Question-Comment Matrix_Responses 3Feb23.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 43 KB Posted
- Attached to
- RQ-4 & U-2 CONTRACT AIRCREW TRAINING AND COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA489023R0014
About this file
This combined synopsis and solicitation seeks proposals for contract aircrew training and courseware development services in support of RQ-4, U-2, and T-38 aircraft programs. Offerors must provide all required personnel, equipment, materials, and services to conduct academic and simulator training at Beale AFB, CA and Grand Forks AFB, ND. The performance period is from April 2023 through March 2028, consisting of a phase-in period, base year, and four option years. Proposals are due by January 2023, and award will be made using performance price tradeoff. The solicitation is set aside for SDVOSBs with a business size standard of $27.5 million. Offerors must hold a Top Secret facility clearance and be registered in SAM under NAICS code 611512. Required services include academic, simulator, and flight instruction for RQ-4 programs at Grand Forks AFB and U-2/T-38 programs at Beale AFB.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| RQ-4 Combined Synopsis-Solicitation FA489023R0014_Revision2 7Feb23.pdf | ||
| Question-Comment Matrix_Responses 7Feb23.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FA489023R0014 Amendment 0004.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1_RQ-4 U-2 CAT CWD PWS_Revision 2 7Feb23.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1_RQ-4 U-2 CAT CWD PWS_Revision 1 3Feb23.pdf | ||
| FA489023R0014 Amendment 0003.pdf | ||
| RQ-4 Combined Synopsis-Solicitation FA489023R0014_Revision1 3Feb23.pdf | ||
| FA489023R0014 Amendment 0002.pdf | ||
| FA489023R0014 Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| Attachment 2_Pricing Schedule.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Attachment 5_Collective Bargaining Agreements.pdf | ||
| RQ-4 Combined Synopsis-Solicitation FA489023R0014.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1_RQ-4 U-2 CAT CWD PWS.pdf | ||
| Attachment 3_Draft DD Form 254.pdf | ||
| Attachment 4_Question-Comment Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 15
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
| FA489023R0014 - RQ4, U2, & T-38 CAT/CWD | ||||||
| Offeror | Government Only | |||||
| Q# | Doc | Pg # | Para # | Comment/Question/Recommendation | Government Response | |
| 1 | PWS | 5, 41 | 1.4.2, A4.1.1, and A4.1.1.2 | 1.4.2 - "…provide an ISD Management Plan to the Contracting Officer concurrently within 10 business days of contract award." Appendix 4 identifies the ISDMP as being submitted with the proposal. Will the Government please clarify if the ISDMP is to be submitted with the proposal or not? | Please see revised PWS. ISDMP shall be provided with proposal. | |
| 2 | PWS | 11 | 1.6.8 | 1.6.8.1 "…contractor shall update and maintain the Excel database system." 1.6.8.3 "…classified material will be located on a classified server." 1.6.8.4.3 "...contractor will manage worldwide access to CBTs." Is the current Academic Database only Excel or is it hosted in SharePoint? Will the Government provide the Classified and Unclassified server/website or is the contractor required to provide the equipment to host the database? | Currently the CWD schedule and the student gradesheets utilize excel. The academic databade is hosted in SharePoint with backups stored on contractor owned network. The government provides the classified servers/websites. | |
| 3 | PWS | 19 | 3.4.1 | "The contractor shall provide the hardware (LAN Server) and software equipment including server and switch computer equipment as required by the Base Communications Squadron (CS) to attach to the Base furnished router." Is this server only at Beale AFB? | Base Communications Squadron to attach to the Base furnished router at Beal AFB and Grand Forks AFB. | |
| 4 | PWS | 45 | 3.4, Atch 3 | 3.4 "…the contractor shall furnish everything necessary to perform all of the requirements in this contract." Atch 3 "…16 computer workstations are furnished for the contractor availability." PWS 3.4 states contractors are required to provide all computers for the contract. Atch 3 states the Government provides 16 workstations. Are these workstations available for contractor employee use in the performance of contract requirements? | Attachment 3 provides an list of Governement furnished equipment for contractor employee use in the performance of contract requirements. | |
| 5 | RFP | 8 | Table 1 | Factor 1 - Technical allows 25 pages. PWS A4.1 requires five plans with the proposal. (TWMP, ISDMP, QCP, Phase-In/Out, and ITCP). Are the plans included in the 25 page count? | Please see revised PWS. Yes, plans due with proposal are included in page count. | |
| 6 | PWS, RFP | 36 | Table A1.8 | 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk is not included in the list of required clauses despite having flight event requirements. Will the Government include this clause or is the contractor held liable for any incident? | Please refer to DFARS 228.370(b)(1)(ii). This is a commerial type contract (FAR 12), which is an exception to using the reference clause. | |
| 7 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 1 | 3 | States size standard for NAICS 611512 is $27.5M. Recommendation: New SBA Table of Small Business Size Standards, effective 19 Dec 2022, shows new size standard for NAICS 611512 as $34M. | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. | |
| 8 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 12 | 6.0 (2) | Paragraph requires offeror to submit Past Performance Information (PPI) sheet for each referenced contract. In the paragraph title, the PPI sheet is shown to be at Appendix 2. However, Appendix 2 contains the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ). Question: Should offerors use the PPQ Section 1 to identify each referenced contract, or should the offeror just provide a summary with the information listed in Paragraph 6.0 (1)? | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. | |
| 9 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 12 | 6.0 (2) (a) | States, "Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 6 months) during the last three years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation." Solicitations for other combat aircraft training contracts have used five years preceding issuance of solicitation. Examples: F-15/F-16/F-22 CAT/CWD (FA489021R0027 issued 11 Apr 2022); B-52/B-1 CAT/CWD (FA680022R0006 issued 30 Aug 2022); and PACAF Simulator Instructor Pilots (FA521523R0002 draft issued 19 Dec 2022). Question: Would the Government consider changing the recency criteria to five (5) years preceding issuance of this solicitation? | No. | |
