Revised PWS Questions and Answers 30 Mar 20.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 78 KB Posted
- Attached to
- 552 Air Control Wing E3 CAT/CWD Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA4890-20-R-0004
About this file
This document contains questions and answers related to a revised performance work statement for a federal contract opportunity to provide E-3 aircraft combat mission crew training and courseware development services.
The opportunity is solicitation number FA4890-20-R-0004 issued by the Department of the Air Force Air Combat Command to support the 552nd Air Control Wing. Proposals are due on April 6, 2020 and can be submitted electronically. The performance work statement has been revised to update courseware and training to reflect changes to aircraft mission crew blocks 40/45. Key services required include academic and simulator instruction, lesson development, and courseware design and maintenance. Pricing terms and contract structure remain the same as the previous solicitation. Clarification is provided on instructor qualifications and experience requirements.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Revised PWS Questions and Answers 8 April 20.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Amendment 0013 SF30.pdf | ||
| SF 30 Amendment 0012.pdf | ||
| SF 30 Amendment 0011.pdf |
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 | Reference | Question | Answer |
| 1 | Section 6, Paragraph 7.1 | The offeror shall complete Section 3 of the solicitation (Schedule of Supplies and Services (CLINS)) by inserting the price elements (unit price and extended amount) for all Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract line item numbers (CLINS), including Phase-In, Base Year, Option Years, and Optional CLINs. Will the Government provide an updated Schedule B for this Amendment 0009 response? | No, the CLINS structure will remain the same. |
| 2 | Schedule B, Clin XX13 | FY20 Wage Price Adjustment Firm Fixed Price. Is the Contractor to price the CBA and SCLS (aka SCA) non-exempt employees at the rate(s) valid at the initial year of performance (01-FEB-2020)? |
Section 1 of the RFP includes FAR 52.222-43. Furthermore, the current CBA, Section 15.1states, “The current rates as identified above will remain in effect until the first full pay period in February 2019.” The contractor is to price the CBA and SCLA employees at the categories identified in FAR 52.222-43 and rates identified in the most current CBA attached to the RFP.
| 3 | Schedule B, Clin XX13 | FY20 Wage Price Adjustment Firm Fixed Price. Would the USG please elaborate on what calculation is applicable to CLIN(S) XX13? Section I, FAR Clause 52.222-43 (paragraph b) states: “The Contractor warrants that the prices in this contract do not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under this clause.” Please clarify what goes into this CLIN. Additionally, there is a conflict between the period of performance and the CBA. The annual POP for the contract is 01-MAY-20XX through 30-APR-20XX. However, the period of the CBA is from 01-FEB-20XX through 31-JAN-20XX. | This CLIN is a place holder should there be any wage adjustment request from the contractor IAW the local governing CBA. It should not be priced in your proposal. The CBA effective during that POP and attached to the RFP is what’s applicable. |
| 4 | |||
| 4 | Amendment 9, Block 14 | The amendment states this is a change to the PWS only, sections 6 & 7 of the RFP remain as they are currently posted on Beta SAM. Question: With regard to the proposal development expenses, does the government expect an entirely new proposal submission, or change pages to our original submission? | The expectation is the technical and pricing volumes will need to be revised due to changes in the PWS. The prerequisite volume will not need to be resubmitted if your company has already submitted one with the previous RFP. |
| 5 | PWS, para 1.12.1. (5) | Are the materials to produce the new hardcopy gradebooks GFE or CFE? | These should be GFE. |
| 6 | PWS Appendix B, Table B.5.1 E-3G Flight Deck Academic Instruction | The last column (G) is added twice. Should column (F) be the correct total? | You are correct. The excel spreadsheet duplicated the numbers. It will be corrected in the RFP Amendment. See the Table below. |
| 7 | Paragraph 4.11.26. Lesson | Are lessons updated to reflect the current Block 40/45 instruction? | Yes the lessons are currently being updated for 40/45. |
| 8 | Paragraph 4.11.27. Lesson Package. Yes the lesson packages are currently being updated for 40/45. | Are lessons updated to reflect the current Block 40/45 instruction? | Yes the lessons are currently being updated for 40/45. |
