Copy_of_Running_Total_Conf_Questions_7_Oct_19.pdf

Question Reference Question Answer

PWS

F1.2

Will the government provide all flight gear as GFE? If not, please provide a list of all flight gear required so it can properly be priced as part of the price proposal.

For the flight instructors the government will be providing required equipment.

PWS

1.2

PWS requires the contractor to provide training to foreign nationals; this requirement encompasses the need for the contractor to obtain ITAR approval via the Department of State.

For proper pricing considerations, which foreign countries will be represented by the foreign nationals?

Foreign nationals that might attend training are from Canada and the UK both of which are under a DDL. We currently researching current whether a TAA or ITAR is required.

With regards to maintaining aviation insurance for the flight training operations, does the Government require the contractor to maintain such insurance and if so, in what amount of coverage? If not, will the Government indemnify the contractor damages as per IAW FAR 50.403 (Special Procedures for Unusually Hazardous or Nuclear Risks) for flight training operations?

The RFP includes FAR clauses 28.306 and 28.307-2. Please follow guidance per these FAR requirements as applicable to your company.

PWS

1.16.2 For accurate travel cost projections, what location does the AF offer CIC and how long is the training time?

If the contractor is required to attend off base CIC it would most likely be conducted at Dyess AFB Texas. There is the possibility of substituting on base training via AETC maintenance courses.

Section L, 1.5; Section L, 5.4

Electronic Copies; Section L,

5.5 Copies and Page Limits

The price volume is referred to as Volume II in some sections and Volume III in other sections. Would the Government confirm the correct volume number for the Price volume?

Pricing proposal is Volume III.

Section L, 5.4

Electronic Copies

Section L.5.4 states, "Each volume shall be contained in its own single searchable file." Would the Government confirm that the Price volume may be two files; one in MS Excel for the price data and one in PDF or MS Word for items such as the signed SF1449 and the representations and certifications?

Yes, the Price volume may be two files; one in MS Excel for the price data and one in PDF or MS Word for items such as the signed SF1449 and the representations and certifications.

Section L,

5.5 Copies and Page Limits, Note

1; Section L, 5.3

Proposal Format, Pages Not Included in Page Count;

Section L, 5.7.1

Section L.5.5 Note 1 indicates that an executive summary shall be included in Volume I, Technical. Sections L.5.3 and L.5.7.1 indicate that an executive summary shall be included in all volumes. Would the Government confirm that each volume should contain its own Executive Summary?

An executive summary shall be included in Volume I, Prerequisites only.

Languages in L.5.3 and L.5.7.1 have been deleted or revised.

Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost, pages 10-

The CLINs 5001-5013 for the 6-month extension period of performance are showing quantities of 12 months. As the period is only 6 months in duration, we believe the quantities should be 6 versus 12. Would the Government clarify the correct quantities for CLINs 5001-5013?

Yes, the quantiy is 6 months.

PWS

3.5.2

If we propose a server and switch for this requirement, will we be allowed to locally host the server within the facility on an “Intra-net” instead of the .mil “NIPRNET”?

If a server were required under this contract then we would coordinate with the local Comm squadron to ensure it would not be connected to the local LAN and an appropriate location /space requirements would need to be approved.

Section L

Para 5.3 states:” Executive Summary will not be included in the proposal page limitation as stated in paragraph 5.5 below, and if applicable exceptions will be documented in each volumes (sic) executive summary and clearly marked as such.” Note 1 to para

5.5 states:” An Executive Summary shall be included in Volume I, Technical – summary shall not exceed 3 pages.” Question: How many Executive Summaries are required and where should they be placed?

There is only one Executive Summary. An executive summary shall be included in Volume I, Prerequisites only.

Section L

Note 1 states “Volume 1 Technical” has a 75-page limit. The chart above the note shows “Volume 1 Prerequisites” has a 40-page limit. Which is correct?

Volume I Prerequisites has a 40-page limit. Volume II, Technical Capability has 50-page limit. Volume III, Price, has no page limit.

Section M, Factor 2, Price

The government intends to evaluate price to receive “a fair, reasonable, realistic and balanced price”. In the remaining paragraph, the government defines how they will evaluate a bidder offer to ensure fair, reasonable and balanced, but does not appear to inform the bidders how the government is going to evaluate “realistic” (realism). Please define and modify the solicitation to include a description of how the Government will evaluate the bidder’s offer to ensure a realistic price.

The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices are realistic in that they reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s Technical Capability Proposal

CBA

To allow non-incumbents to accurately propose labor and benefit costs for the unionized workforce, can the Government please provide number of employees and average seniority for each CBA job title identified in the E3_CBA_2018.pdf?

The offerors are expected to provide their best proposals based on the PWS requirements to meet the government’s needs. The CBA is provided for your use with your proposals.

Draft RFP

Under Supplies or Services (pg. 3 of DRFP) the POP for the Base Period shows as a 12-month period (e.g. 1 July 2020 – 30 June 2021); however, under the Quantity column it shows 10 months.

Can the Government please clarify whether the Base Period should be priced as a 12-month period for full performance or a 10 month period?

Base period is 10 month period.

Section L Paragraph 7.1

Section L Paragraph 7.1 states that all pricing should be divisible by 12. Given that the Base Period quantity is 10 months should the totals be divided by 10 in the first year or should the quantity be changed to 12 months?

Base period is 10 month period. So price should be divisible by 10.

Section M Factor 2

In Section M Factor 2 the Government states it will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether they are consistent with the Technical Capabilities Proposal. Can the Government please confirm that the data requested in tabular format per Section L.7.4 (the underlined text) satisfies the traceability requirement between the two volumes? If it does not, please provide further instructions for offerors to properly show that the Technical solution and Cost are in synch.

Supporting data should explain the methodology used in developing proposed CLIN prices. CLINs are references to the PWS requirement. Supporting data shall be provided in a table format, to include, at a minimum, a breakdown (by CLIN) of labor (labor category, number of positions and productive hours and rates used), breakout of Other Direct Costs (ODC), Direct and Indirect Rates, and Subcontract costs. Supporting data may be submitted in a format selected by the offeror, but must address the information requested per Section L.7.4 The Government reserves the right to request additional pricing information after receipt and evaluation of proposals.

Section M

The last sentence of Section M states that “the burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the offeror.” Can the Government please confirm that statement to be just a reiteration of the requirements provided elsewhere in the RFP (e.g. provide what’s been asked for from a supporting documentation standpoint)?

The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s Technical Proposal. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent between promised performance, technical approach and price, shall be explained in the proposal. For example, if the intended use of new and innovative techniques is the basis for an abnormally low price, the nature of these techniques and their impact on the cost or price shall be explained. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and its financial ability to perform the contract

PWSTable A1.5.1

Based on the instructor to student ratio, the SD, ASO, SST, CSO, CT, CDMT, and ART number of instructors required per class appears to be wrong.

The Instructor to Student ration should be 1/2. The draft PWs will be corrected and a newer version provided post conference.

PWS Table A1.5.2

Based on the instructor to student ratio, the MCC, CSO, CT, CDMT, and ART number of instructors required per class appears to be wrong.

The draft PWs will be corrected and a newer version provided post conference.

PWS Table E.1 The calculations appear to be incomplete.

The training table individual row entries are correct the summary of the total workload omitted the first two lines from the total workload. This number should be 12,601 hours.

PWS

Table G1.3

Either the Total RMSS hours/Year is wrong, or the formula is wrong. Please clarify.

The error you are referring to is noted. In the heading above the total calculations the formula should read h = (a*f)*g and will be corrected in the revised PWS.

PWS

Table H.2

The calculations appear to be incomplete.

While the 552 ACG table may look incomplete, the requirement stated is only for 30 minor revisions of CT mission simulator training packages. When the 33% is applied the new equivalent number results in 10.

PWS 3.5.2

What are the required IAT certifications for contractor personnel to implement the provisions of paragraph 3.5.2 as required by AFI17-1303, paragraph 5.6.5?

As stated in 3.5.2, if required and currently there is no server requirement under this contract. If there becomes one and it is attached to the USAF LAN then any personnel working on the system will need to have at a minimum of a Comp TS Security Plus and be granted permission to do so by the local COMM Squadron.

CBA

The shift schedule in the CBA appears not to match the sim schedule in the PWS. In order to provide accurate pricing, how many sim events are there per shift as defined in the CBA?

The government’s sim schedule requirements are specified in the PWS.

PWS

Appendices A-H

What is the actual workload, the number of class events (e.g.:

four classes for MCC as noted in Table A1.4.1) or is it the government calculated hours (e.g. 484.1 hours for MCC classes as noted in Table A1.4.1)?