| 10 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 23 | Eval Factors, 2.4, Table 4, First Row | States "Very Relavant" derives from "Performance for having managed at least one USAF contract for Fighter type | ||
| military aircrew training..." Question: Would the Government consider adding "Intellignece, Surveilance and Reconnaissance (ISR), or Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA)" to "Fighter type"? | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. | |||||
| 11 | PWS | 35 | Table A1.4 | Table presents RQ-4 academic training. Question: Could the Government please clarify what amount of training is conducted at the FTU (Beale AFB) and at the operational site (Grand Forks AFB)? | All RQ-4 training is conducted at Grand Forks AFB and all U-2 training is conducted at Beale AFB. | |
| 12 | PWS | 36 | Tables A1.7 and A1.8 | Tables present RQ-4 device and flight event training. Question: Could the Government please clarify what amount of training is conducted at the FTU (Beale AFB) and at the operational site (Grand Forks AFB)? | All RQ-4 training is conducted at Grand Forks AFB and all U-2 training is conducted at Beale AFB. | |
| 13 | PWS | 6 | 1.4.2.8 | States, "The contractor shall formulate and submit a Quality Control Plan (QCP) to the CO concurrently with their proposal..." However, the Proposal Preparation Instructions give no direction on QCP submission. Question: Should this be changed to require QCP submission within 10 business days of award? | Please see revised PWS. QC is a part of the ISDMP which is due with the proposal. | |
| 14 | PWS | 11 | 1.6.6 | States, "Thee contractor shall develop a Phase-In/Phase-Out-Plan. This plan shall be delivered to the CO concurrently with the contractor’s proposal." However, the Proposal Preparation Instructions give no direction on Phase-In/Phase-Out-Plan submission. Question: Should this be changed to require Phase-In/Phase-Out-Plan submission within 10 business days of award? | Please see revised PWS. Phase-In/Phase-Out Plan will be do within 10 days of contract award. | |
| 15 | PWS | 13 | 1.7.2.1 | States, "Thee contractor shall develop, deliver, and implement an ITCP to the CO concurrently with their proposal." However, the Proposal Preparation Instructions give no direction on ITCP submission. Question: Should this be changed to require ITCP submission within 10 business days of award? | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation and revised PWS. ITCP will be delivered as apart of the Technical Volume when submitting proposal. | |
| 16 | PWS | 35 | A1.3 | U-2 Mission Planner workload. Do contractor Mission Planner personnel participate in preparation of materials, briefing, and debriefing for student pilots, and what is the associated workload? | Table A1.1, A1.3 & A1.6 list U-2 MSN PLNR workload. | |
| 17 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 21 | Eval Factors, 1.1, next-to-last sentence | States,"If the offeror through their analysis determines that the manning requirements for I/SMEs is greater or less than the minimum number recommended in the PWS, offeror must provide justification for their proposed FTE requirements." PWS contains no FTE information. Question: Should FTE information be included in the PWS? | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. Revised Evaluation Factors Para 1.1. | |
| 18 | PWS | 34-38 | Appendix 1 | Period of performance dates shown in Appendix 1 are 1 Feb 2023 to 31 Jan 2028. However, Combined Synopsis/Solicitation shows period as 1 Apr 2023 to 31 Mar 2028. Question: Should Appenidx 1 be revised to show 1 Apr 2023 to 31 Mar 2028 as Perfromance Period? | Please see revised PWS. Dates were sticken to allow flexibility in contract timeline. | |
| 19 | PWS | 38 | A1.9 | Discussed maintenance of Electroinc Flight Bag. Question: Does this requirements include the RQ-4? Question: What is the estimated workload for the RQ-4? And for the U-2/T-38? | Electronic Flight Bag workload is estimated at 500 hours per year. See revised PWS Section A1.9. | |
| 20 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 10 | 5.2 | Recommend including a statement in Section 4.5, subparagraph "Pages Not Included in Page Count.", which states "Technical Contents including: Facility Clearance, Table of Contents, Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms, Executive Summary, and Deliverables listed in Appendix 4 (A.4.1.1.2., A.4.1.1.3, A.4.1.1.4, A.4.1.1.5) are NOT included in the Technical Volume page limitations." | ||
| Reason: 25 pages is insufficient to address the requirements of Volume 1 - Factor 1- Technical and also include all five (5) plans required to be submitted with the proposal, as listed in Appendix 4 Deliverables, paragraph A4.1.1. | Please see revised PWS. | |||||
| 21 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 8-9 | 4.5b, 4.6* | If it is the government's intent for the Technical Volume to exceed 25 pages total (including attachments), we recommend revising the table to state "Technical Volume Page Limit: 30 Pages Total (1 Page Facility Clearance, 4 Page Executive Summary, 25 Page Technical). Deliverables listed in PWS Appendix 4, A4.1.1. should be submitted as separate attachments. " | ||
| Reason: Clarify the Instructions to Offerors. | Please see revised PWS. | |||||
| 22 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 8 | 4.6, Table 1 | Recommend specifying if the five (5) plans (Deliverables listed in Appendix 4, A.4.1.1.) should be submitted as seperate attachments. Please also identify the desired document format and any submission instructions. | ||
| Reason: Clarify the Instructions to Offerors. | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation and PWS. | |||||
| 23 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 8 | 4.6 | Recommend Volume I Technical max page limit be raised (from 25 pages) to 100 pages. |
REASONS.
(a). A similar very recent USAF RFP FA6800-22-R-0006 for B-1/B-52 CAT/CWD at two USAF bases, allowed the Technical Volume a max page limit of 100 pages (which included the page counts of the required plans submitted with the proposal either: as separate documents; or, within the Technical Volume).
(b). In order to document in the RQ-4 U-2/T-38 Technical Volume for each of the two bases: Appendix A Workload CAT and CWD detailed analysis (multiple pages to include the PWS Appendix I nine tables but with additional columns of analysis plus paragraph text; and, contractor provided unclassified and classified network servers and switches network diagrams (multiple pages to include the 4 network diagrams).
Reference:
| Solicitation "Table 1 - Page Limitations", identifies for Volume 1 Factor 1 - Technical a max page limit of 25 pages. | Page limit remains at 25. Please see revised PWS for updated requirements on what plans are due with proposal. | ||||
| 24 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 12 | 6.0(2) | Will the government consider increasing the number of past performance references to five (5) Contract References (including Prime Offeror and Subcontractors)? |
Reason: Because references are required for all teammates performing 20% or more of the effort, we recommend allowing additional past performance references to be evaluated. This would enable a more accurate assessment of the Offering Team's combined capabilities. Otherwise, an Offeror with more than one teammate is prevented from supplying more than one example of Very Relevant Work.
| Reference: PWS 6.0(2): "The offeror shall submit a maximum of three (3) contract references where it performed as a prime contractor... Contract references are required on the offeror and any teaming partner or major subcontractor that will perform at least 20% of this effort." | No. | ||||
| 25 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 12 | 6.0(2) | Will the government accept past performance from a teaming partner which was performed as a subcontractor (so long as it is recent, relevant, and a PPQ from the Prime Contractor is provided)? |
REFERENCE:PWS 6.01(2)."If the Offeror does not have any past performance where it performed as a prime contractor, the Government will accept past performance from a teaming partner, subcontractor, or where the offeror performed as a major subcontractor if the portion of the work completed was similar in size/scope to this requirement."
| Reason: Recommend the government accept subcontractor performance from subcontractors.This would enable a more accurate assessment of the Offering Team's combined capabilities. | Please refer to Section 6, Para 2 52.212-1 Addendum. | ||||
| 26 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 12 | 6.0(2) | Can Past Performance by an offering team's subcontractor's current personnel (from prior to their working for the sub-contractor) be included in the Past Performance volume? |
REFERENCE."If the Offeror does not have any past performance where it performed as a prime contractor, the Government will accept past performance from a teaming partner, subcontractor, or where the offeror performed as a major subcontractor if the portion of the work completed was similar in size/scope to this requirement."
| REASON: Clarify past performance evaluation criteria. | No. | |||||
| 27 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 12 | 6.0(2) | Will the government evaluate Past Performance performed as a Subcontractor less favorably (i.e. assign a lower confidence rating) than Past Performance References performed as a Prime? REFERENCE."If the Offeror does not have any past performance where it performed as a prime contractor, the Government will accept past performance from a teaming partner, subcontractor, or where the offeror performed as a major subcontractor if the portion of the work completed was similar in size/scope to this requirement." | ||
| REASON: Clarify past performance evaluation criteria. | No. | |||||
| 28 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 23 | 2.4 | How will the government evaluate a Past Performance Reference that is "Very Relevant" in scope, but "Relevant" in magnitude? (i.e. a Past Performance reference with Satisfactoy PPQs which provided less than 25 FTEs in support of USAF fighter type military training at two or more geographically separate locations.) Reference: "2.4 Relevancy, as it pertains to performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming and the PWS/solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the offeror’s past performance is an indicator of future performance." REASON: Clarify past performance evaluation criteria. | Please refer to Para 2.5 and 2.6 of the combo synopsis/solicitation. | |
| 29 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 23 | 2.4, Table 4. | Recommend changing the definition of "Very Relevant" to read as follows: "Performance for having managed at least one United Stastes military aircrew training contract OR one fighter type instruction experience consisting of both academic and simulator instruction, courseware development utilizing an Instructional Systems Development (ISD) model with performance at two (2) or more geographically separated locations. In addition, performance efforts must include Initial Qualification Training, Mission Qualification and Continuation Training support. |
REASON: The "Very Relevant" criteria, as currently written, is unreasonably restrictive and too limiting. It is more important for the supporting contractor to have an understanding of interservice training protocols than it is for the contractor to have USAF-specific fighter type instruction experience. RQ4 training employs similar tactics, but the U-2 is not a fighter type.
| Reference. Page 23, Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method. | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. | |||||
| 30 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 6 | 3.4 | Please provide more information on the requirement for each teammate to provide a "list of past and present recent and relevant references", including how many recent, relevant references are allowed to be listed; where they should be listed; in what format; and what information is required. Reason: We assume this information should be provided as part of the Past Performance volume but where it should be included and in what format is not made clear. Please clairfy if the government would like to see full Summary Information as described on Page 12, Section 1 with a statement demonstrating relevancy, or if the government simply requires a listing of relevant, recent contracts (with title and contract number). Reference: 3.4 Partner Arrangement (If applicable). If a partner arrangement or joint venture is contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any recent and relevant past performance information (as required) on previous partner arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past and present recent and relevant references." | Please refer to Section 6, Para 2 of 52.212-1 Addendum. | |
| 31 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 12 | 2 | Does the Government have a Past Performance Information (PPI) Template Sheet for the offeror to complete for our Past Performance Narratives/Summary, or is vendor format acceptable? Reason: Appendix 2 contains the Past Performance Questionnaire for Offerors to send to our customers for completion. Appendix 2 is identified as both the PPI and PPQ within the RFQ. Reference: (2) Past and Present Performance Information (PPI) Sheets (Appendix 2)., (3) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (Appendix 2) | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. Clarified through revision | |
| 32 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 6 | 3.4 | Where should the Offeror include Partner Arrangement Information? Reference. "3.4 Partner Arrangement (If applicable). If a partner arrangement or joint venture is |
contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any recent and relevant past performance information (as required) on previous partner arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past
| and present recent and relevant references." Reason: To clarify the instructionsto offerors because this requirement is listed separately from the Volume II requirements in Section 6.0, page 12. | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. | ||||
| 33 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 6 | 3.4 | Does the List of Recent and Relevant References (Partner Arrangement Information) count against the volume page count limitations? Reference. "3.4 Partner Arrangement (If applicable). If a partner arrangement or joint venture is |
contemplated, provide complete information as to the arrangement, including any recent and relevant past performance information (as required) on previous partner arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of past
| and present recent and relevant references." Reason: To clarify the instructions to offerors because this requirement is listed separately from the Volume II requirements in Section 6.0, page 12. | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. | ||||
| 34 | Combined Synopsis/ Solicitation | 12 | 6.0(1) | Should past performance reference summary/narrative information be included within the "Summary" section of the Past Performance Volume, or should the information requested in 6.0(1) be included within the Past Performance Information Sheets section instead? |
Reason. 2 pages total is not a sufficient page count to include both Offeror information, Award Fee information, and Past Performance Summary information. PPI Sheets (templates) are missing from the RFQ.
Reference 6.0(1) "For each performance reference submitted, the offeror shall include a summary or narrative containing the following information: a. Contract/Task Order Number and Title
b. Contract/Task Order Period of Performance (PoP)
c. Total Contract/Task Order Value
d. Prime Contractor Name, Cage Code and DUNS
e. Subcontractor Name, Cage Code and DUNS:
f. Government Contracting Officer: Name, Title, Agency/Organization, Current Phone Number and Email
g. Government Program Manager: Name, Title, Agency/Organization, Current Phone Number and Email
h. Number of FTEs Managed"
i. Level/Type of Required Security Clearances Required
j. Brief description of the scope of work performed relevant to this
| requirement and any other information the offeror determines pertinent" | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. Revised to NTE two pages per reference. | ||||
| 35 | PWS | 41 | A4.1.1. | Recommend specifying that the five (5) plans (Deliverables listed in Appendix 4, A.4.1.1.) should be submitted as seperate, stand-alone PDF attachments, which are NOT included within the 25 Page Limits for the Technical Volume. |
Reference: A4.1.1.1. (Aspect B) Training Workload Management Plan; PWS para 1.3.2.
A4.1.1.2. Instructional Systems Development Management Plan; para 1.4.2.
A4.1.1.3. Quality Control Plan; PWS para 1.4.2.8.
A4.1.1.4. Phase-In/Phase-Out Plan; PWS para 1.6.6.
A4.1.1.5. Instructor Training and Certification Plan; PWS para 1.7.2.1.
| Reason: 25 pages is an insufficient amount of pages to adequately address both Subfactors A and B of Volume 1 - Factor 1- Technical while also providing 5 complete and detailed plans (as listed in Appendix 5, paragraph A.4.1.1). | Please see revised PWS. | ||||
| 36 | PWS | 41 | A4.1.1. | Please identify the desired document format and any submission instructions for Deliverables listed in Appendix 4, A.4.1.1. |
Reference: A4.1.1.
| Reason: 25 pages is an insufficient amount of pages to adequately address both Subfactors A and B of Volume 1 - Factor 1- Technical while also providing 5 complete and detailed plans (as listed in Appendix 5, paragraph A.4.1.1). | Please see revised PWS. | ||||
| 37 | PWS | 41 | A4.1.1. | Can the five (5) plans required to be submitted with the proposal (PWS, Appendix 4 Deliverables, paragraph A4.1.1) be submitted as either: |
(A). Paragraphs within the Technical Volume (and if needed after contract award as a separate standalone document plan - reformated then as a separate standalone document plan) or, (2). As standalone documents from the Technical Volume (and would their pages also count against the Technical Volume max page limit; or, their pages NOT count against the Technical Volume max page limit)?
| Reason: Clarify the Instructions to Offerors. | Please see revised PWS. | ||||
| 38 | PWS | 21 | 1.1. | Please provide the minimum recommended number of I/SMEs required. |
Reference: PWS 1.1. "If the offeror through their analysis determines that the manning requirements for I/SMEs is greater or less than the minimum number recommended in the PWS, offeror must provide justification for their proposed FTE requirements."
| Reason: We were unable to locate a statement within the PWS defining the minimum number recommended (apart from the information provided in A1.4.) | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. | ||||
| 39 | PWS | 11 | 1.6.8 | Does RQ-4 U-2/T-38 Academic Database currently have a Learning Management System (LMS) or Courseware Management System (CWS) in use (in addition to/or integrated with the existing Excel database)? If so, what is brand name of the LMS and/or CWS software? | |
| REASONS/REFERENCE. PWS, page 11, para 1.6.8 (and its sub-paragraphs) identify "U-2/T-38 & RQ-4 Academic Database" requirements for the contractor to "... utilize and maintain the current ... student academic training and courseware development tracking database ...' and, "... update and maintain the Excel database system to identify and track ...". BUT do not identify if an LMS or CWS is currently in use. This information would support development of our Transition Plan. | Contractor developed LMS is in use. | ||||
| 40 | PWS | 19, | |||
| 31-32 | 3.4.1, | ||||
| 4.8 | Is the contractor required to provide the servers and switches for each of two bases (Beale AFB and Grand Forks AFB) unclassified CAT training network, classified CAT training network, unclassified CWD training network, and classified CWD training network; BUT, the Government is providing all of the intra-building network cabling and external-building (and between buildings) network, and all of the students and instructors academic (i.e. classroom) computers/workstations? |
REASONS/REFERENCE. PWS, page 19, para 3.4.1 (LAN Server) identifies that the contractor shall provide hardware and software equipment including server and switch equipment ... to attach to Base furnished router. PWS, pages 31-32, para 4.8, 4.8.5 (Small Computer Workstation) identifies that the contractor computer configuration shall comply with AFNIC E/APL, and SDC computer hardware and software configurations (which are available from many off-the-shelf vendors).
No to classified CAT network.
PWS section 3.4.1. LAN Server for both Beale AFB and Grand Forks AFB shall be provided by contractor. PWS Attachement 3 provides a list of Governement furnished equipment for contractor employee use in the performance of contract requirements.
| 41 | PWS | 19, | |
| 31-32 | 3.4.1, | ||
| 4.8 | Is the contractor to provide in each base's contractor CAT/CWD office, the contractor CAT/CWD personnel computers/workstations for CWD development and CAT instructor office use, which connect to the unclassified CWD or CAT networks, respectively? |
REASONS/REFERENCE.
PWS, page 19, para 3.4.1 (LAN Server) identifies that the contractor shall provide hardware and software equipment including server and switch equipment ... to attach to Base furnished router.
PWS, pages 31-32, para 4.8, 4.8.5 (Small Computer Workstation) identifies that the contractor computer configuration shall comply with AFNIC E/APL, and SDC computer hardware and software configurations (which are available from many off-the-shelf vendors).
| PWS section 3.4.1. LAN Server for both Beale AFB and Grand Forks AFB shall be provided by contractor. PWS Attachement 3 provides a list of Governement furnished equipment for contractor employee use in the performance of contract requirements. | |||
| 42 | PWS | 19, | |
| 31-33 | 3.4.1, | ||
| 4.8 | Please supply Beale AFB and Grand Forks AFB network diagrams which identify the buildings, classrooms, contractor CAT/CWD offices, and quantity of computers/workstations for each base's: unclassified CAT network, classified CAT network, unclassified CWD network, classified CWD network. |
REASONS/REFERENCE.
PWS, page 19, para 3.4.1 (LAN Server) identifies that the contgractor shall provide hardware and software equipment including server and switch equipment ... to attach to Base furnished router.
| PWS section 3.4.1. LAN Server for both Beale AFB and Grand Forks AFB shall be provided by contractor. PWS Attachement 3 provides a list of Governement furnished equipment for contractor employee use in the performance of contract requirements. | |||
| 43 | PWS | 19, | |
| 31-33 | 3.4.1, | ||
| 4.8 | Please supply a copy of the floor plan layouts at each of two bases (Beale AFB and Grand Forks AFB). |
REASONS/REFERENCE.
| PWS, page 19, para 3.4.1 (LAN Server) identifies that the contgractor shall provide hardware and software equipment including server and switch equipment ... to attach to Base furnished router. | Information not relavant for proposal. May be provided post-award, as necessary. | ||
| 44 | PWS | 19, | |
| 31-33 | 3.4.1, | ||
| 4.8 | How many workstations and training areas at each supported location (Beale AFB and Grand Forks AFB)? |
REASONS/REFERENCE.
| PWS, page 19, para 3.4.1 (LAN Server) identifies that the contgractor shall provide hardware and software equipment including server and switch equipment ... to attach to Base furnished router. | PWS Attachment 3 provides an list of Governement furnished equipment. Two U-2 Mission Procedure Trainers at Beale, two egress procedure trainers at Beale (1 U-2 and 1 T-38 -- neither will be utilized by CAT instructors), seven RQ-4 Pilot Stand Alone Trainers at Grand Forks and ten RQ-4 Sensor Operator Part Task Trainers. | ||
| 45 | PWS | 19, | |
| 31-32 | 3.4.1, | ||
| 4.8 | How many buildings are wired together at each supported location? |
REASONS/REFERENCE.
| PWS, page 19, para 3.4.1 (LAN Server) identifies that the contgractor shall provide hardware and software equipment including server and switch equipment ... to attach to Base furnished router. | Information not relavant for proposal. May be provided post-award, as necessary. | ||
| 46 | PWS | 19, | |
| 31-32 | 3.4.1, | ||
| 4.8 | Please supply a copy of the floor plan layouts at each of two bases (Beale AFB and Grand Forks AFB), to include the sections of building(s) classrooms, contractor CAT/CWD offices, and quantity of computers/workstations for each base's: unclassified CAT network, classified CAT network, unclassified CWD network, classified CWD network. |
REASONS/REFERENCE.
PWS, page 19, para 3.4.1 (LAN Server) identifies that the contractor shall provide hardware and software equipment including server and switch equipment ... to attach to Base furnished router.
| Information not relavant for proposal. May be provided post-award, as necessary. | |||
| 47 | PWS | 19, | |
| 31-32 | 3.4.1, | ||
| 4.8 | To support the training supply network, please provide specific network information needed (that we would otherwise be making assumptions for) such as network topologies and rack elevations. |
REASONS/REFERENCE.
| PWS, page 19, para 3.4.1 (LAN Server) identifies that the contractor shall provide hardware and software equipment including server and switch equipment ... to attach to Base furnished router. | Information not relavant for proposal. May be provided post-award, as necessary. | ||||
| 48 | PWS | 19, | |||
| 31-32 | 3.4.1, | ||||
| 4.8 | Please provide the incumbent contractor's current hardware, software, and software license inventory list at each base, which incumbent contractor is using on the CAT and CWD networks. | ||||
| REFERENCE. PWS, page 19, para 3.4.1 (LAN Server) identifies that the contractor shall provide hardware and software equipment. | Information not relavant for proposal because requirements are changing in the new contract. | ||||
| 49 | PWS | 19, | |||
| 31-32 | 3.4.1, | ||||
| 4.8 | Please provide a copy of the unclassified networks that the incumbent contractor is currently providing. REFERENCE. PWS, page 19, para 3.4.1 (LAN Server) identifies that the contractor shall provide hardware and software equipment. | ||||
| Reason. This information would support our Transition Plan. | Information not relavant for proposal. May be provided post-award, as necessary. | ||||
| 50 | PWS | 19 | 3.4.1. | Please supply the number of current FSA, CSSO, and CSA personnel, their current certification level with respect to the Base CS requirements, and their FLSA exempt status. |
Reason. This information would support our Transition Plan.
| REFERENCE. 3.4.1. "The contractor shall provide the hardware and software equipment including server and switch computer equipment as required by the Base Communications Squadron (CS) to attach to the Base furnished router. The contractor shall also comply with Base CS requirements for personnel trained to perform Functional System Administrative (FSA), Computer System Security Officer (CSSO) and Client Support Administrator (CSA) duties." | Information not relavant for proposal. May be provided post-award, as necessary. | |||||
| 51 | PWS | 45 | Attachment 3 | PWS Attachment 3 (Inventory of GFE for Contractor Availability) needs the Quantity column to instead be broken out into two columns: "Beale AFB Qty" and "Grand Forks AFB Qty". | ||
| Reason. So the Offerors know what is available at each base. Reference. PWS Attachment 3 (Inventory of GFE for Contractor Availability) | Information not relavant for proposal. May be provided post-award, as necessary. | |||||
| 52 | PWS | 44 | A.12 | Please supply a minimum of 12 months of Monthly Status Report CDRLs to be included in the Bidder's Library? Reference. PWS Attachment 2. "A12. CONTRACTOR'S PROGRESS, STATUS AND MANAGEMENT REPORT. The contractor shall prepare and deliver the progress, status and management report monthly." | Information not relavant for proposal. May be provided post-award, as necessary. | |
| 53 | Solicitation | 15 | 7.4. | Please supply CBA Seniority List with years of service and Full Time and Part Time status for all personnel. Reason: This information will help Offerors determine PTO leave and fringe benefit eligibility using the Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA). The information will support development of the Total Overall Evaluated Price. Refernece: Attachment 5. Collective Bargaining Agreements. | Seniorty list will be provided during transition period, as necessary. | |
| 54 | PWS | 24 | 4.4.2.1.7.2. | Please supply the number of Instructor Sensor Operators who are required to hold an FAA Flight Medical Certificate. | ||
| Reference. 4.4.2.1.7.2. Pass and maintain the FAA Class III and/or Air Force flight physical requirements. | All instructors hired as Sensor Operators are required to hold an FAA Flight Medical Certification. Number of Sensor Operators hired is based of the workload tables. | |||||
| 55 | PWS | 35 | A1.3. | Which labor categories will perform live flight instruction? | ||
| Reason. Clarify Instructor Requirements. Reference: Appendix 1. | PWS section 4.6.1 list which labor categories will perform flight instruction. | |||||
| 56 | PWS | 25 | 4.6.1. | Will only the RQ-4 Sensor Operator Instructor perform live flight instruction? | ||
| Reason. Clarify Instructor Requirements. Reference. 4.4.2.1.7.2. Pass and maintain the FAA Class III and/or Air Force flight physical requirements. | PWS section 4.6.1 list which labor categories will perform flight instruction. | |||||
| 57 | PWS | 34 | A1. | How many Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for each of the Labor Categories are currently supporting this effort at Beale AFB, CA? Reason: This information will support our Manning Workload Analysis. Reference: Appendix 1 | All U-2/T-38 CAT training and flight events are conducted at Beale. AFB. All CWD personnel are out of Beale, AFB. PWS Appendix 1 provides workload estimates for computing FTE's. | |
| 58 | PWS | 34 | A1. | How many Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) for each of the Labor Categories are currently supporting this effort at Grand Forks AFB? Reason: This information will support our Manning Workload Analysis. Reference: Appendix 1 | All RQ-4 CAT training and flight events are conducted at Grand Forks AFB. PWS Appendix 1 provides workload estimates for computing FTE's. | |
| 59 | PWS | 34 | A1. | Please supply the 2022 training schedules for each course conducted each of two bases (Beale AFB and Grand Forks AFB). | ||
| Reason: This information will support our Workload Analysis. Reference: Appendix 1 | PWS Appendix 1 provides workload estimates for computing Workload Anaysis. | |||||
| 60 | PWS | 34 | A1. | How many courses were executed in 2022 at each of the two bases? | ||
| Reason: This information will support our Manning Workload Analysis and Training Workload Management Plan, enabling Offerors to better predict workload fluctuations. Reference: Appendix 1 | PWS Appendix 1 provides workload estimates for computing Workload Anaysis and TWMP. | |||||
| 61 | PWS | 34-38 | A1., A1.1.-A1.8 | How many courses overlap each year on average? | ||
| Reason: This information will support our Manning Workload Analysis and Training Workload Management Plan, enabling Offerors to better predict workload fluctuations. Reference: Appendix 1 | PWS Appendix 1 provides workload estimates for computing Workload Anaysis and TWMP. | |||||
| 62 | PWS | 34-38 | A1., A1.1.-A1.8 | What is the student:instructor ratio for each course? | ||
| Reason: This information will support our Manning Workload Analysis. Reference: Appendix 1 | PWS Appendix 1 provides workload estimates for computing Workload Anaysis and TWMP. | |||||
| 63 | PWS | 8 | 1.4.5.2. | How many course revisions were performed in 2022? | ||
| Reason: This information will support our Manning Workload Analysis and Training Workload Management Plan, enabling Offerors to better predict workload fluctuations. Reference: Appendix 1 | PWS Appendix 1 provides workload estimates for computing Workload Anaysis and TWMP. | |||||
| 64 | PWS | 5 | 1.4.1. | How many courseware updates were performed in 2022? | ||
| Reason: This information will support our Manning Workload Analysis and Training Workload Management Plan, enabling Offerors to better predict workload fluctuations. Reference: Appendix 1 | PWS Appendix 1 provides workload estimates for computing Workload Anaysis and TWMP. | |||||
| 65 | PWS | 37 | A1.7 | What is the average number of course revisions and updates performed each year for the past five years? | ||
| Reason: This information will support our Manning Workload Analysis and Training Workload Management Plan, enabling Offerors to better predict workload fluctuations. Reference: Appendix 1 | PWS Appendix 1 provides workload estimates for computing Workload Anaysis and TWMP. | |||||
| 66 | PWS | 8 | 1.4.5.2. - 1.4.5.2.3 | Please provide a forecast for planned course updates and revisions projected for the upcoming years (2023-2028)? | ||
| Reason: This information will support our Manning Workload Analysis and Training Workload Management Plan, enabling Offerors to better predict workload fluctuations. Reference: Appendix 1 | PWS section A1.4 provides the estimate courseware and projected revisions for upcoming contract. | |||||
| 67 | PWS | 34 | A.1 | Please provide the actual calendar year schedule for 2022-2023, 2023-2024, 2024-2025, and beyond if available. | ||
| Reason: This information will support our Manning Workload Analysis and Training Workload Management Plan, enabling Offerors to better predict workload fluctuations. Reference: Appendix 1 | Information not relavant for proposal. May be provided post-award, as necessary. Estimates are provided. | |||||
| 68 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation | 15 | 7.4. | Please supply CBA Seniority List with years of service and Full Time and Part Time status for all personnel? Reason: This information will help Offerors determine PTO leave and fringe benefit eligibility using the Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA). The information will support development of the Total Overall Evaluated Price. Refernece: PWS Attachment 5. Collective Bargaining Agreements.; RFQ Page 25 "Factor 3-Price" | Seniorty list will be provided during transition period, as necessary. | |
| 69 | PWS | 21 | 1.1. | What is the minimum acceptable level of total FTE hours that the contractor may provide for the government to accept as reasonable (for both CAT and CWD requirements)? |
Reference: PWS 1.1. "If the offeror through their analysis determines that the manning requirements for I/SMEs is greater or less than the minimum number recommended in the PWS, offeror must provide justification for their proposed FTE requirements."
| Reason: We were unable to locate a statement within the PWS defining the minimum number recommended (apart from the information provided in A1.4.) | Section A1.2 and A1.4 contains the workload estimates required by this contract | |||||
| 70 | PWS | 3 | 1.3 | How many FTEs are currently provided by the incumbent (for the entirety of the PWS requirements)? Is the government satisfied with the current staffing mix? | ||
| Reference: The required mix of dual-qualified (academic and training device instructors) contract personnel shall be left to the discretion of the contractor.Reason: In order to make a fair and balanced assessment across all offerors, we recommend the government provide a minimum number of instructor FTE based off the number of FTEs/manhours/staffing mix currently supporting on the incumbent contract. | Current manning will change with new contract. Required FTE's will be based off workload estimates provided in Appendix 1 of PWS. | |||||
| 71 | PWS | 3 | 1.3 | How many of each LCAT are currently supporting at Beale AFB and Grand Forks AFB? | ||
| Reference: The required mix of dual-qualified (academic and training device instructors) contract personnel shall be left to the discretion of the contractor. Reason: In order to make a fair and balanced assessment across all offerors, we recommend the government provide a minimum number of instructor FTE based off the number of FTEs/manhours/staffing mix currently supporting on the incumbent contract. | Current manning will change with new contract. All RQ-4 training will be conducted at Grand Forks AFB and all U-2/T-38 training will be conducted at Beale AFB. Required FTE's will be based off workload estimates provided in Appendix 1 of PWS. | |||||
| 72 | PWS | 24 | 4.4.2.1.9 | Will the Graphic Artist provide only electronic graphic artist support? | ||
| Reference. 4.4.2.1.9. Graphic Artist Qualifications | Yes. | |||||
| 73 | PWS | 24 | 4.4.2.1.9 | Is it required that the Graphic Artist be located at Beale AFB or Grand Forks AFB, or will the government accept a virtual/remote position? Reference. 4.4.2.1.9. Graphic Artist Qualifications. | Currently all CWD personnel are located at Beale AFB. The graphic artist may be a hybrid position, but would need to be physically on site at Beale, AFB approximately 50% of the time due to classified workload. Would also be subject to the approval of the courseware lead and on site govennment representative. | |
| 74 | PWS | 24 | 4.4.2.1.9 | Will the government accept one dual-hatted Instructor/SME FTE to perform the Graphic Artist requirements? Reference.4.4.2.1.9. Graphic Artist Qualifications. | As long as they meet both required qualifications, the CBA allows, and all workload required of both positions is fufilled. | |
| 75 | PWS | 24 | 4.4.2.1.8. | Will the government accept one dual-hatted Instructor/SME FTE to perform the CBT/BRI Programmer requirements? Reference. 4.4.2.1.8. CBT/BRI Programmer qualifications | As long as they meet both required qualifications, the CBA allows, and all workload required of both positions is fufilled. | |
| 76 | Combined Synopsis/Solicitation | 21 | 1.1 | What is the difference between Weakness and Significant Weakness? Reason: They are defined the same in RFP Page 21 Section 1.1. Reference: "A Significant Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A weakness is defined as a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. " | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. | |
| 77 | PWS | 38 | A1.9 | Please define the acronyms OG and OGV. Reason: First mentioned on page 38, pare A1.9, but not mentioned elsewhere within PWS. Reference: "Contractor will store, maintain and update the Electronic Flight Bag to include U-2 and T-38 checklists, in-flight guides, OGV condensed checklists, and other documents as required in coordination with 9 OG/OGV or 319 OG/OGV." | The 9 OG and 319 OG are the FTU's located at Beale AFB. | |
| 78 | PWS | 38 | A1.11 | Please provide a table for Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) Workload in addition to Table A.11, along with any other available information regarding the estimates for both EFB and EGB requirements. |
Reason: The Table A1.11 beneath para A1.9 "Maintenance of Electronic Flight Bag" identifies EGB Management Workload. It appears additional information (table) may be missing.
| Reference: A1.9. MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRONIC FLIGHT BAG..., Table A1.11. RQ-4 and U-2/T-38 EGB Management Workload 1 Feb 2023 - 31 Jan 2028 (per year) | Electronic Flight Bag workload is estimated at 500 hours per year. See revised PWS Section A1.9. | |||||
| 79 | CBA | 20 | 18.7 | CBA: The CBAs reference a "2019 Rehabilitation Plan" under the IAM Pension Plan. Specifically it states: "Effective on the Adoption Date, and on each Adoption Date anniversary, the Employer’s contribution rate otherwise obligated under the CBA will increase by a compounding 2.5% while the Rehabilitation Plan remains in effect." Can the Government provide the Rehabilitation Plan and effective dates referenced in the CBA? | Negative. The Rehabilitation Plan is not a government-owned document. | |
| 80 | PWS | 34-38 | Paragraph A1.1 and Tables A1.1 - A1.11 | Solicitation and Table Dates Do Not Agree: All Workload Tables listed in Appendix 1, Tables A1.1 through A1.11 (except A1.5) list effective dates of 01 Feb 2023 - 31 Jan 2028 (per year). The Solicitation lists the Performance Period: |
Phase-In: 1 Apr 23 – 31 May 23 Base Year: 1 Jun 23 – 31 Mar 24 Option Year 1: 1 Apr 24 – 31 Mar 25 Option Year 2: 1 Apr 25 – 31 Mar 26 Option Year 3: 1 Apr 26 – 31 Mar 27 Option Year 4: 1 Apr 27 – 31 Mar 28
| Question: Is the Workload of OY1 through OY4 as described in the Solicitation the same as that described by the Tables? That is, should the dates of the Workload Tables be adjusted to reflect the dates of the Performance Period? | Please see revised PWS. | |||
| 81 | RQ-4 Combined Synopsis / Solicitation | 11-12, 28-33 | 6.0 Volume II: Factor 2- Past Performace |
1) Table 3,
2) Paragraph (2) Past and Present Performance Inforamtion (PPI) Sheets (Appendix 2)