| 9 | Paragraph 4.11.44. Scenario. | Are current scenarios reflecting Block 40/45 event training tasks available for review? | Yes there are already 40/45 scenarios that are built. |
| 10 | Paragraph 4.13 Glossary of Terms and Definitions, “Syllabi” (page 41). | Does “TE-9” provide “syllabus driven courseware” for Block 40/45 courseware? Are these documents available for review? T | The TE-9 term is in reference to an old table and will be removed. Copies of the Syllabi were made available at the Preproposal Conference for viewing. A copy of the ACC TTL and Syllabi Guide will be uploaded to SAM.gov. |
| 11 | Paragraph 5.4.2 Instructor Qualifications for E-3 B Block 30/35 Aircraft. | Are the instructor requirements applicable to Block 30/35 and 40/45 instruction? | This only applies to Block 30/35 instruction. It is assumed that all the instructors would have already been qualified and had experience in 30/35. This is to provide a cadre to be able to teach 30/35 difference training if necessary under PWS A1.6. |
| 12 | Table A1.2. PFT Summary. | Are the ABM/MSO blocks 3, 4 and 5 available to determine Simulator Operator support requirements? | Block 3 is tactical intercepts, Block 4 is counter air operations and counter land operations however they are not available as the syllabi are currently being developed. |
| 13 | Appendix C. | Is the Section Lead crew position exempt from MQT? | Yes. The S/L is an individual who has already been MQT trained so the S/L would not be required to accomplish MQT as they would have already had that training under their respective qualification training.. |
| 14 | Section 6 | If a company responded to the first request for proposal, is an entirely new proposal going to be required? Or are just sections changes e.g., the technical and pricing sections? | Yes, only the technical and pricing Volumes will need to be reconstructed due to changes in the PWS. |
| 15 | Are only companies that responded to the first request for proposal allowed to participate in this proposal? | This is a competitive acquisition and is open to new entrants at this amendment. | |
| 16 | Will twelve hard copy binders going to be required again? TBD when RFP issued on beta SAM.gov | Please see Sections 6 and 7 of the RFP and amendments for proposal requirements. | |
| 17 | How long will the proposal response period be? | See the due date in Amendment 11. | |
| 18 | Will there be an extension to the current contract? | Yes, the current contract is already under an extension period. | |
| 19 | PWS Page 51, Table A1.5.1, SL Line, Column J | Column J shows 3 as the number of instructors required per class. Shouldn’t Column J be 4 as with the ABM and the MSO? | No, since there are only 6 students per class and a 1 to 2 instructor to student ration the number of instructors per class is correct at 3 in column J. |
| 20 | PWS Page 51, Table A1.5.1, MSO Line, Columns H, I & J | In table for “30/35 Training Device Workload,” in the SD line: Column I shows instructor-student ratio of 1:2. However, Column H shows 6 students and Column J then computes number of instructors required as 4. Per PFT data in Table A1.2 is consistent with 6 students (6 students x 18 classes/year = 108 students). Question: Shouldn’t Column J show 3 as the number of instructors required and then Column K show a total of 7,425.3 hours? Or should Column J remain as 4 to match ABM line? | Yes, you are correct. Column J should read 3 instructors per class. This will be corrected in PWS with RFP release. |
| 21 | PWS Page 53, Table C3.1, Note at bottom of table | Note references training for CSO, CT, CDMT, and ART positions. Where is MQT academic training data for referenced positions? | Reference note below the table, these positions will attend group MQT academic training along with the ABM and MSO student positions and the general MQT academic training will be provided by either an MSO or ABM instructor. The CSO, CT, CDMT, and ART positions, do not have any mission planning or simulator events. |
| 22 | PWS Page 56, Table D1.5.1, “CT Lesson Package” line, NEH Column | Total NEH displayed is 61.4, but actual calculation results in 60.4. Shouldn’t NEH Column show 60.4 as the total NEH? | Correct, the NEH should be 60.4. This will be corrected in the PWS with the RFP Amendment. |
| 23 | Reference Paragraph 5.4.1 (1)d), “Prior completion of a military ISD course or equivalent or complete it within two years of hire.” | The latest version of the PWS made this completion of a military ISD course a requirement (not desired) for all I/SMEs supporting CWD, which is has never and probably NOT currently a requirement for an Instructor Qualification. Completion of a military based-ISD course and ISD expertise has traditionally been a function of relying on the expertise of the Ed Tech. | Your assumption that this requirement is not part of the current contract is incorrect. This requirement is also in the current PWS. In the event the contractor wishes to create a hybrid I/SME that can also partially fulfill the Ed Tech functions, those individuals will also need to have attended or attend an ISD course. It is not meant for an ordinary I/SME who is providing technical expertise to support courseware. |
| 24 | This change to the latest PWS appears to conflict with paragraph 5.2.2. that states: “The contractor shall employ a minimum of one person who has graduated from a formal ISD course or equivalent.” | Paragraph 5.2.2. is to ensure that one person (i.e. Ed Tech) meets the formal training requirements and is on site. This is in reference to a lead ISD developer who might manage and oversee the entire courseware program. While I /SMEs may have been trained, they do not have the same amount of formal educational training and experience an Ed Tech may possess. | |
| 25 | Can the ISD requirement for I/SMEs be changed in the PWS to highly desired? | No. In most cases, many of the current I/SMEs are already considered to have this capability. If a new I/SME candidate is going to be considered to also provide this type of specialization the government can provide the training via the 436th TS course if needed. | |
| 26 | Reference Paragraph 5.4.2 and Appendix A Paragraph A1.6, Block 30/35 Difference Training/E-3 Ops Intro Course: | The OPS Intro Course is a basic course with academic and training device workload to support other combatant command requirements. It is designed to get a E-3G (Block 40/45) crewmember retrained in the Block 30/35 aircraft equipment in the event they are required to PCS to a location that only has E-3 AWACS B/C aircraft and need to be recertified. | |
| 27 | What Mission Crew Positions attend Academics Difference Training (Ops Intro)? | The OPS Intro course supports theses 30/35 crew positions: E-3 Mission Crew Commander (MCC), Senior Director (SD), Air Surveillance Officer (ASO), and Electronic Combat Officer (ECO). Please note this course in on a PCS need basis so not every crew specialty may be taught at a given time. | |
| 28 | What Mission Crew Positions participate in 30/35 Ops Intro device training (Ops Intro)? | E-3 Mission Crew Commander (MCC), Senior Director (SD), Air Surveillance Officer (ASO), and Electronic Combat Officer (ECO). | |
| 29 | What is the Government’s expectation for contractor I/SMEs (ABM, SL, MSO, etc.) eligible to be certified to teach the E-3 30/35 Operator Intro Course academics and device training? | Contractor personnel who were once qualified in one of the previously listed 30/35 positions would need to be certified and remain proficient in those 30/35 positions. | |
| 30 | Is it the Contractor’s discretion to determine and document in their TWMP the specific 40/45 Mission Crew I/SME positions teach the PWS defined academics and device training for the E-3 Intro Course? | Yes, it will be contractors discretion as the numbers of 40/45 personnel certified to teach the 30/35 difference training however there must be enough on staff to cover any short notice tasking. | |
| 31 | Is it the Contractor’s discretion for determining the number of I/SMEs qualified and proficient in the 30/35 aircraft? | Yes, however there must be enough on staff to cover any short notice tasking. | |
| 32 | Is there a current Syllabus and/or existing Course Material for the 30/35 Difference Training Course? | Yes. The syllabus course is the E-3 B/C Operator Introduction Training Course, E-3 B/C BQA101. There are two tracks for this course however for difference training we are only concerned with crewmembers with previous experience in the E-3 AWACS B/C weapon system so Track 2 for the MCC, SD, ASO and ECO crew positions. The course will most likely be tailored to meet the needs of the crewmember but track 2 of the syllabi currently consists of 9 hours of academic training and six (6) simulator periods for 11.5 hours. | |
| 33 | Reference PWS 5.7.3, Administrative Assistant | Is the Administrative Assistant included within current CBA? How many FTEs does the Government anticipate filling this role? | No. 1 FTE. |
| 34 | Reference PWS H.2, 752 OSS Mission Simulator Training Package Workload | The revised PWS highlighted Table H.2 however it does not appear any changes were made to the table. Can the government confirm that Table H.2 was not revised in the latest PWS version? | Correct Table H.2 did not change. |
| 35 | Reference PWS 1.12.3.1. (3)] Red Air | How much control do the instructors have over the “red air” assets? Do they control everything about the opposition or are the scenarios pre-loaded and the instructors only simulate radio traffic? If full simulation, how are those assets controlled? With keyboard commands? | Everything is dependent on the Block of training: All scenarios are pre-loaded and on tape supported by APSs. Block 3 Tactical Intercepts “Red Air” is all on tape and remains on tape. The focus of this Block is on “Blue Air”, so the student controlling Red Air just voices calls on the radio. APS support is just to Blue Air (Instructor Support). Blocks 4 and 5 Counter Air Operations and Counter Land Operations are both pre-loaded scenarios supported by APS. The student will control Blue Air assets and defend against Red Air… APSs will drive the Blue and Red air assets for the scenario. Depending on the DLOs, the instructor can work with the APS to take Red Air assets off tape and perform certain maneuvers (the majority of the assets remain on tape). These maneuvers are driven by the keyboard command on the APS ASCOT system. The APSs go off of a timeline script for all scenarios. These scenarios are dynamic and require the APS to remain focused, and therefore may have to flex from the script timeline. In this scenario the APS might have to deviate from the script and voice a different call or take the entity off tape. |
| ERROR:#VALUE! | PWS Appendix B, Table B.5.1 E-3G Flight Deck Academic Instruction |
| 36 | Your amendment 10 states proposals are due 1 April 2020, but in paragraph 5.5 of your solicitation states proposals are due 6 April. Which is the correct date. | Proposals are due 6 April, at 1300 Hrs EST. | |
| 37 | Since the old solicitation FA4890-19-R-A020 was replaced by the new solicitation FA4890-20-R-0004, does this mean companies who did not submit for the old solicitation are able to submit on this new solicitation? | Yes, new entrants are permitted to submit a proposal. | |
| 38 | Are digital signatures acceptable on the the SF 1449 and and SF30s? | Yes. | |
| 39 | Should we plan to submit proposals both electronically (DoD SAFE) and physically due to the disruption caused by COVID19 measures? | Proposals are permitted to be submitted electronically. | |
| 40 | Is the date of the “initial offer including price.” November 15, 2019 would be the appropriate date for the determination of size status on this procurement, even if the Offeror later submits an update to their offer under Solicitation FA4890-20-R-0004? | Yes, it is. | |
| 41 | We request a one week extension to the solicitation due to limitations caused by compliance with “Social Distancing” policy to combat spread of COVID-19. | At this time, we are keeping the proposal due date as is. | |
| 42 | Will the Government issue an updated SF1449 with the latest solicitation number? | The latest solicitation number is FA4890-20-R-0004. | |
| 43 | Should offerors mark packages with the original or current solicitation number? | Please use the current solicitation number FA4890-20-R-0004. | |
| 44 | Will the Government re-package and post the cumulative SF30s so offerors can comply with the requirement to sign and date each to include with their submission? | No, IAW Paragraph 1.5 of Section 6, it is the offerors responsibility to acknowledge all amendments by signing and dating Page 1 of each SF30. | |
| 45 | Should offerors post their Executive Summary in Volume II? If so, will the Executive Summary remain as uncounted pages against the Volume II 50-page limit? | If an offeror has previously submitted the Executive Summary in Volume I, it is not required a resubmission. However, if an offeror is a new entrant, the Executive Summary can be submitted in Vol II-Technical and remain as uncounted pages against the Volume II 50-page limit. | |
| 46 | Reference 5.7.3 Administrative Assistant | Is the Administrative Assistant covered in the CBA? | No. This is a new position. |
| 47 | If the Administrative Assistant is not covered in the CBA, is there an existing CBA position contractors should use to price the Administrative Assistant? | It is the offeror's choice on pricing the position. We recommend offerors check the DoL Wage rates for that area. | |
| 48 | Should bidders price the Base Year and Option Years using 1 Feb ’20 CBA rates? Or, should bidders price in the rate increase in the Base Year starting on 1 Feb ’21? If so, can the Government confirm bidders will be eligible for a price adjustment during the base period? | The awardee will likely make a determination at time of award to bridge the current CBA until they can negotiate their own CBA which should align with the contract period of performance which is the government's fiscal year cycle to eliminate confusion and redundant request for contract price adjustments. | |
| 49 | |||
| 50 |
image1.emf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .