Consolidated_Questions_List__22_Oct_19.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Command and Control (C2) CAT and CWD Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA4890-20-R-0003
About this file
This document contains a performance work statement and questions and answers related to a federal solicitation for command and control academic and courseware development services. The solicitation will award a contract to provide training, courseware development, and support services to Control and Reporting Centers, Battle Control Centers, Air Operations Centers, and Tactical Air Control Parties within the Air Force, Air National Guard, Air Education and Training Command, United States Air Forces in Europe, and Pacific Air Forces. Services include academic training, courseware development, a distance learning architecture, training system support, mission system interfaces, and staff assistance. The performance period is one base year with four option years. The solicitation closes on December 11, 2019 with an expected award date of April 1, 2020. The North American Industry Classification code is 611512 and the small business size standard is $30 million. The opportunity is open to small businesses only.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 50
Command and Control (C2) CAT and CWD has more files on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question # | PWS Reference | Question | Response | |
| 1 | PWS Page 2, Section 1.3.1.1, Standard of Performance | “…..student accomplishment of learning objectives shall be evaluated by written tests and training device events (simulated (CRC or BCC) or live-fly (CRC-only).” Question: Does this mean contract instructors can perform student evaluations during live missions? If so, what syllabi does it apply to? | Contract instructors do not perform student evaluations. This statement refers to the methods the Government may use to evaluate student mastery of skills taught by contract instructors. PWS revised to clarify. | |
| 2 | PWS, Page 7, Section 1.3.2.5.6 | States that Flash Player will be included in third-party software. | ||
| Question: Will Flash Player be required even though it will be discontinued in 2020? | No. PWS revised to remove all references to Flash Player. | |||
| 3 | PWS Page 13, Sections 1.3.4.2 & 1.3.4.3 | Observation: These PWS sections appear twice. Duplication starts after 1.3.4.3. Sections after first occurrence of 1.3.4.3 need to be renumbered. | PWS revised to correct paragraph numbers. | |
| 4 | PWS Page 13, Section 1.3.4.1.1.3 | Electronic Attack Instruction: “…DRFM jammer capable of replicating and representing a realistic jamming environment on the AN/TPS-75 and AN/TPS-81 (under development) radars. | ||
| Question: Will the Government provide AN/TPS-75 and AN/TPS-81 radar technical data to ensure contractor equipment does not damage or cause harm to the radars? | The Governemnt can provide AN/TPS-75 technical data to properly cleared contractors to assist with procuring the DRFM jammer. Submit your request for specific information to the Contracting Officer. Since the AN/TPS-81 radar is not operational at this time, that data is not available but could be be provided at a later date. | |||
| 5 | PWS Page 20, Section 1.3.5.5 | Tactical Air Control Party (TACP). | ||
| Question: Are there incumbent employees at the TACP locations listed in Appendix 1? | There are no incumbent contractor personnel at the locations specified in the PWS, however, there are Government personnel qualified to operate the systems at these locations that can assist with training your new hire contractors. | |||
| 6 | PWS Page 25, Section 1.5.2 & 1.5.3 | Question: What are the government expectations for training new positions at new locations? (no incumbent positions) | New positions will be treated as "initial cadre" as described in PWS para 1.4.6.1. and the Government will assist with training and certification. | |
| 7 | PWS Page 25, Section 1.5.2 & 1.5.3 | Question: What are the government expectations for managing new/changed qualifications/certifications based on updated releases of VOL I/II/III? BCC | The contractor will train and certify their instructors IAW their Contractor Training and Certification Plan to meet syllabus requirements. | |
| 8 | PWS Page 30, Section 4.1.1 | Site Managers. “contractor shall designate a Site Manager (SM) at each place of performance with multiple employees who shall be responsible for the performance of all the work at that site. | ||
| Question: Please define multiple (i.e. more than two (3)? | In this instance multiple means more than one employee at that location. | |||
| 9 | PWS Page 47, Section A1.2.1.1 | Academic Instruction Workload – the chart states 2 academic events will be taught per class in the undergraduate WD (uWD) course. There are | ||
| multiple academic events in the uWD course. Question: Who determines which 2 lessons contractors will teach? | The 607 ACS/DO, based on the needs of the squadron. | |||
| 10 | PWS Page 48, Section A1.2.2.2, Second line in AST section of chart | Shows 3 students, and instructor/student ratio is 1 to 2. With only 3 students, then one instructor will be required to instruct 2 of the class members. A second instructor will be required to instruct the third-class member—not half an instructor (instructor has to be with the student the entire device period). Total hours in Column K = G x J. Should be 258.3 x 2 = 516.6 hours per year instead of 387.5 shown in PWS. | ||
| Question: Should that be changed? | No. In an effort to keep Governemnt requirements to the minimum necessary, the workload tables intentionally do not round up the number of instructors required per class to the next whole number. The total hours are spread over numerous events during the year and per PWS para 1.6, your Training Workload Management Plan should explain how you will meet these requirements. In the future, if the hours in the table prove to be insufficient to accomplish the training required, per PWS A1.1.1. the 10% variation may be applied and a contract modification prepared if required. | |||
| 11 | PWS Page 48, Section A1.2.2.2, Last line in AST section of chart | Shows 3 students, and instructor/student ratio is 1 to 4. With only 3 students, then one instructor will be required. Total hours in Column K = G x J. Should be 126.0 x 1 = 126 hours per year instead of 94.5 shown in PWS. | ||
| Question: Should that be changed? | No. In an effort to keep Governemnt requirements to the minimum necessary, the workload tables intentionally do not round up the number of instructors required per class to the next whole number. The total hours are spread over numerous events during the year and per PWS para 1.6, your Training Workload Management Plan should explain how you will meet these requirements. In the future, if the hours in the table prove to be insufficient to accomplish the training required, per PWS A1.1.1. the 10% variation may be applied and a contract modification prepared if required. | |||
| 12 | PWS Page 49, Section A1.2.2.4. | |||
| Clarification needed | CRC CAT Training Device Syllabus Support –In the Course column, it has SIM Drivers. No other charts include contractor personnel in the Course column. Question: Is the government requiring four SIM Drivers, or do the rows indicate something else? | Referenced table indicates SIM Driver and other syllabus support requirements per PWS para 1.3.1.3.12. There are four lines to describe the required SIM Driver work: two lines under multiple syllabi (12 and 24 students) as well as two lines for suport for individual syllabi (AST and uWD). | ||
| 13 | PWS Page 51, Section A1.2.3.1.7 | Question: Is “Core” line missing from chart? (Figure A1.2.3.1.7.1) shows a “Core” line for instruction hours in Option Year 2-4.) | PWS revised to correct referenced paragraph. | |
| 14 | PWS Page 53, Section A1.3.2 (BCC) | Question: What are we revising in the chart WRT ILLPs (there are no current Instructor Led Lesson Pages)? | Lesson materials currently in use by Government instructors will be provided per PWS para 3.4. for the contractor to revise. | |
| 15 | General questions about instruction | uWD instruction: typically, instructor accreditation is required for teaching a career field accreditation course. Question: Will contract instructors be required to complete all Student Transcript, Administration, and Records System (STARS) prerequisites in order to teach lessons in the undergraduate WD (uWD) course? | Yes. Per PWS para 1.3.1.1. contract instructors must meet the same standards of performance as the military instructors. Time to complete these requirements should be included in your manpower calculations as "Ancillary Time". See PWS para 4.4.4. for additional information. | |
| 16 | PWS para 1.1.1 | How will the government evaluate technical mission capability of the bidder to obtain the required ITAR approvals (foreign national training) to ensure mission accomplishment and risk mitigation? | ITAR approval is not required, since the only foreign students trained are Canadians at the Combined US/Canadian Air Defense Sectors (BCCs). | |
| 17 | PWS para 1.1.1 | How will the government evaluate the bidder’s price to ensure the bidder adequately planned for the cost for required ITAR approvals (foreign national training) to ensure mission accomplishment and risk mitigation? | ITAR approval is not required, since the only foreign students trained are Canadians at the Combined US/Canadian Air Defense Sectors (BCCs). | |
| 18 | PWS para 1.3.3 | To determine the level of effort needed to migrate the data to a compliant DLA/LMS system, how much data exists, and what is the data structure? | The courseware; i.e. legacy data, storyboards, archives, revisions, and so forth contains roughly 228GB of courseware data. |
Moodledata, which is Moodle’s storage repository contains 8GB of posted courseware material on the LMS.