The workload is predicated on the number of classes and events per year. In your example since the MCC postion may span multiple tables the work should be the total of all the hours combined. It is up to the companies to determine any efficieincies in worload support.

PWS

Appendices A-H

What is the government’s perception of the reliability and accuracy of their Workload Estimates that factors a 10% margin of error? In industry, an engineering estimate of 10% is a significant deviation IAW ISO standards resulting in a high uncertainty and risk rating.

The government is confident in the presented estimated workloads. We have included reteach rates for the possibility of students requiring remedial training. If changes in the workload occur over the period of the contract and cause more than 10% then we will request a modification.

PWS

Appendices A-H

If the government’s workload estimate would deviate by 10% each year, isn’t that recognized baseline assumption more in line with an FFP LOE contract rather than an FFP?

The government workload listed is not expected to deviate mor ethan 10% per year. This would be dictated by changes in syllabi directed training or PFT changes.

PWS

Appendices A-H

Would a surge CLIN and/or similar structure be better use of funding by not forcing industry to rationalize the government’s estimate with industry’s practices, especially given that the conduct of the training events is singularly dependent upon the 552ACWS’ ability to provide students to meet a training schedule?

In many cases a surge is only related to changes in schedule where class dates may be changed.

PWS

Appendices A-H

If the 10% is exceeded (for example, say by 12%), does the contractor get to submit an equitable adjustment for the 12% deviation or just for the delta of 2% deviation?

The contractor will be able to submit an equitable adjustment on any additonal increases to the workload. Any changes in trainning workload will be thoroughly explained prior to an request for proposal so allparties understand.

Question Reference Question Answer

552ACW_E-

3_DRAFT_PWS_20_Aug_2019

Can the United States Government (USG) provide the style guide referenced in the solicitation? Additionally, offerors will need access to the style guide for proposal purposes in order to determine the exact deliverable within each type of lesson package listed in Table D.1.1. Performance Work Statement (PWS) 4.11.27 states, “lesson package includes the items listed in Attachment 4 of the Style Guide.”

Yes a copy of the style guide will be posted on Fed Biz Ops.

Request USG define roles/responsibilities of each Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) job title listed, in particular, the roles/responsibilities of the “Products Production Control” CBA job title.

This acquisition does not require the "Products Production Control” job title.

552ACW_E-

3_DRAFT_PWS_20_Aug_2019 Where is the ILT and ICW courses/hours breakdown?

552ACW_E-

3_DRAFT_PWS_20_Aug_2019 D.1.1 Lesson Packages – is this ILT or ICW or both? How many Courseware (CW) hours of each?

552ACW_E-

3_DRAFT_PWS_20_Aug_2019 D.1.1 CT Lesson Packages – is this ILT or ICW or both? How many CW hours of each?

552ACW_E-

3_DRAFT_PWS_20_Aug_2019 D.1.1 Flight Deck ATD Lessons – is this ILT or ICW or both? How many CW hours of each?

552ACW_E-

3_DRAFT_PWS_20_Aug_2019 D.1.1 MQT Lessons – is this ILT or ICW or both? How many CW hours of each?

552ACW_E-

3_DRAFT_PWS_20_Aug_2019 D.1.1 MQT ATD Lessons – is this ILT or ICW or both? How many CW hours of each?

The courseware table is predicated on each New Equvalent Hour of couseware.

It is up to the contractor to determine the total hours workload required by applying their estimated development hours to develop one hour of courseware. To date the courseware is basic Instrcutor Led Lessons. The note just above the table explains what is contained in a lesson package.

Appendix A table A1.2 30/35 PFT

Summary

1. How long are Simulated T-Sorties and Combat Crew scenarios?

2. What is the length of the Control Fundamentals and Battle Management blocks of instruction?

3. What is the length of the UGT Simulation Training block of instruction?

4. Legend note 1 indicates Exercise Director and simulator operator support required for 3 Simulated T-sorties scenarios and 4 Combat Crew scenarios. Is that per class?

The indicators only show that this support is required for those items specified and and exxplanation is in the notes. The hourly requirements for all of these notes is already accounted for in the training tables and Exercise Director and RMSS support tables.

Appendix A table A1.3 40/45 PFT

Summary

1. How long are Simulated T-Sorties and Combat Crew scenarios?

2. What is the length of the ABM Block 4 unit of instruction?

3. What is the length of the UGT Simulation Training block of instruction?

4. Legend note 1 indicates Exercise Director and simulator operator support required for 3 Simulated T-sorties scenarios and 4 Combat Crew scenarios. Is that per class?

The indicators only show that this support is required for those items specified and and exxplanation is in the notes. The hourly requirements for all of these notes is already accounted for in the training tables and Exercise Director and RMSS support tables.

40 Appendix A, table A1.4

Is table A1.4 they combined workload for both aircraft? Or is it the workload for each aircraft so that 30/35 would have these instructor upgrade classes (15, 12 and 4) AND 40/45 would also have these classes (15, 12 and 4)?

Yes it is combined instructor upgrade programmed training requirment for both aircraft.

41 Appendix A, table A1.4.1 What is meant by events per course? Please provide event examples and how they impact workload.

42 Appendix A, table A1.4.2 What is meant by events per course? Please provide event examples and how they impact workload.

43 Appendix A, table A1.4.3

Is table A1.4.3 they combined workload for both aircraft? Or is it the workload for each aircraft so that 30/35 would have these instructor upgrade academic workload AND 40/45 would also have this workload?

Yes it is combined instructor upgrade programmed training requirment for both aircraft.

In each of these referecnes and event per course is dictated by the syllabus. It will either be and academic lead lesson or a training device lsson requirement

44 Appendix A, table 1.5.1 What is meant by events per course? Please provide event examples and how they impact workload.

45 Appendix A. table 1.5.2 What is meant by events per course? Please provide event examples and how they impact workload.

46 Appendix A. table 1.5.3 What is meant by events per course? Please provide event examples and how they impact workload.

47 Appendix C. table 3.2 Note that the total in this table does not equal the sum of all rows of direct hours. Is this a mistake?

The total you are referring to has been corrected in subsequent updates. The toal should be 3432.0 hours

48 Appendix C. table 3.3 Note that the total in this table does not equal the sum of all rows of direct hours. Is this a mistake?

The total you are referring to has been corrected in subsequent updates. The toal should be 1920.0 hours

PWS, Page 7, Section 1.9.2.2.

Courseware Review and/or Revision Parag 4

The courseware will be developed within 60 calendar days of receipt of required program and technical documents or IAW the Courseware Development Schedule (CDS) adjustments that have been agreed to by the Government and the contractor.

Question: Does the Government mean business days or continuous calendar days?

Calendar Days

PWS, Page 20, Section 3.4.1 Custodial Service

Contractor is ultimately responsible for interior cleanliness.

Question: Does the Government expect all floors and trash be cleaned daily or weekly or to what standard?

Contractors are responsible to maintain the government facilites they are assigned to in a neat orderly manner.

PWS, Page 20 Section 3.4.2 Equipment Maintenance

The Government will provide all maintenance of the training devices, audio, visual, and instructional equipment.

Question: Will the Government give a time table to replace or repair required classroom teaching capability?

The government is unable to provide a timeline as it will depend on what specific equipment that may need repair. In the event of replacement the timeline could be longer.

PWS, Page 21, Section 3.6.1 Contractors shall use PEX’s Qualification Training, Scheduling, and Testing Modules

Parags below 3.6.1 identifies areas subject to use of PEX for student training by the contractor.

Question: Will at any time the Government want the contractor to use AF GTIMS for these areas

No, the current system of record at Tinker is PEX.

PWS, Page 29, Section 4.8.4 Quality Program Plan

Sub-Parags, below says to use a,b, c.

Question: Does the Government mean to follow Sub-Parags 1,2, and 3 as listed?

Correct paragraphs 1,2 and 3. A correction will be made in subsequest PWS.

In each of these referecnes and event per course is dictated by the syllabus. It will either be and academic lead lesson or a training device lsson requirement

PWS, Page 46, Section 5.7.3 Simulator Operators

Definition allows a fighter pilot.

Question: Is the Government's definition of fighter pilot limited to 4th or 5th generation fighters only? Is it limited to USAF pilots only?

In this reference the government is not specific in types of fighter pilot or service designation. Only they meet the experience requirment as stated.

PWS Page 51, Table A1.5.1, SD Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “30/35 Training Device Workload,” in the SD line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number of instructors required?

PWS Page 51, Table A1.5.1, ASO Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “30/35 Training Device Workload,” in the ASO line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number of instructors required?

PWS Page 51, Table A1.5.1, SST Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “30/35 Training Device Workload,” in the SST line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructorsrequired as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number of instructors required?

PWS Page 51, Table A1.5.1, CSO Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “30/35 Training Device Workload,” in the CSO line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number of instructors required?

PWS Page 51, Table A1.5.1, CT Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “30/35 Training Device Workload,” in the CT line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number of instructors required?

The instructor to student ratio for all positions should be 1/2. The table will be updated in subsequent PWS.

PWS Page 51, Table A1.5.1, CDMT Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “30/35 Training Device Workload,” in the CDMT line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number of instructors required?

PWS Page 51, Table A1.5.1, ART Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “30/35 Training Device Workload,” in the ART line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number of instructors required?

PWS Page 51, Table A1.5.1, CDMT Line.

CDMT line shows total hours (Col K) as 442.9; however, calculations with values in published columns end up with 443.3.

Question: Should Column K show 443.3 as the total?

This appears to be an Excel issue. When manually calculated the totals 443.0

PWS Page 52, Table A1.5.2, MCC Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “40/45 Training Device Workload,” in the MCC line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number of instructors required?

PWS Page 52, Table A1.5.2, SD Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “40/45 Training Device Workload,” in the SD line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number of instructors required?

PWS Page 52, Table A1.5.2, CSO Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “40/45 Training Device Workload,” in the CSO line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number of instructors required? The instructor to student ratio for all positions should be 1/2. The table will be

PWS Page 52, Table A1.5.2, CT Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “40/45 Training Device Workload,” in the CT line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number instructors required?

PWS Page 52, Table A1.5.2, CDMT Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “40/45 Training Device Workload,” in the CDMT line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number of instructors required?

PWS Page 52, Table A1.5.2, ART Line, Columns H, I & J

In table for “40/45 Training Device Workload,” in the ART line:

Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:1. However, Column H shows 4 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 2.

Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 4 as the number of instructors required?

PWS Page 52, Table A1.5.2, bottom row titled “Total”

Final total (Col K) shows 11,463.9; however, sum of all individual totals adds up to 12, 600.9.

Question: Shouldn’t Column K show 12,600.9 as the final total of Block 40/45 training device time?

The total you are referring to has been corrected in subsequent updates and will be provided in revised PWS. The total should be 12601.0 hours

PWS Page 53, Table B5.2, “Ctr Proficiency” row.

The 3% re-teach is applied to this time in Column I.

Question: Since this activity does not involve student training, should the 3% factor be left off?

You are correct. The contractor does not require the 3%. In addition, Table B5.2 FTD table the 3% is not necessary and the total of the line should be 384.0. The total workloads for the respective tables should be 1133.6 for table B5.1 and

1175.0 for table B.5.2. These will be adjusted in subsequent PWSs.

PWS, Page 54, Appendix C.2.

Contractor personnel performing in the role of MQT instructors will be required to

Qualified and be able to sit the seat to fill empty student positions in the simulator.

Question: (i.e. as available) What is the Government’s position on how many empty seats must be filled for vacant PFT slots by the contractor?

The government is unable to provide a number of empty seat that may occur during a MQT training session. When the contractor is required to fill a position it allows them to gain proficiency.

updated in subsequent PWS.

PWS Page 64, Appendix G, Para G.1 PWS Page 64 Appendix G, Para G.1

Next to last sentence in referenced paragraph states, “During certain simulator missions the government will require the addition of an Exercise Battle Manager will assist the Exercise Director as required and oversee MIRC Chat operations.”

Question: Where is workload data for Exercise Battle Manager?

States “During certain simulator missions the government will require the addition of an Exercise Battle Manager will assist the Exercise Director as required and oversee MIRC Chat operations, however, there is no positional requirements listed in Para 5.7 Question: Are the hours for the Exercise Battle Manager included in the work load table G1.1 or table G1.3?

Question: Should there be positional requirements listed in Para 5.7?

Question: Should this position be included PWS Page 23, Para

4.6.3.1 requiring a Top-Secret Clearance with SCI access.

The Exercise Battle manager will not be used during all simulator events.

Currently the workload is included in the Exercise Director table. This is not a separate job position but an additonal task that other Ex Directors may fill in.

73 RFP, Page 3 of 91, CLIN 0101

In the “Supplies/Services” column, “period of performance” reads “1 Jul 2020 – 30 Jun 2021.” This is a 12-month period, but the “Quantity” and “Units” columns show 10.0 months.

Question: Should the end date be changed to “30 Apr 2021” to achieve a 10-month PoP? Note: This will change the PoP end dates in all subsequent CLINs. Also, starting in Option Year One, the start date of the PoP will be 1 May 2021 and end date 30 Apr 2022, and so on each successive Option Year.

Base Year POP is changed to 1 Jul 2020-30 Apr 2021. Subsequent years have been changed to reflect this POP.

74 RFP, Page 4 of 91, CLIN 0113

In the “Supplies/Services” column, entry reads “FY20 Wage Price Adjustment.”

Question: Should this read “FY20Q4-FY21Q1, Q2 & Q3 Wage Price Adjustment”?

Wage Adjustment CLINs have been changed to reflect the respective fiscal years.

75 RFP, Page 6 of 91, CLIN 1013

In the “Supplies/Services” column, entry reads “FY21 Wage Price Adjustment.”

Question: Should this read “FY21Q4-FY22Q1, Q2 & Q3 Wage Price Adjustment”?

See Answer #74

76 RFP, Page 7 of 91, CLIN 2013

In the “Supplies/Services” column, entry reads “FY22 Wage Price Adjustment.”

Question: Should this read “FY22Q4-FY23Q1, Q2 & Q3 Wage Price Adjustment”?

See Answer #74

77 RFP, Page 9 of 91, CLIN 3013

In the “Supplies/Services” column, entry reads “FY23 Wage Price Adjustment.”

Question: Should this read “FY23Q4-FY24Q1, Q2 & Q3 Wage Price Adjustment”?

See Answer #74

78 RFP, Page 11 of 91, CLIN 4013

In the “Supplies/Services” column, entry reads “FY23 Wage Price Adjustment.”

Question: Should this read “FY24Q4-FY25Q1, Q2 & Q3 Wage Price Adjustment”?

See Answer #74

RFP, Pages 11-12 of 91, CLINs 5001-5013

These CLINs are for the 6-month extension (per FAR 52.217-8);

however, in the “Quantity” column, all entries are “12.”

Question: Should these entries be changed to “6”?

Quantity for 6-month extension is 6.

80 RFP, Page 11 of 91, CLIN 5001

In the “Supplies/Services” column, the period of performance is shown as “1 Jul 2025 – 30 Jan 2026.”

Question: Should the end date be changed to 31 Dec 2025 to reflect a 6-month period of performance?

POP for 6-month extension is 1 May 2025-31 Oct 2025.

81 RFP, Page 12 of 91, CLIN 5013

In the “Supplies/Services” column, entry reads “FY23 Wage Price Adjustment.”

Question: Should this read “FY25Q4-FY26Q1 Wage Price Adjustment”?

CLIN 5013 should read "FY25 Wage Adjustment".

RFP, Pages 16-17 of 91, Option Line Items 0101-0113

PoP is shown as 01 Jul 2020 – 30 Jun 2021.

Question: Should end date be changed to 30 Apr 2021 to account for 10-month PoP in Base Year?

Yes, the POP for Base Year is 1 Jul 2020-30 Apr 2021.

RFP, Pages 17-24 of 91, Option Line Items 1001-4013

PoPs show start on 01 Jul and end on 30 Jun of next year.

Question: Should PoPs be adjusted to start on 01 May and end on 30 Apr of next year?

Yes. 1 May end on 30 Apr

RFP, Pages 25-27 of 91, Option Line Items 5001-5013

PoP for all items is shown as 1 Jul 2024-30 Jun 2025.

Question: Should dates be changed to 1 May 2024 – 31 Oct 2024 to reflect the correct 6-month extension period in 5001-5013?

Yes. 1 May 2025 - 31 Oct 2025

Section L, Page 4, Para 5.5, Note 1 (below table showing page limits)

States, “An Executive Summary shall be included in Volume I, Technical…” Question: Should that be changed to “…Volume II, Technical Capability…”?

Executive Summary shall be included in Vol I, Prerequisites only.

Section L, Page 4, Para 5.3, Pages Not Included in Page Count, last sentence and Section L, Page 4, Para 5.5, Note 1 (below table showing page limits)

First reference states, “…, and if applicable exceptions will be documented in each volumes (sic) executive summary…” and implies both Volume I and Volume II will contain their own, separate Executive Summary. However, the note in the second reference indicates only one volume will contain an Executive Summary.

Question: Does the Executive Summary get included in Volume I, Prerequisites, or Volume II, Technical Capability, or both?

See Answer #85.

Section L, Page 4, Para 5.5, Note 1 (below table showing page limits)

Second sentence in Note 1 states, “The 3-page (sic) limitation is not included in the 75-page limit for Volume I.”

Question: Should text be changed to “…not included in the 40-page limit for Volume I” or “…not included in the 50-page limit for Volume II” or both?

Executive Summary pages are not included in the 40-page limit for Volume I.

PWS Page 3, Para 1.4 752 CRC Mission

States “The CRC weapon system requires simulation/training capability supporting CRC combat mission ready crews on the AN/TYQ-23A control system This capability will close training gaps for CRC mission crews and provide high-end operational training.”

Question: What training (both academic and positional) will be provided to the contractor simulator support team to: learn, build MSTPs, and become proficient operating this system to provide high-end operational training.

This training is centered more around simulator support for training. The government will responsible to conduct any required initial training to qualify contractor personnel.

PWS Page 5, Para 1.7.2 Academic Instruction (8)

States: “Generate and maintain Student Training Folders during the academic and simulator phase of instruction. Student folders will be maintained electronically within Patriot Excalibur (PEX) software as a primary, and hardcopy only as a secondary.”

Question: What training will be provided to the contract personnel to: learn, build folders and update folders using the PEX software?

Question: If the Wing hasn’t transitioned to PEX yet at contract award, will this requirement be suspended until they do transition?

Training does not exist because the system of record for future tracking of student performance is not finalized. As systems (PEX) is finalized, government should ensure proper training is provided in the form of an up-to 2 hr lesson.

PWS Page 11, Para 1.12.1 Registrar Support (7)

States: “Utilize training management system to track student’s progress and maintain/update training records. Currently a combination of physical (paper) and electronic (PEX) are used to track student’s progress and maintain/update training records.

The Government is transitioning to a mostly electronic process utilizing PEX.”

Question: What training will be provided to the contract personnel to: learn, build records and update records using the PEX software?

Training does not exist because the system of record for future tracking of student performance is not finalized. As systems (PEX) is finalized, government should ensure proper training is provided in the form of an up-to 2 hr lesson.

PWS Page 12, Para 1.12.3 E-3 Mission Simulator Operations Support and PWS Page 64, Appendix G Paragraph G.1 and Tables G1.1 and G1.3

States: “The contractor shall provide exercise director, simulator operator, and “White Force” support for mission crew training events to include IQT, MQT, CT, and UGT.” Question: Is the “White Force” support indicated the same as the addition of an Exercise Battle Manager in certain simulator missions? If not, is the “White Force” support included in the Total RMSS hours/year support required in Table G1.3 E-3 Radar Mission Systems Specialist Support?

White force is included in the Total RMSS hours/year of support.

PWS Page 12, Para 1.12.3 E-3 Mission Simulator Operations Support (4)

States: “Legacy Simulators operate up to 16 hours a day, Monday through Friday. The 16 hours shall begin at the start of the first scheduled Legacy event on a daily basis” Question: The maintenance support for Legacy Simulators has changed to 14 hours/day, should the wording change to “…operate up to 14 hours per day, Monday through Friday. The 14 hours shall begin…”

The current legacy simulators still operate on a 16 hour day. The first and last hour of that time frame are reserved for maintenance startup and shutdown of the system.

PWS Page 21, Para 3.6 Para 3.6.1. e.

Para 3.6.2. a-c.

3.6 States: “…..PEX is the 552 ACW’s system of record for flight scheduling, Stan/Eval, Flight Crew Information File distribution, Go/No-Go management, and Flying Hour Program Management.

While PEX is not currently ACC’s or the wing’s system of record to manage and record aircrew training, the 552 OG is looking to implement PEX’s training management module in order to streamline and standardize training administration processes across all squadrons and ensure a smooth information flow between all phases of aircrew training.”

Question: What training will be provided to the contract personnel in 3.6.2 to accomplish all tasks in 3.6.1?

Training does not exist because the system of record for future tracking of student performance is not finalized. As systems (PEX) is finalized, government should ensure proper training is provided in the form of an up-to 2 hr lesson.

PWS Page 23, Para 4.6.3.1

States courseware developers do not require SAP access, however, Para 5.7.5 (1). d. states “Must possess or able to obtain a Top-Secret Clearance with SCI access” and 5.7.6. (2). d. States “Must possess or able to obtain a Top-Secret Clearance with SCI access.”

Question: These statements are in conflict. Which guidance should be considered for SAP Access purposes? What role will the government play in getting a TSSCI?

Training does not exist because the system of record for future tracking of student performance is not finalized. As systems (PEX) is finalized, government should ensure proper training is provided in the form of an up-to 2 hr lesson.

PWS, Page 59, Appendix F, Section F1.1

Regarding the newly created Air Battle Manager (ABM) and Flight Engineer (FE) contractor flying positions Question: Are vendors required to bid instructor rates i.e. the current CBA, or will the government request Wage Determination rates for these contractor flying positions?

As these instructors will be different from the ground instructors listed in the CBA the contractor will need to provide Wage Determinations for these positions.

In the Contractor Responsibility Determination, will the Government review subcontractor CPARS, performance and certifications along with the prime? Does the Government expect a formal mentor protégé’ or JV arrangement to cover prime capability gaps?

To be determined responsible, a prospective contractor must –(a) Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them (see 9.104-3(a));

(b) Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments;

(c) Have a satisfactory performance record (see 9.104-3(b) and subpart 42.15).

A prospective contractor shall not be determined responsible or nonresponsible solely on the basis of a lack of relevant performance history, except as provided in 9.104-2;

(d) Have a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics (for example, see subpart 42.15);

(e) Have the necessary organization, experience, accounting and operational controls, and technical skills, or the ability to obtain them (including, as appropriate, such elements as production control procedures, property control systems, quality assurance measures, and safety programs applicable to materials to be produced or services to be performed by the prospective contractor and subcontractors). (See 9.104-3 (a).)

(f) Have the necessary production, construction, and technical equipment and facilities, or the ability to obtain them (see 9.104-3(a)); and

(g) Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations (see also inverted domestic corporation prohibition at 9.108

Can you provide more detail on the TS/SCI/SAP requirement? Is this a facility requirement? Or a personnel requirement?

(a) Have adequate financial resources to perform the contract, or the ability to obtain them (see 9.104-3(a));

Innovation was mentioned numerous of times today. If it is not pricing consideration, How will the contractor be evaluated for considering innovative approaches to courseware development?

(b) Be able to comply with the required or proposed delivery or performance schedule, taking into consideration all existing commercial and governmental business commitments;

Please confirm that all courseware is Level 1 interactivity?

In PWS table D.1.1, is 1.0 hour of new equivalent equal to 1.0 hour of student contact time, or 1.0 hour of actual courseware content? Why can’t we view the Courseware samples on the workstation or smartboard, the same way it would be presented in an actual classroom setting?

Currently the Lesson Packages are level 1. Table D.1.1.1 lsits the approximate new equivalent hours which may not be the same as 1 hour of student contact time. Some classes can be longer than one hour. The examples that were brought into th conference were paper copies printed directly from the lessons.

How is courseware and training currently presented to the students and what changes may we see in the future?

Currently, we deliver our courseware via paper copies. We are working towards delivering training products digitally and encouraging more self-study where the students may watch recorded lectures or demos before coming to class. The class would have the instructor more as a discussion facilitator.

Students would do the self-study and submit 1-2 questions which is what would drive the classroom discussion. The instructor may have to do some research before class, but it would drive deeper conversations rather than having to stick to an outline. The facilitator is still responsible to ensure the objectives were met. Also, we want to incorporate 360 degree immediate feedback.

Currently, there is an end of course critique only. The goal is to have the students submit feedback on their IPADS after every lesson to the facilitator and Block SME

101 PWS

If there is a need for DRAGON Contracted Flight Instructor FE’s, will there also be a similar need for a DRAGON Contracted Flight Instructor Pilot?

There is no requirement for Contract Pilot Flight Instructors. The Dragon training is restricted to academic and training devices.

it appears there may be a mismatch or discrepancy between the E-3 DRAGON Training Estimated Workload Academic/VDTT and Fixed Training Device Tables in Appendix B. It states the need to train three classes per year for conversion training. I looked at the current DRAGON Conversion Training Syllabus and the math is correct for number of events and hours per event.

The tables will be corrected in subsequent PWS to be released with the RFP.

Sheet1