More_WS__Questions_22_Feb_17.pdf

More Questions for 57 WG CAT/CWD RFP (FA4890‐16‐R‐0040) 21 Feb 17

1. Question: Ref Appendix 1, Paragraph A1.3.1. Can you please confirm that the CourseWare

Development workload has increased by over 81% from the previous PWS?

Answer: The workloads in this solicitation cannot be directly compared to the same table in the previous PWS. The new PWS is a statement of the work required to support the 57 WG today.

Contractors should base their proposal on the work in the current solicitation.

2. Question: Ref Appendix 1, Paragraph A1.3.1. What affect does the Instructor Led Lesson Package of

2.5 hours per lesson have on the New Lesson Equivalent and how does that interrelate with the total number of hours in the right most column of all CWD workload charts?

Answer: Each USAFWS lesson averages 2.5 hours in length. Therefore in paragraph A1.3.1. the 160 NLE represents 400 hours of classroom instruction.

3. Question: Ref Collective Bargaining Agreement, Page 12, Section 15.1‐ Rates of Pay Collective

Bargaining Agreement (CBA) rates include escalation for 10/01/16, 10/01/17, and 10/01/18. The current proposal period of performance is a Base Year plus 4 options years, (Aug. 2017 ‐ Sept 2022). Is the Government willing to provide approach and the evaluation methodology of escalation for consistency for the out years?

Answer: Referenced the Q&As posted 21 Feb 2017, Question #40

4. Question: Ref Section 6, Para 7.2, E, I and Appendix 1; Government requests that Offerors use the sample charts at Appendix 1. Request clarification of the Government’s intent regarding Table 3. a) The bottom row states “Proposed Manning” suggesting the totals of each column reflect a manning number for a specific labor category. However, the Government’s column format specifically states that the offeror is to reflect the “(hrs)” for each labor category to produce the individual CW product. As currently illustrated, as examples, the totals (12, 17, 26, etc) appear to represent the total hours for each skill / position to produce a single listed product, not the proposed manning for the entire Appendix 1 workload. Please clarify the intent of the row designated “Proposed Manning.”

Answer: The Sample Charts are for reference only, the data presented is not representative of any actual workload or solution. Your proposal should include charts that are a clear and concise description of how you plan to meet contract requirements. You should depict proposed labor categories for both full time and any part time positions, to include cross‐matrixing of requirements. A row on your tables labeled “Proposed Manning” would be expected to contain proposed manning numbers.

5. Question: Ref Section 6, Para 7.2, E, I and Appendix 1, Table 3; Regarding the three columns to the right, is it the Govt’s intent for the bidders to show the total hours to produce a CW product as the multiple of the total labor hours (x) the total new lesson equivalents for all courseware CLINS?

Answer: Per the referenced paragraph in instructions to offerors, the courseware development workload charts in your proposal are required to explain “...how staffing levels are determined to include estimated development times for each product.”

6. Once a student graduates from the program do they maintain their logon access to the lesson plans in the contractors database and if so how many students require logon privileges?

Answer: Ref PWS para 1.7.6.2. Yes, USAFWS graduates world‐wide will be provided access to the Academic Database. Currently there are about 8,000 total users of the database. About 5,000 of those are considered “active”, that is they have accessed the system in the previous six months.

7. Do current students attending the Weapons School need login access to the lesson plans based in the contractors database and if so how many and for how long?

Answer: Ref PWS para 1.7.6.1. Yes, individual access will be provided to all USAFW instructors, students, graduates and staff. There are approximately 120 students in a class, each class runs 5 ½ months: The “A” class is January – June; the “B” class is July ‐ December.

8. Question: Is ACC AMIC aware of the recent limitations placed by the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on 23 December 2016? Specifically, Sec. 813 mandates that the following conditions be met prior to moving forward with an LPTA procurement:

DoD must comprehensively and clearly describe the minimum requirements (i.e., performance objectives, measures, and standards) that will be used to determine acceptability of offers;

DoD would realize no, or minimal, value from a proposal exceeding the minimum requirements set forth in the RFP;

The proposed technical approaches would require no, or minimal, subjective judgment by the source selection authority (SSA) as to the desirability of one offeror’s proposal versus another;

The SSA has a high degree of confidence that a review of the technical proposals of those other than the lowest bidder would not result in the identification of factors that could provide value or benefit to the DoD;

The contracting officer has included a justification for the use of an LPTA in the contract file; and

DoD has determined that the lowest price reflects full life‐cycle costs, including for operations and support.

Since all six of these conditions must now be met to move forward with LPTA an acquisition, how does the Air Force Weapons School CAT/CWD contract meet all six of these requirements?

For example, although under Item 1 the PWS defines minimum requirements for program execution, has the Air Force considered the following:

‐ Item 2. Wouldn’t the 57th Wing customer likely benefit from proposals exceeding these minimum requirements?

‐ Item 3. Given the large number different crew positions and wide range of training to be provided, doesn’t this leave proposals open to a great deal of subjective judgement by the SSA in comparing one technical solution to another, especially in terms of combining required skill sets and cross‐utilization of instructors?

‐ Item 5. Has the contracting officer included justification for the use of LPTA in the contract file?

Answer: AMIC is aware of section 813 in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on 23 December 2016. The DFARS has not yet been revised to require the 6 situations outlined in that section for solicitations that are issued on or after 120 days after the date of enactment of the NDAA. The Weapons School solicitation was issued on 25 Jan 17. However, AMIC has successfully conducted several LPTA source selections on these services in the past. The 6 situations are very similar to the current guidance we follow on LPTA (DOD Source Selection Procedures dated 1 Apr 16, paras. 1.3.2, 1.3.3 and App C). All of these factors are discussed in the Acquisition Plan, which is part of the official contract file. As we move forward, AMIC will continue to evaluate customer requirements and evaluation methodologies.