C2Courses, legacy posted courseware outside of Moodle contains 13.6GB of data.
SQL Server, C2 Records database is 200MB.
MySQL, Moodle database is 1.2GB.
TOTAL DATA: 250+GB
19 PWS para 1.3.3 Please confirm the ADL/LMS requires an Evaluation Database function? It is our understanding that ACC directed and is conducting testing through Patriot Excalibur (PEX). Yes. The PWS para 1.3.3.5. requires the DLA to provide for on-line testing, randomly generate tests, track and record test results and history, and generate hard copies of exams and answer keys for all three weapon systems (CRC, BCC and AOC). PEX does not perform these functions.
| 20 | PWS para 1.3.3.1.1 | Within the legacy Moodle/SQL database, does it contain any Personally Identifiable Information (PII) as defined in AFI 33-332? | No. As defined by AFI 33-332, our current accessible database contains first name, last name; email; unit; rank (not all units put in rank) |
| 21 | PWS para 1.3.3.1.1 | Within the legacy Moodle/SQL database, does it contain any Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) such as FOUO unclassified lessons? | None of the current CBTs/tests are specifically labeled with CUI, however due to the nature of the information placed in the database, the following disclaimer is at the bottom of published CBTs/lessons/tests: |
"You are accessing a U.S. Government (USG) Information System (IS) The information accessed through this system is FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY and must be protected in accordance with the Privacy Act."
| 22 | PWS para 1.3.3.1.1 | If the Moodle/SQL database contains either PII (example: truncated social security number) and/or CUI, has the AO or Mission Owner established Mission Impact Levels according to categorization IAW DoDI 8510.01 paragraph 3.b.(3) | Database does not contain PII. If the contractor proposes a solution that requires these approvals, then it is the contracor's responsibility to provide them per PWS para 3.6.2.1. | |
| 23 | PWS para 1.3.3.1.1 | Does the Government anticipate a future need for the DLA to contain PII and/or CUI data? | The PWS states the known Government requirements. Future needs will be addressed via contract modification, if required. | |
| 24 | PWS para 1.3.3.1.7 | We understand the AETC TTMS was replaced. Is this paragraph requirement still accurate and valid? | Referenced PWS para changed to reflect GTIMS. | |
| 25 | PWS para 1.3.3.2.1.4 | Can the government specify the custom reports they anticipate so that the bidders can calculate the level of effort and price accordingly? | No. By their nature, the need for custom reports is unpredictable and will be generated to meet unique requirements for data from the DLA. | |
| 26 | PWS para 1.3.3.2.1.4 | Can the government specify the number of custom reports they anticipate will need to be built each year? | No. By their nature, the need for custom reports is unpredictable and will be generated to meet unique requirements for data from the DLA. | |
| 27 | PWS para 1.3.3.2.1.4 | Can the government explain the process for approving custom report requests submitted by units and how they will be prioritized for development by the contractor? | Requests for custom reports will be submitted to the COR and validated by the appropriate weapon system functional area manager (FAM). | |
| 28 | PWS para 1.3.1.1, .3 | Are contract instructors for the CRC syllabi who participate in live event training required to maintain some level of physical medical clearance requirements? | Contract instuctors do not perform live events. | |
| 29 | PWS para 3.6.2.1 | As a result of the recent DICAP to RMF transformation, the PWS does not appear to be consistent with the DoD and AF’s IT Systems requirement such as a need for ATO, ATC and RMF to operate a DLA. Remarks: We believe the DLA requires an ATO, ATC and RMF IAW existing DoD and AF requirement to achieve AF IT System requirements; a cognizant authority such as ACC/A6IC may be able to assist in clarification of the requirements definition. | The current DLA uses the commercial off-the-shelf MOODLE engine, and is all hosted via web, there is actually no “installed” software. The requirement for the DLA to be web-based remains in PWS para 1.3.3 and hosted on contractor-furnished servers per PWS para 3.6.2. If the contractor proposes a solution that requires these approvals, then it is the contracor's responsibility to provide them per PWS para 3.6.2.1. | |
| 30 | PWS para 3.6.2.1 | Please confirm that the bidder’s solution to the Government’s required DLA/LMS must meet DoDI 8510.01 and AFI 17-101 in addition to DoDI 8100.04? | No. The current DLA uses the commercial off-the-shelf MOODLE engine, and is all hosted via web, there is actually no “installed” software. The requirement for the DLA to be web-based remains in PWS para 1.3.3 and hosted on contractor-furnished servers per PWS para 3.6.2. If the contractor proposes a solution that requires these approvals, then it is the contracor's responsibility to provide them per PWS para 3.6.2.1. | |
| 31 | PWS para 3.6.2.1 | How will the government evaluate the bidder’s DLA/LMS technical solution to verify compliance as well as acceptability with DoDI 8510.01, AFI 17-101 in addition to DoDI 8100.04? | Per the evaluation criteria in RFP section 7. | |
| 32 | PWS para 3.6.2.1 | In accordance with AFI 17-101 and DoDI 8510.01, does the existing DLA/LMS solution (Moodle software) have a current Authority To Operate (ATO) certification? If so, what is the ATO expiration date? | No. An ATO was not required because the current DLA is not installed on a government network, it is a web application installed on a contractor network that allows users to login. The requirement for the DLA to be web-based has not changed in the current PWS, see para 1.3.3. If the contractor proposes a solution that requires these approvals, then it is the contracor's responsibility to provide them per PWS para 3.6.2.1. | |
| 33 | PWS para 3.6.2.1 | In accordance with AFI 17-101, who is the Approval Authority for the DLA/LMS? | AFI 17-101 does not contain the term "Approval Authority". | |
| 34 | PWS para 3.6.2.1 | For accurate pricing and level of effort consideration, is the Government or the contractor responsible for completing and maintaining the RMF record to achieve and maintain the ATO in accordance with AFI 17-101 and DoDI 8510.01? | Contractor is reponsible to provide the DLA per PWS 1.3.3. This includes all management and any required record keeping. | |
| 35 | PWS para 1.1.1 | 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? | The only foreign nationals trained are Canadians at the Combined US/Canadian Air Defense Sectors. There is no ITAR approval required for this training. | |
| 36 | PWS para 1.3.4 | Given the general legal prohibitions regarding non-US Government entities possessing or employing jamming equipment (i.e., Electronic Attack), would the Government consider changing this requirement to GFE? | ||
| Reference 47 U.S.C § 302a. and 47 U.S.C. § 333. | No. The contractor will be permitted to posess this equipment while on a Government contract, with "on contract" beginning at Phase In. 47 U.S.C § 302c has an exception for US Government use. The contract will include DFAR clause 252.245-7004 Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal and specify a date for the demilitarization. | |||
| 37 | PWS para A1.4.5. | For the one deep position, such as JTAC, no requirement to have to their position manned when on vacation, sick, etc.? That person covering their 1900+ hours is sufficient? | Reference PWS para A1.4, the 1880 hour workload is productive hours these positions will be manned and already accounts for federal holidays, vacation and sick time. PWS para modified to clarify. | |
| 38 | PWS para 1.3.4.1. | Will Gov’t provide any material GFE for the EA jammer? Unsure if we aren’t allowed to have it unless on contract how to acquire it for proposal & costing purposes - | No, the jammer is contractor furnished equipment (CFE) per PWS para 1.3.4.1. and 3.6.3. Contractors may posess the equipment while on contract, with "on contract" beginning at Phase In. 47 U.S.C § 302c has an exception for US Government use. The contract will include DFAR clause 252.245-7004 Reporting, Reutilization, and Disposal and specify a date for the demilitarization. | |
| 39 | PWS para 1.1.1. | It was stated that there won’t be any international training. There has been numerous international students at the 607th. Confirm the contractor doesn’t get involved in that. | The only international students the contractor will train under this effort are the Canadians at the Combined US/Canadian Air Defense Sectors (BCCs). The contractors do not train any international students at the 607 ACS. Any foreign student training at the 607 ACS is conducted by military instructors. | |
| 40 | PWS para 1.3.4.1. | Who is providing the DRFM jammer? | The jammer will be contractor furnished equipment (CFE) per PWS para 1.3.4.1. and 3.6.3. | |
| 41 | PWS para 1.2. | Will the Govt release the CBA with the official PWS in order for the contractor to propose the strike plan as requested? | Yes. | |
| 42 | PWS para 1.3.3. | Will the government provide full database libraries (for both MySQL for Moodle and SQL server for training records) with definitions to allow for fair evaluation and adequate assessment to transfer all records and data? | The current DLA, in its entirety, is a deliverable under the current contract per PWS Appendix 3. It remains a deliverable under the new contract. It will be made available to the incoming contractor during Phase In. | |
| 43 | PWS para 1.3.3. | Are the governments requirements identified in para 1.3.3.2 and 1.3.3.5, or are the governments requirements the current DLA functions? | The PWS states the Government's requirements. The current DLA meets the requirements of the current contract and those requirements have changed very little in the new PWS. | |
| 44 | PWS para 1.3.3. | If the government’s requirements are the current DLA functions, what are those functions? | The PWS states the Government's requirements. The current DLA meets the requirements of the current contract and those requirements have changed very little in the new PWS.. | |
| 45 | PWS para 1.3.3. | Are the governments requirements identified in para 1.3.3.3, or are the governments requirements the current DLA functions. | The PWS states the Government's requirements. The current DLA meets the requirements of the current contract and those requirements have changed very little in the new PWS.. | |
| 46 | PWS para 1.3.3. | Does the government have a requirement for the ADL to host FOUO or CUI data? If so, will this requirement be included in the PWS? | The PWS states the known Government requirements. Future needs will be addressed via contract modification, if required. | |
| 47 | PWS para 1.3.3. | Does the current date base contain PII data? | No. As defined by AFI 33-332, our current accessible database contains first name, last name; email; unit; rank (not all units put in rank) | |
| 48 | PWS para 1.3.3. | Does the government require the bidder to obtain an authority to connect (ACT) as well as an authority to operate (ATO) to operate ADL? If so, will this requirement be included in the PWS? | No. The current DLA uses the MOODLE engine, and is all hosted via web, there is actually no “installed” software. The requirement for the DLA to be web-based remains in PWS para 1.3.3 and hosted on contractor-furnished servers per PWS para 3.6.2. | |
| 49 | Draft RFP Supplies or Services and Prices/Cost | 13. Under CLIN 0005 andX004, it states TACP simulator operator/maintainers at the end of the sentence, however, CLIN 0009 and X008 states TACP sim operators. Since the PWS shows that the funding for TACP should come from the ACC?A3JU, should TACP simulator operator/Maintainers be removed from CLIN 0005? | Yes. RFP revised to remove TACP |
Simulator Operator/Maintainers from the description of CLIN 0005 and X004.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .