” Will MSLITE missions be done out of the Block 40 MCTS?

ANSWER: The scheduler will coordinate with the MTC, MSLITE and Legacy contractor as necessary and the scheduler functions will also apply to Block 40. MSLITE will be used with Block 40 MCTS.

20. QUESTION: Page 6, Para 1.4.3. This paragraph discusses... contractor simulator operator support for AWACS mission crew sim training; however, it does not address the number of sim operators required (other than the 4 for DMO). Will additional information be provided to calculate the proper manpower requirement?

ANSWER: Appendix C and paragraph 1.4.3.5 were updated to define APS support for AWACS mission crew simulator training.

21. QUESTION: Page 7, Paragraph 1.4.3.4. This paragraph states “four (4) operators per event.” Is that an accurate number?

ANSWER: Yes

22. QUESTION: Page 7, Paragraph 1.5, last sentence. This paragraph/sentence states, “For MSTP classified and unclassified.” What does this sentence mean?

ANSWER: Para 1.5 was updated for clarification purposes.

23. QUESTION: Page 7, Para 1.5.4. This paragraph discusses the 6 MSTPs requirement; is this the only sim scenario development requirement?

ANSWER: Yes, the scope of work defined in para 1.5.4 and associated subparagraphs is the sim scenario development requirement for the contract.

24. QUESTION: Page 7, Paragraph 1.5.4.1, Note. Based on the Block 40, are these events enough or should there be a separate set for Block 30 and Block 40?

ANSWER: No

25. QUESTION: Page 9, Paragraph 1.6.4. This paragraph refers to Appendix C for workload estimates applicable to CWD; are those workloads missing from C?

ANSWER: Appendix C has been updated to reflect Courseware workload.

26. QUESTION: Page 9, Paragraph 1.6.4.1. First sentence uses term “Bi-annual.” Is this “biannual” (twice a year) or “biennial” (once every two years)?

ANSWER: Once every two years.

27. QUESTION: Page 11, Paragraph 1.6.5 (2); and Page 61, Deliverable #9. Both reference SCORM. What version of SCORM is the Government requiring?

ANSWER: There is no CBT/Interactive Courseware (ICW) requirement so para 1.6.5 was updated to remove SCORM and Deliverable #9 was removed from the PWS.

28. QUESTION: Page 11, Para 1.6.5 (5). This paragraph references “Air Force Enterprise System.” Could the Government please specify the components of this system (e.g., Learning Management System, Electronic Grade Book, Academic Database). Please specify manufacturer and product name/brand.

ANSWER: “Air Force Enterprise System” was removed from para 1.6.5 as there is no CBT/ICW requirement.

29. QUESTION: Page 11, Para 1.7. On Block 40/45 Upgrade training is vague; will we receive additional information on this requirement?

ANSWER: See question #4.

30. QUESTION: Page 16, Paragraph 3.5.2. Can servers and network be a stand-alone system (not connected to Comm Sqdn equipment)? (as done at other sites)?

ANSWER: No, the contractor has to share data with the government on a continuing basis while complying with Base communications policies as stated in the PWS.

31. QUESTION: Page 26, Simulator Operators definition. Should MCTS IOS be added since it is different than the MTC.

ANSWER: The PWS was updated with this definition.

32. QUESTION: Page 30, Appendix A, Glossary—CBT has “deleted” as its definition. Should this read “computer-based training”?

ANSWER: The PWS was updated to remove all references to CBT.

33. QUESTION: Page 38, Appendix C. Appendix C discusses projected courseware, academic and simulator instruction; can't locate the number of academic and training device hours per course, as well as courseware workload estimates. Will we get more information to able to calculate manpower requirements (e.g., new lesson equivalent data, or number of new, revised, and reviewed CWD products)?

ANSWER: Appendix C was updated to reflect courseware workload.

34. QUESTION: Page 42, Appendix D. Will the Government provide the syllabi for CT courses or the number of instructional hours associated with each course?

ANSWER: No, there is no syllabi for CT courses. Para 1.6.1.2. was updated to clarify this requirement and Courseware material will be available for review at the pre-proposal conference.

35. QUESTION: Page 42, Appendix E. Will the Government provide the various IQT/MQT Syllabi?

Page 52, Deliverable #3, mentions Syllabus Review Report and Objective Media Analysis Report—are these deliverables that should be included in the list of deliverables at Appendix F?

ANSWER: The syllabi will be available for review at the pre-proposal conference.

36. QUESTION: Page 54, Deliverable #5, Frequency and Milestones. This section references “PMATS”—should that be changed to “ATD”?

ANSWER: The PWS was updated to remove the PMATS reference.

37. QUESTION: Page 55, Deliverable #6. “The answers to the quiz items shall not be in the Aircrew/Pilot Guides.” Should this read, “The answers to the quiz items shall not be in the MCT Guides”?

ANSWER: The PWS was updated and now states “The answers to the quiz items shall not be in the Training Guides”.

38. QUESTION: Page 59, Deliverable #7, Format. This section references “CWQAP”—this is the only such reference in document. Should this be “COR”?

ANSWER: The PWS was updated and changed to COR.

39. QUESTION: Paragraph 1.1.1: This paragraph states that the PWS designates the levels of training service and then in the same paragraph states that the contracted services shall achieve the training levels for mission crew members. However, we do not find other references to levels of training service nor to achieve the training levels in the PWS. What does the AF mean by levels of training service and achieve the training levels relative to the PWS requirements?

ANSWER: The PWS was updated to remove levels of training.

40. QUESTION: Paragraph 1.1.2. Recommend changing “…this requirement can undergo…” to read, “…this requirement may undergo…” ANSWER: The requirement language is explanatory enough and this minor recommended change has no added value.

41. QUESTION: Paragraph 1.4.2. Is there/where is the workload estimate for the Scheduler position(s) located?

ANSWER: Appendix C has the sufficient information for each offeror to formulate their technical strategy for the scheduling requirement.

42. QUESTION: Paragraph 1.4.3. Is workload for the simulator operators found in Appendix C, column titled “APS SUP”?

ANSWER: Yes, the PWS was updated to clarify this requirement as well as adding paragraphs 1.4.3.5, 1.4.3.6 and 1.4.3.7.

43. QUESTION: Paragraph 1.4.3.3 and 1.4.3.4. Is the workload identified in these paragraphs included in Appendix C or is it a separate estimate?

ANSWER: No, it is not in Appendix C. Para 1.4.3.3 was updated to quantify the reserve simulator operator requirement. Para 1.4.3.4 reflects the quantified workload for DMO support.

44. QUESTION: Paragraph: 1.5. The last sentence in the opening paragraph is incomplete.

ANSWER: Para 1.5 was updated accordingly.

45. QUESTION: Paragraph: 1.5. Please identify the number of classified and unclassified MSTP events.

ANSWER: This number changes per mission requirements; the quantified workload is stated in 1.5.4.1.

46. QUESTION: Paragraph: 1.5.3. Please define MCTS; the term is used throughout the PWS, but doesn’t appear to be defined.

ANSWER: Appendix A was updated to define MCTS.

47. QUESTION: Paragraph: 1.5.3. This paragraph defines the type of computer imagery used with simulation systems but then references “Aircraft Pilot Simulator (APS)” which is a labor category noted in paragraph 4.9 pages 26 and 27. Please clarify intent.

ANSWER: APS are the simulator Operators preforming as a pilot.

48. QUESTION: Paragraph: 1.5.4 and 1.5.4.1. The identified workload in these two paragraphs appears to contradict each other. Please clarify.

ANSWER: Paragraph 1.5.4 is explaining that the contractor can be working on 6 scenarios at one time. Paragraph 1.5.4.1 is the workload for each year which is (24) 30 day scenarios and (6) 60 day scenarios for a total of 30 scenarios per year.

49. QUESTION: Paragraph: 1.5.4.1. In the “Note” the term “30 workday” is used; what is the AF’s definition of a “workday”?

ANSWER: Workday is the normal Monday thought Friday not to include weekends and holidays; PWS was updated to reference “also known as business day”.

50. QUESTION: Paragraph: 1.6.1. This paragraph requires the contract to “analyze and develop” new courseware and materials; yet, paragraph 1.6.4.1 appears to limit the workload to “Review” and “Revision” tasks.

a. Is this effort limited to review and revision of the existing courseware as noted in Appendix E?

ANSWER: New courseware development is required; para 1.6.1 was updated accordingly to clarify this requirement.

b. Does the AF require new courseware to be developed; if so, please identify the workload?

ANSWER: Appendix C has been expanded to reflex workload estimates.

51. QUESTION: Paragraph 1.6.4. This paragraph indicates that the courseware workload estimates for CWD is noted at Appendix C, yet the courseware is listed at Appendix E. It appears that Appendix E is the correct list(?).

ANSWER: Appendix C has been expanded to reflex workload estimates and Appendix E shows courseware listing.

52. QUESTION: Paragraph 1.6.4.1. Is our understanding correct that the AF does not require any courseware support until 1 May 2015?

ANSWER: See question #11.

53. QUESTION: Paragraph 1.6.5. Please define the “ICW Committee” we are not familiar with this organization and an Internet search didn’t reveal an organization relative to the PWS.

ANSWER: There is no Interactive Courseware requirement, therefore this reference was removed from the PWS.

54. QUESTION: Paragraph 1.6.5. Some of the standards between AICC, ADL, SCORM and ACCI 36-2250 do conflict. Does the AF have a standard hierarchy / priority of standards?

ANSWER: The standards for courseware is ISD; note SCORM was removed from the PWS.

55. QUESTION: Paragraph 1.6.5 (4). Please identify how many and which lessons noted at Appendix C and E are interactive courseware (ICW)/computer based training (CBT).

ANSWER: None, the PWS was updated to remove all CBT references.

56. QUESTION: Paragraph 1.6.5 (4). Please identify how many and which lessons noted at Appendix C and E are instructor led lessons.

ANSWER: Appendix C has been updated to reflex Academic Instruction and all courses in Appendix E instructor led.

57. QUESTION: Paragraph 1.7. What is the associated workload for “all Block 40/45 IQT/MQT/UPT training support…”?

ANSWER: Paragraph has been rewritten to reflect requirement.

58. QUESTION: Paragraph 3.5.1. For pricing accuracy, please provide the technical specifications for the headsets used in the Legacy simulator.

ANSWER: Para 3.5.1 was updated accordingly.

59. QUESTION: Paragraph 3.5.1. For pricing accuracy, please provide the technical specifications for the communications chords used in the Legacy simulator.

ANSWER: The PWS was updated to remove comm cords referenced in 3.5.1

60. QUESTION: Paragraph 3.5.2. For pricing and technical accuracy, please provide the technical specifications for the requested server hardware and software.

a. Are there any minimum system performance requirements or specifications?

ANSWER: Minimum system performance requirements must comply with all DoD/AF/ANG mandated security and protocol procedures as stated in para 3.5.2

61. QUESTION: Paragraph 3.5.1. Please define the purpose for this server and description of use.

ANSWER: The contractor must have access to government information to be able to perform on this contract.

62. QUESTION: Paragraph 3.5. How many personnel does the AF want trained to perform duties as FSA, CSSO and CSA duties, or does the AF have an associated workload for this requirement?

ANSWER: This requirement does not require a full-time equivalent so each offeror must determine their technical approach to meet this requirement.

a. Do these positions require any particular security clearance?

ANSWER: No

b. What specific tasks are the FSA, CSSO and CSA required to support the PWS?

ANSWER: Perform system administrator duties as required by the Tinker

63. QUESTION: Paragraph 4.4. What are the typical work hours?

ANSWER: PWS para 4.4 was updated to clarify this requirement.

64. QUESTION: Paragraph 4.5. Please clarify “ACC AFTS Program Office” relationship to the AF organizations listed in paragraph 4.3.

ANSWER: The Program Office will authorize each travel request for the contractor; para 4.5 was updated to ACC A5TS.

65. QUESTION: Paragraph 4.8. The AF has extensive detail on a variety of plans specifying the content and requirements of each plan; yet, this effort seem contradictory to paragraph 4.1 whereas the government review of such plans and directed modifications thereto would appear to control the method by which the contractor performs the required tasks. Please clarify intent.

ANSWER: These plans are required for technical evaluation for contract award as well as quality assurance purposes after contract award to ensure the contractor will perform this training requirement acceptably.

66. QUESTION: Paragraph 4.8. This paragraph requires the delivery of several large scale plans (e.g.: ITCP, TWMP, Transition) with the contractor’s proposal. We recommend at least 100 pages to adequately address the solicitation requirements and required plans.

ANSWER: Each offeror should be able to state their technical approach, to include all plans, in 75 pages as stated I the RFP’s Instruction to Offerors.

67. QUESTION: Paragraph 4.8.1.1. Is the requirement a “report” or a “plan”?

ANSWER: The PWS was updated to reflect plan.

68. QUESTION: Paragraph 4.8.1. Is the ISDMP delivered concurrently with the contractor’s proposal?

ANSWER: Yes

69. QUESTION: Paragraph 4.9:

a. Why does the Registrar need supervisory experience as a required qualification? Contractors do not supervise Government personnel; typically, the contractor determines which personnel on its staff perform supervisory duties.

ANSWER: The Registrar will not supervise government personnel but will manage the influx of many students from young airmen to senior officers in the training system. Managerial experience would be, in the government’s opinion, essential in managing such a large operation.

b. Are there any experience (required/desired) qualifications for the scheduler position?

ANSWER: No

c. The requirement for a minimum of five (5) years of experience as an E-3 External Agency Simulator (EAS) seem overly restrictive given the nature of their duties as well as the number of work environments the train and produce an EAS.

ANSWER: SIMULATION of external agencies by an individual would require a wide breadth of experience to properly act out those positions. The government believes that this minimum experience level is understandable and achievable.

70. QUESTION: Paragraph 4.11. Will the AF publish the AFNIC APL and SDC with the solicitation?

ANSWER: No, it will be issued only upon request.

71. QUESTION: Terms and Definitions, page 33, SCORM is Sharable Content Object Reference Model ANSWER: SCORM was removed from the PWS as there is no CBT/IWC requirement.

72. QUESTION: Appendix C. The workload is defined as an “estimate” please define the term “estimate” when used in this context.

ANSWER: Appendix C has been updated to help define requirements.

73. QUESTION: Appendix C. The workload definitions lack details to make a workload estimate and overall price. As an example, for the E-3 Operator Introduction course, the instructor to student ratio is expressed as 1 /2, however, the chart does not illustrate/distinguish between the number of hours of training for the classroom nor the simulator event(s).

ANSWER: Appendix C has been updated to help define requirements.

74. QUESTION: Appendix C:

a. What does the “X” represent in the chart?

ANSWER: APS Support REQUIRED.

b. Under the ANN PFT FLOW column, a numeric value is often represented by two set of number such as 16 (8) for the E-3 Operators Introduction course. Please clarify what 16 (8) mean. When only one number is illustrated, example Mission Crew Command course, what does that mean?

ANSWER: Taken out of Appendix C; now reads for example MCC reads 28/34 which means 28 Annual but could be up to 34 students per year.

c. Why are some cells blank e.g.: MQT (AF Instructors) course?

ANSWER: Table has been reworked to be clearer on requirements.

ANSWER: Changed to read Classes per year.

f. Why are some values in the Class Size and Variation column represented as 4/0 (example) and others with just a single digit?

ANSWER: Changed to read Classes per year.

g. In the APS SUP column, what does “SUP” mean?

ANSWER: SUPPORT

h. In the APS SUP column, please explain the number values, examples: 4 (1) and X (7)?

ANSWER: The Legend on the bottom of the table provides an explanation.

i. Recommend the notes be number in the chart for clarity and accuracy.

ANSWER: Appendix C updated accordingly.

j. Please clarify, are the notes identified in the chart explained in the “Legend”?

ANSWER: YES

k. Is “Training Day” the same as “Workdays” defined in 4.4?

ANSWER: YES

ANSWER: Overall Appendix C has been updated and should be clearer on requirements.

75. QUESTION: Appendix D is referenced in the PWS as part of the CT requirements (paragraph 1.3); however, the PWS is silent to any workload estimates such as class size, frequency, student load, etc. What is the purpose for Appendix D.

ANSWER: Appendix D lists the lessons for Continuation Training and PWS paragraph 1.6.1.2 explains the CT requirement.

76. QUESTION: Appendix E. Appendix E appears to be a list of courseware in which the contractor would use to develop estimates to support PWS requirements noted at 1.6. Please provide the length of each lesson in hour/minutes; whether classified or unclassified; whether CBT/ICW or instructor led training or if both; and if the lesson is a Block 30 or Block 40 version.

ANSWER: Para 1.4 of Appendix C was added to quantify the CWD requirement,secret clearances are required to perform this work, CBT/ICW is not required and Block 30/35 is the current Block for the E-3; Block 40/45 will be developed per para 1.7.