3) Paragraph (3) Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ) (Appendix 2)
| 4) Appendix 2 | Past Performance Information Sheets (PPI) and Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ): Can the government clarify the difference between the PPI and PPQ? If a CPARS is being provided for a Past Performance reference, does the Offeror need to provide a PPI as well? Section 6.0 of the Combined Synopsis/Soliciation, Table 3, directs the contents of the Past Performance Volume to Contain PPI Sheets and PPQ/CPARS. Both Paragraph (2) and Paragraph (3) reference Appendix 2 for the format of the PPI and PPQs. Appendix 2 is titled "Past Performance Questionnaire and Cover Letter" and makes no reference to a Past Performance Information Sheet. If a PPI Sheet is required in addition to a CPARS reference, what format does the government want the information presented (beyond the Table 3 guidance that "Each PPI NTE five pages") | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. | ||||
| 82 | PWS | PWS 3.4 | Contractor Furnished Equipment: Would the government provide the list of Contractor Furnished Equipment? | Attachment 3 provides an list of Governement furnished equipment for contractor employee use in the performance of contract requirements. | ||
| 83 | PWS | PWS 3.4 | Contractor Furnished Equipment: Is the Courseware Hardware (computers) and Software considered CFE? Would the government provide a list of software utilized by Courseware personnel to fulfill the CWD PWS requirements? | Attachment 3 provides an list of Governement furnished equipment for contractor employee use in the performance of contract requirements. | ||
| 84 | PWS and RQ-4 Combined Synopsis / Solicitation | PWS pg 5, 11, 13, 41 | PWS paragraphs 1.3.2, 1.4.2, 1.4.2.8, 1.6.6, 1.7.2.1 and Appendix 4 | Deliverables & Instructions to Offerors: Appendix 4 states in paragrapgh A4.1 that the "Contractor shall produce and deliver the following items relating to this contract" and further states in Paragraph A4.1.1 the following are to be "Delivered with Proposal": |
A4.1.1.1 Training Workload Management Plan; PWS Para 1.3.2 A.4.1.1.2 Instructional Systems Development Management Plan; PWS para 1.4.2 A4.1.1.3 Quality Control Plan; PWS para 1.4.2.8 A4.1.1.4 Phase-In/Phase-Out Plan; PWS Para 1.6.6 A4.1.1.5 Instructor Training and Certification Plan; PWS para 1.7.2.1 In the Combined Synopsis/Solication, ITO section there is no mention of the Instructional System Development Management Plan, Quality Control Plan, Phase-In/Phase-Out Plan, and the Instructional Training and Certification Plan.
Questions:
1) Which of these plan(s), if any count against the Volume I; Techincal Volume Page count?
2) Would the government clarify in the ITO which plans are due with the proposal and whether to attach as an appendix or as part of the Volume I Technical proposal?
| 3) PWS para 1.4.2 states that the Instructional Systems Development Management Plan is due within 10 business days of contract award. Would the government clarify when this plan is due? | Please see revised PWS. | |||||
| 85 | PWS | 10 | PWS 1.6.4 | Academic Scheduling: Would the government clarify what scheduling methods are being utilized? GTIMS, PEXs? | Academic schedules are built by the FTU. | |
| 86 | PWS | 12, 38 | PWS 1.6.9 and A1.9 | U-2/T-38 & RQ-4 Electronic Gradebook and U-2/T-38 Electronic Flight Bags: |
Q1: Would the government clarify what systems are being utilized for the Electronic Gradebook?
PWS Para 1.6.9.3 mentions Electronic Flight Bag is the medium for Electronic Gradebooks. Section A1.9 refers to the U-2 and T-38 Electronic Flight Bag but then has Table A1.11 beneath it refering to the RQ-4 and U-2/T-38 EGB Workload.
| Q2: Would the government clarify the usage of the term "Electronic Flight Bag" in A1.9? Is the "Electronic Flight Bag" and "Electronic Gradebook" two seperate and distinct PWS requirements? Does the Government direct a specific workload for U-2 and T-38 EFBs as they do for RQ-4 and U-2/T-38 EGBs? | The Electronic Gradebook is a contractor developed application accessed through the Electronic Flight Bag. The Electronic Gradebook is separate from the Electronic Flight Bag. Electronic Flight Bag workload is estimated at 500 hours per year. See revised PWS Section A1.9. | |||||
| 87 | PWS | 41 | PWS Appendix 4 | Deliverables: Would the government summarize the deliverables that are due after contract award? There is currently a gap between deliverables due with the proposal and those deliverables that are due during contract execution.. | Please see revised PWS. See Appendix 4. | |
| 88 | RQ-4 Combined Synopsis / Solicitation | 23 | Evaluation Factors, 2.0 Factor 2 - Past Performance | Table 4 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method: Would the government clarify if a "Fighter type military aircrew training" is required to receive a "Very Relevant" rating? What qualifies as "Fighter type"? Is an RQ-4 or U-2 considered "Fighter type"? Are other Combat Air Force (CAF) aircraft such as MQ-9, B-1B, etc. considered "Fighter type"? | Please see revised combo synopsis/solicitation. | |
| 89 | PWS | 36 | Table A1.8 | Table 1.8 Estimated RQ-4 Contractor Flight Event Training Workload: Would the Government confirm the values for Total Instructor Hours and Total Instructor Hours (Adjusted) are correct? SOIQT event Hours In Flight Training (1068) and Prep for Flight Training (294) do not equal the Total Instructor Hours (667.5). If added together, the total would be 1,362 which is more than double the number of hours listed in the Total Instructor Hours cell. The same is true for for the ISOUG numbers. | Total hours are correct. Instructors shall teach 50% of the annual flight instruction events and annual Flight Evaluations. | |
| 90 | PWS | 38 | Table A1.11 | Table A1.11 RQ-4 and U-2/T-38 EGB Workload: Can the Government clarify if 950 hours is the total EGB Management Workload for both RQ-4 and U-2/T-38, or is the workload 950 hours for each (950 hours for RQ-4 and 950 hours for U-2/T-38) | Total workload for both. |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .