A4. Question-Comment Matrix - Government Responses (21Nov23).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MQ9 CAT/CWD and ISR Training Support Consolidation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA489023R0065
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding a solicitation for MQ-9 Combat Aircrew Training/Courseware Development and Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance training support consolidation. Key details include the solicitation consolidates two existing contracts to bring multiple locations and tasks under one provider for more efficient use of resources, with required services including academic instruction, courseware development, and LMS support at locations including March Air Reserve Base, Holloman Air Force Base, Hancock Field Air National Guard Base, and Creech Air Force Base. The response provides clarification on workload and staffing requirements, equipment and vehicle needs, and confirms a facility security clearance is required for the prime contractor to submit a proposal by the extended due date of December 4, 2023.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| A4.Question-Comment_Matrix (30Nov23) FINAL.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| A4. Question-Comment Matrix - Government Responses (29Nov23).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FA489023R0065 Amendment 0003.pdf | ||
| FA489023R0065 Amendment 0002.pdf | ||
| MQ-9 ATS Combo and Appendices 16Nov23.pdf | ||
| MQ-9 ATS PPC Slides - 7Nov23.pdf | ||
| Question-Comment Matrix with Government Responses 7Nov23.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MQ-9 ATS PPC Attendees 7Nov23.pdf | ||
| Revised A2. Pricing Schedule 6Nov23.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| MQ-9 ATS PWS Appendices 6 and 7.pdf | ||
| FA489023R0065 MQ-9 ATC Amendment 0001.pdf | ||
| A1. MQ9-ATS PWS (FY24-28) 1Jul24 v2.pdf | ||
| A5b. FA489019C0003 CBAs (Final).pdf | ||
| A5a. FA489016C0011 CBAs (Final).pdf | ||
| MQ-9 ATS Combo and Appendices.pdf | ||
| A2. Pricing Schedule.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| A3. MQ-9 ATS DD-254 (Draft).pdf | ||
| A4.Question-Comment Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 18
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
Q&A 21Nov23
| FA4890-23-R-0065 - MQ-9 ATS | |||||
| Offeror | |||||
| Q# | Doc | Pg # | Para # | Comment/Question/Recommendation | Government Response |
| 1 | RFP | 2 | 15 | Is the Facility Clearance only required of the Prime bidder for the proposal? | Yes, all parties are required to have a facility clearance. The level (ex. Secret or TS) depends on the positions the contractor is responsible for. As the prime, that contractor is required to have highest level required in the draft DD-254 since they are responsible for all positions. If a prime chooses to subcontract out the work for positions not requiring the highest level stated within the draft DD-254, then the subcontractor selected to provide these positions would only be required to have the appropriate level facility clearance to support those positions. If the prime chooses to subcontract out the work for positions requiring the highest level stated within the draft DD-254, the subcontractor selected to provide these positions would be required to have the appropriate level facility clearance to support those positions. |
| 2 | PWS | 7 | 1.2.2.8 | (4) For this contract, all ICW shall be produced in, or converted to, HTML and shall be developed to the standards listed in ACCI 11-251, and AETCI 36-2621. All non-ICW academic courseware shall be produced with a PowerPoint or better system to industry standards for high fidelity graphics presentations. ICW/CBT lessons are considered Level II lesson and as instructor led lessons are considered Level I lessons. The Menu and Cross-Check Trainers are considered Level III, or Level IV. |
| Many ICW development platforms output to “HTML”; can the government define any specific COTS ICW development platform(s) being utilized or if none affirm that a custom framework is being utilized? | PWS 1.2.2. and 1.2.2.8. define courseware development standards. | |||||
| 3 | PWS | 7 | 1.2.2.8 | Will the government please provide detailed technical breakdown of the “The Menu” and “Cross Check Trainers” in terms of architecture and/or platform they were developed in? | PWS 1.2.2.8. and Attachment 5 define courseware development standards. | |
| 4 | PWS | 7 | 1.2.2.8 | Please confirm the “Level III and IV ICW/CBT” mentioned correlate to the IMI Level 3 and 4 development needs outlined in Appendix 1. | Correct, when used in the PWS, the Levels refer to Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI). | |
| 5 | RFP | 22 | 3.2.4 Table 4 | We understand that the government's goal is to have significant competition on this solicitation, however the Past Performance relevancy thresholds are written very strict, which will result in very little competition. There are very few companies that can meet the thresholds required, especially for a Very Relevant rating. |
Will the government reconsider the level of performance for the individual Relevancy Ratings to promote better competition? There are capable companies that can perform these services beyond expectations, but cannot reach the relevancy required to have a winning proposal.
We recommend removing the requirement for performance as a prime contractor as well as the specific Course experience in both the Very Relevant and Relevant Ratings. This will promote better competition and result in a greater value to the government. Please see updates to recency and relevancy descriptions published in Amendment 0002. We updated recency to extend to five years from three years. We also updated the relevancy descriptions to promote more competition. These updates take into considerations industries feedback after our pre-proposal conference while still maintaing a standard for each relevancy description that will provide the Government with the most competitive offers.
Also, please reference Combo - Appendix 1, Section 7.4 for what will be accepted in lieu of prime experience from the offeror.
| 6 | RFP | 16 | 9.2 | Which proposal volume does the government want bidders to submit their Representations and Certifications? Are the Representations and Certifications exempt from the overall page count for that volume? | Offerors do not need to submit their reps and certs if filled out in SAM.gov. The Government will verify upon proposal submission and prior to award. |
| 7 | RFP | 9 | 5.5 Electronic Formatting | The last sentence of this paragraph states "All volumes shall be marked "Original." Since this submission is completely digital, should offerors still include "Original" markings? | Yes, include original markings. Offeror can choose how to do it (within header, footer, title, watermark, etc.) but this will be done to track original submissions if final proposal revisions are required. |
| 8 | RFP | 6 | 2.3 | 2.3 states that "Offerors shall acknowledge awareness of all amendments to the solicitation by including a signed |
and dated statement acknowledging each/any amendments signing and including it in Volume III –
| Factor 3, Price." We understand acknowledging each/any amendments in Volume III Price. However, Amendment 1 did not include any form/documentation for offerors to Sign and Date. Will standard forms be issued for Amendment 1 and any other amendments? Or, should offerors simply acknowledge all Amendments within our Pricing Volume? | No standard form will be issued. Include within Volume III a statement acknowledging all amendments with a signature per 2.3. | |||||
| 9 | PWS | 30 | 3.5 | PWS 3.5 states that the contractor shall furnish computers in order to perform all academic instruction. Will the government provide an inventory of current computers? Or, is there an estimated number of computers for this new requirement? | The number of computers a company may need to best meet the workload of the contract is at the discretion of the winning company. | |
| 10 | CBAs | Since PTO/Vacation is determined by years of service, can the government provide an aggregate range for current personnel with 0-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, and 20+ years of service? | The Government does not make or dictate hiring decision. The winning proposal will need to use their own methodology to determine which current employees will be kept on board. Per FAR 22.1020, the winning contractor will receive a seniority list prior to the start date of the contract. | |||
| 11 | RFP | 23 | 3.2.4 Table 4 | In Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, the government references that all past performance citations should be from a prime contractor in order to score "Very Relevant" or "Relevant." In order to promote adequate competition, will the government consider past performance as a subcontractor? | Please see updates to recency and relevancy descriptions published in Amendment 0002. We updated recency to extend to five years from three years. We also updated the relevancy descriptions to promote more competition. These updates take into considerations industries feedback after our pre-proposal conference while still maintain a standard for each relevancy description that will provide the Government with the most competitive offers. |
Also, please reference Combo - Appendix 1, Section 7.4 for what will be accepted in lieu of prime experience from the offeror.
| 12 | PWS | Understanding that the government now wishes to bring multiple locations and tasks under one provider for a more efficient use of its resources, can the government provide a current tasking schedule of operations and manpower for each location to allow for efficiencies to be found before starting on task? This would allow for a quicker transition and earlier implementation of support to overalls MQ9 program. | The PWS created for the MQ-9 ATS contract combined the workload that will be required at each location. Please review the PWS for what tasks are required at each location. | ||
| 13 | PWS | 7 | 1.2.2.8 (4) | States, "…as instructor led lessons are considered Level I lessons." Q: Does this mean instructor-led lessons are equated to interactive multimedia instruction Level I? | Correct, when used in the PWS, the Levels refer to Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI). |
| 14 | PWS | 7 | 1.2.2.8. (4) | The PWS states: "The Menu and Cross-Check Trainers are considered Level III, or Level IV." Q1: What programming languages/database construct are the Menu and Cross-Check Trainers? | PWS 1.2.2., and 1.2.2.8. define courseware development standards. |
| 15 | Q2: Are any Levels of instruction and/or courseware classified? | Holloman has created classified courseware. | |||
| 16 | PWS | 8 | 1.2.2.8. (4) | Can you confirm if Unity, Unreal, or similar programming engines are in use on this contract to provide 3D, AR, VR Level III and Level IV Courseware? | Current contract doesn't specifically require creating 3D, AR, and/or VR courseware; however, what programs they use to create that type of courseware (Level III and IV) is at discretion of contractor. |
| 17 | PWS | 7 & 59 | 1.2.2.8 & A1.7.5.2 | Lists development standards for courseware. Q1: Is there a style guide that defines requirements for interactive multimedia instruction along with the levels of interactivity? | PWS reference Attachment 5 AT5.2: Format shall be at the contractors’ discretion as approved by CWSME. |
| 18 | Q2: Will the style guide be made available to offerors prior to proposal submission date? | PWS reference Attachment 5 AT5.2: Format shall be at the contractors’ discretion as approved by CWSME. | |||
| 19 | PWS | 7 & 59 | 1.2.2.8 (4) & A1.7.5.2 | Both paragraphs state, "The Menu and Cross-Check Trainers are considered Level III, or Level IV." Q1: Can the Govt provide an example or screenshot of the Menu and Cross-Check Trainers? | The Government is currently working on this answer and will publish ASAP. |
| 20 | Q2: Does that mean the Menu and Cross-Check Trainers are equated to IMI Level III or IMI Level IV? | Correct, when used in the PWS, the Levels refer to Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI). | |||
| 21 | Q3: What are the exact courseware requirements for this type of IMI at Level III or IV--i.e., is the Govt looking for an immersive synthetic environment, serious games, mobile learning applications, VR, Augmented Reality (AR), mixed reality, video recording, distance learning? | Current contract doesn’t perform 3D, AR, VR courseware | |||
| 22 | Q4: What hardware is associated with this type of courseware--AR/VR goggles, specialized gloves that give sense of touch for dials, switches, throttles, stick, etc.? | Current contract doesn’t perform 3D, AR, and/or VR courseware. | |||
| 23 | PWS | 58 | A1.7.4 | States, "With the additional requirement of ANG CT, the JTAC teams will also support CT scheduled missions." Q1: Are the ANG CT missions factored in to the workload presented in PWS paragraph A1.7.4.2, or is CT an additional workload? | Any CT events will be accomplished within identified workload. |
| 24 | Q2: If additional, then what is the projected workload? | Any CT events will be accomplished within identified workload. | |||
| 25 | PWS | 59 | A1.7.5.2 | States, "ICW refers to Level II ICW/CBT in the charts in PWS paragraph A1.7.5.7" Q1: Should the PWS paragraph referenced be changed to A1.7.5.9? | Yes, A1.7.5.2. should reference A1.7.5.9. |
| 26 | Q2: Does this mean ICW/CBT lessons are equated to IMI Level II? | When used in the PWS, the Levels refer to Interactive Multimedia Instruction (IMI), PWS 1.2.2.8. identifies ICW/CBT Levels. | |||
| 27 | PWS | 60-61 | A1.7.5.9 | In the Courseware Estimates for FY24-28, separate line items are presented for IMI Level I and Instructor Led work rates. Q: What is the difference between IMI Level I and Instructor Led? (Para 1.2.2.8 (4) states, "…as instructor led lessons are considered Level I lessons.") | See Note 1, Instructor-Led Package, which explains that instructor-led packages consist of a Lesson Strategy Report, an Examination Package, an Academic Lesson Plan, a Lesson Presentation (PowerPoint), and any necessary teaching aids (worksheets, scenarios, case-studies etc.). |
| 28 | PWS | 61 | A1.7.5.9 | Does the Air Force define Level 3 IMI as a means for learners to explore, discover, and synthesize components / systems of the MQ-9 via interactive 3D models within a virtual, tasked-based environment supporting each of the syllabi? If not, will the Air Force please provide a detailed description of Level 3 IMI? | Level 3 is described in PWS A 1.7.5.9. Level 3- Complex Participation. The student makes a variety of responses using varied techniques in response to instructional cues. |
| 29 | PWS | 61 | A1.7.5.9 | Does the Air Force define Level 4 IMI as a means for learners to investigate, control, and evaluate 3D components/systems of the MQ-9 using immersive technologies (AR, VR, and/or serious games) to support each of the syllabi? If not, will the Air Force please provide a detailed description of Level 4 IMI? | Level 4 is described in PWS A.1.7.5.9 Level 4- Real-time Participation. The student is directly involved in a life-like set of complex cues and responses. |
| 30 | Combo | 23 | Table 4 | Based on the Pre-Proposal Conference comments about "welcoming competition" and the Past Performance "Very Relevant" requirements, what other USAF 611512 NAICS code contracts (other than the current FA4890-19-C-0003 and FA4890-13-C-0104) could be used to meet the "Very Relevant" requirement? | Please see updates to recency and relevancy descriptions published in Amendment 0002. We updated recency to extend to five years from three years. We also updated the relevancy descriptions to promote more competition. These updates take into considerations industry's feedback after our pre-proposal conference while still maintaining a standard for each relevancy description that will provide the Government with the most competitive offers. |
The Government is tracking at least four contracts that meet both the updated Recency and Very Relevant descriptions as stated in the revised past performance criteria.
Also, please reference Combo - Appendix 1, Section 7.4 for what will be accepted in lieu of prime experience from the offeror.
| 31 | Q&A | 1 | Q5 | Moodle is open source free software so it doesn't require a subscription if you provide your own infrastructure and hardware. Is your subscription referring to the hosting services that provide Moodle as a Software as a Service (SAS) solution? | Current contractor uses paid Moodle subscription to meet their PWS requirement. |
| 32 | n/a | n/a | n/a | Does the Air Force intend to use DODI-1322.20 DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF INTERACITVE COURSEWARE (ICW) FOR MILITARY TRAINING to define courseware? | PWS 1.2.2.8. defines CWD standards. |
| 33 | General | In light of time for the Government to respond to these questions, then time for the bidders to incorporate the information in their proposals, and the November holidays--would the Government consider an extension until 15 December 2023 for proposal submission? | The Government has extended the submission due date to 4 December. | ||
| 34 | PWS; Revised A2 Pricing Schedule | 69; 29; All worksheets | A5.0; 3.5; CLIN X106 | PWS A5.0 lists Government Furnished Equipment. PWS 3.5 lists Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE). Is the CFE intended to be reimbursable under CLIN X106? If not, what equipment is intended to be covered under this CLIN? | Intent of Equipment CLIN was to used for A8.4. Contractor Purchased Equipment, Government Owned. |
| 35 | PWS; Revised A2 Pricing Schedule | 29; All worksheets | 3.5.3 | PWS 3.5.3 states, "The contractor is required to provide one (1) large vehicle and one (1) off-road ATV/UTV, (March ARB) or (1) off-road two-wheeled vehicle, i.e. motorbike, per each team." |
Where should the large vehicle and ATV/UTV/motorbike pricing be included within the pricing workbook?
The pricing workbook lists seven CLINS (four Phase-In plus X101, X102, and X103) that are not NTE CLINS.
| Which CLIN should this equipment be priced against? | Intent of Equipment CLIN was to used for A8.4. Contractor Purchased Equipment, Government Owned. Equipment not covered by A8.4 should be billed as either part of the Phase-In costs or ODCs. | ||||
| 36 | MQ-9 ATO Combo and Appendices | 4 | 1.4.3 and 1.4.4 | 1.4.3. In the case of unpopulated Joint Ventures, each member of the Joint Venture must possess the required facility clearance and a copy of each member’s active clearance must be provided at time of proposal submission. |
1.4.4. A Joint Venture (JV) without its own active Top-Secret facility clearance will not have access to classified information; all access to classified information will solely be through the cleared Joint Venture member(s)...the JV is required to submit a Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure...
If an unpopulated JV’s members all have the required FSCL, is the unpopulated JV required to submit a Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure?
If so, where in the proposal should the Plan/Procedure be placed?
What are the Evaluation Criteria for the Plan/Procedure? Items identified in 1.4.4. are required as a part of the responsiveness criteria, there are no evaluation criteria. To be considered responsive, a JV without its own active TS FSCL must submit a security plan/standard operating procedure which, at a minimum, includes the items listed (a - e). These items must be included, since if the offeror is selected as the awardee, the Government has to submit an ETP prior to award due to conflicting regulations.
Per Table 1. Page Limitations by Volume, FSCL items are included as part of Volume I and are limited to ten pages and do not count towards the 75-page limit for Factor 1.
37 CBAs 72 Hancock Art. 10 Sec. 3 The Hancock CBA has a category called "Administrative Support."
Can the Government clarify which PWS required positions are included in this category?
| Should Scheduler, Squadron Operations Support Specialist, and Registrar be placed in this category for SCA purposes? | Yes, Administrative Support could be classified as meeting the ATS position listed in 1.2.4. | ||||
| 38 | PWS | 12; 50 | 1.2.4; A1.4.2.2 | PWS 1.2.4 calls out training support for LMS/GTIMS Specialist as well as GTIMS Specialist. PWS A1.4.2.2 only shows workload for LMS/GTIMS Specialist. |
| Should there be workload for the GTIMS Specialist in Appendix A specifically at Creech AFB and priced at the GTIMS Associate rate per the Creech CBA? | A GTIMS positions was not requested for Creech AFB. | ||||
| 39 | RFP | 23 & 24 | 3.2.4 Table 4 | During the Pre-Proposal Conference, the government referenced that there will be adequate competition as a result of this solicitation. However, we have done market research on the specific past performance requirements listed in Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, and believe very few contractors have this specific of past performance. Especially related to being the prime contractor for advanced academic instruction, RPA training, and utilizing the ISD model. Based on our research, this will not allow for better competition and greater value for the government. There are also very few small businesses that possess prime contracts with either 30 and 20 FTE and either a $25M or $15M total contract value. |
Based on this market research, we respectfully recommend removing the requirement for performance as a prime contractor as well as the specific course experience in both the Very Relevant and Relevant Ratings. Please see updates to recency and relevancy descriptions published in Amendment 0002. We updated recency to extend to five years from three years. We also updated the relevancy descriptions to promote more competition. These updates take into considerations industries feedback after our pre-proposal conference while still maintain a standard for each relevancy description that will provide the Government with the most competitive offers.
Also, please reference Combo - Appendix 1, Section 7.4 for what will be accepted in lieu of prime experience from the offeror.
40 RFP 23 & 24; 14 3.2.4 Table 4; PWS 7.4 In Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, the government references that all past performance citations should be from a prime contractor in order to score "Very Relevant" or "Relevant." However, prime contractor past performance is not referenced in the "Somewhat Relevant" rating.
Additionally, this seems to contradict PWS 7.4 which states, "The offeror shall submit a maximum of three contract references where it performed as a prime contractor. 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, mentor/protégé, 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. Any teaming partner arrangements, joint ventures, mentor/protégé, or subcontracting teams will be considered..."
Based on the above, will the government change the relevancy ratings to allow for past performance as major subcontractor to count for Very Relevant and Relevant ratings? For clarification, PWS 7.4 does not reference this statement, your reference is in Combo - Appendix 1.
The relevancy table will not be updated since Combo - Appendix 1 clarifies what the Government will take in lieu of prime experience.
| 41 | CBAs | Per the CBAs, PTO and Vacation time are influenced by years of service. Will the government provide an aggregate range of years of service for current personnel? | The Government does not make or dictate hiring decision. The winning proposal will need to use their own methodology to determine which current employees will be kept on board. Per FAR 22.1020, the winning contractor will receive a seniority list prior to the start date of the contract. | ||
| 42 | PWS | Starting on page 48 | Appendices | We understand that the government desires to bring two contracts under one contractor for a more efficient use of its resources. In addition to estimated workload Appendices, can the government specify in what areas efficiencies are expected of the one contractor? Also, can the government confirm that the workload tables/Appendices combined for the two contracts now to accurately capture how one contractor can provide these services successfully? | The PWS created for the MQ-9 ATS contract combined the workload that will be required at each location. Please review the PWS for what tasks are required at each location. The Government, through market research, believes a single contractor can provide all services listed in the PWS successfully. |
| 43 | MQ-9 ATS Combo and Appendices | 21-22 | 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.2 | Could the Government clarify if there is a distinct difference in the workload analysis expected in Subfactor A (Aspects 1 through 4) compared to the workload analysis in Subfactor B, Aspect 1? If so, what are the specific differences or additional details required in Subfactor B's workload analysis? | Subfactor A focuses on all the details required to be included in a workload analysis while Subfactor B focuses on the narrative/description of that analysis. Subfactor A and B can both be submitted within the plan required to be submitted with a proposal or they can be submitted separately (i.e., a section of the technical volume addressing just Subfactor A and then another section labeled "Training Workload Management Plan" addressing items in Subfactor B). As along as all items withing Subfactor A and B are addressed within the technical volume, the Government does not have a preference on submission. |
| 44 | MQ-9 ATS Combo and Appendices | 21-22 | 3.1.2.1 & 3.1.2.2 | Given the similar workload analysis requirements in both Subfactor A and Subfactor B, can the Government provide guidance on how to differentiate the analysis in these subfactors to avoid redundancy and ensure that each subfactor addresses unique aspects of the workload analysis? | Subfactor A focuses on all the details required to be included in a workload analysis while Subfactor B focuses on the narrative/description of that analysis. Subfactor A and B can both be submitted within the plan required to be submitted with a proposal or they can be submitted separately (i.e., a section of the technical volume addressing just Subfactor A and then another section labeled "Training Workload Management Plan" addressing items in Subfactor B). As along as all items withing Subfactor A and B are addressed within the technical volume, the Government does not have a preference on submission. |
| 45 | MQ-9 ATS Combo and Appendices | 14 | 7.4.3 | Given the intent of MPJVs to foster the growth of the protégé through the mentor's resources, certifications, systems, and past performance, will you please confirm if the 3 PPI references can be sourced from the mentor's performance history? This approach would align with the foundational purpose of MPJVs, which is to leverage the mentor's established track record to support the protégé's development. | Confirmed. Reference Combo page 14, 7.4. for more details. |
| 46 | MQ-9 ATS Combo and Appendices | 14 | 7.4.3 | Would the Government consider accepting PPI from the mentor to fulfill the requirement for three references, provided that the mentor's past performance is recent, relevant, and reflects a prime contractor role similar in size and scope to this requirement? | Yes, reference Combo page 14, 7.4. for more details. |
| 47 | MQ-9 ATS Combo and Appendices | 14 | 7.4.3 | Reference: 7.4.3. Joint Ventures (JV). If the offeror is considered a JV, the offeror must provide three references for |
PPI (see 7.2.) showing the JV as the prime contractor. If the JV itself has no recent/relevant performance history as a Prime, then the offeror must submit at least one finalized CPAR for each JV member.
| Question: Please confirm that, pursuant to 13 CFR section 125.8, item 7.4.3 does not apply to mentor-protege joint ventures, and that past performance as a prime will be accepted from either the mentor or protege company. | Confirmed. Reference Combo page 14, 7.4. for more details. | ||||
| 48 | MQ-9 ATS Combo and Appendices & PWS | 11, 5 & 45 | 6.2.6.1 & 1.2.2 & 4.13.48 | Para 6.2.6.1 of the MQ-9 ATS Combo, "CWD" identified as Courseware Delivery. Para 1.2.2 of the PWS and the List of Acronyms (Para 4.13.48 - page 45) both breakout "CWD" as Courseware Development, which is the industry standard. This is important because the incorrect break out in the MQ-9 ATS Combo changes the subject matter of the paragraph. |
| Question: Is the requirement to address the "delivery" or the "development" of the Courseware? | As used in the PWS, CWD means Courseware Delivery. | ||||
| 49 | MQ-9 ATS Combo and Appendices & PWS | 12 & 23 & 59 | Solicitation 6.2.6.1 Aspect 1 & PWS 1.3.3 (2) & PWS A1.7.5.1 | Reference: Solicitation text: 6.2.6.1.Aspect 1 states that "This analysis shall be provided for each servicing location (March ARB, Holloman AFB, Hancock NGB, and Creech AFB)" |
Reference: PWS text: 1.3.3 (2) Manning workload table that clearly identifies all proposed manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees for AAI, CWD, and ISR requirements at each site.
Reference: PWS text: A1.7.5.1. CWD Location. Courseware will be developed on Holloman AFB. Contractor may have support capability off-site.
| Please confirm that only one manning workload table is required for CWD which is at Holloman AFB, as stated in A1.7.5.1 "CWD Location. Courseware will be developed on Holloman AFB. Contractor may have support capability off-site." and in Aspect 1, section 6.2.6.1. | The offeror's technical volume should include the proposed CWD manning requirement's that their team believes is required to meet all PWS requirements. Each offeror is allowed to provide that in the format their team feels best answers the PWS. The PWS referenced provided in this question (A1.7.5.1.) clearly allows for additional support beyond Holloman AFB if the contractor believes that is necessary. | ||||
| 50 | PWS | 24, 29 | 1.3.8, 3.5.3 | The Range Vehicle, Equipment and Supplies Support Plan will not be evaluated and is not required to be submitted until 10 days after award. Fleet management is a critical element to this contract, especially during unplanned maintenance and vehicle dependability. |
| Question: During the evaluation, how will the government accurately assess risk and whether or not the offeror is proposing appropriate equipment as required in PWS 3.5.3, as well as its plan to mitigate loss of events due to unplanned maintenance? | The evaluation of the past performance of proposal will identify if the Government has confident that they would be able to meet the PWS requirements | ||||
| 51 | PWS | 29 | 3.5.9 | Reference: PWS 3.5.9 states, "Equipment Storage. (Creech, March, Hancock) Storage space will be provided by the local site for contractor required Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE), where applicable. (Holloman) Storage will be provided for all GFE." |
| Question: What type storage will be provided for Holloman AFB GFE? Will this be mobile so that it can be taken off-base to the contractor's office? | The Government is currently working on this answer and will publish ASAP. | |
| 52 | Reference: PWS 3.5.9 states, "Equipment Storage. (Creech, March, Hancock) Storage space will be provided by the local site for contractor required Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE), where applicable. (Holloman) Storage will be provided for all GFE." |
| Question: Will Holloman personnel be required to pickup GFE at Holloman AFB each day prior to their work at the range? If not, how will the government assess whether or not the offeror has a sufficient plan to store GFE? | The Government is currently working on this answer and will publish ASAP. | ||||
| 53 | PWS | 29 | 3.5.6 | Reference: PWS 3.5.6 states that: "Holloman AFB due to its location from the training ranges is authorized to rent/lease/own office space outside of Holloman AFB. This location will have securable storage areas for GFE. 3.5.7. Vehicle Parking. Parking for range vehicles will be provided by the local site for Creech AFB, March ARB, and Hancock Field, ANGB." GFE for Holloman AFB will need to be stored securely off-base, |
| Question: How will the Government determine whether or not the offeror has a facility capable of storing GFE securely? | This requirement is not being evaluated during proposals. The Government during contract performance will work with the Contractor to ensure all GFE is securly stored. | ||||
| 54 | PWS | 30 | 4.01 | 4.0.1 Site Manager. “The Site Manager at Holloman AFB will be dedicated to site manager duties for a minimum of 75% of each training day to ensure compliance with para 4.1.2." |
| Question: What is the % dedication requirement for all other site managers (i.e., Creech, March, and Hancock)? | Not specified. | |||||
| 55 | PWS | 3,4 | 1.2.1 | If AAI Instructors are required to conduct remediation on other syllabus courses and/or events, what qualifications are required to conduct each of those remediation courses or syllabus events (other than IRC)? | The intent of the AAI instructors will be focused on IRC instruction. | |
| 56 | PWS | 3,4 | 1.2.1 | What self-based and computer-based instruction courses will be monitored by contractors and what correlating academic instruction is required? | The intent of the AAI instructors will be focused on IRC instruction. | |
| 57 | PWS | 3,4 | 1.2.1 | What qualifications are required to monitor self-based and computer-based instruction courses? | PWS 1.3.4.1. Aircrew academic instructors are required to meet minimum AFMAN 11-210 IRP instructor requirements to monitor these types of courses. | |
| 58 | PWS | 3 & 38 | 1.2.1, 4.8.1 | Section 1.2.1 states that academic instruction shall be accomplished during the hours specified in paragraph 4.8.1, which in turn states that all sites shall be available for academic training from 0600-2200, Monday through Friday. Question: Does the government conduct classes daily Mon-Fri from 0600-2200 (16 hours daily)? Or do class start and stop times vary daily based on course requirements (eg. day flying versus night flying)? Question: On the average how many hours of academic training are conducted on a daily and weekly basis? Question: Which courses are AAI Instructors required to be present for? | The time of training classes will be determined by student needs and instructor availability. The intent of the AAI instructors will be focused on IRC instruction. The workload for those class are identified in Appendix 1. | |
| 59 | PWS | 3, 4, & 5 | 1.2.1.2 | AAI IRC requirement be completed virtually? | AFMAN 11-210 IRP defines training requirements, 4.3.3. allows instructor-based classroom portion of the IRC may be |
conducted remotely (via Microsoft Teams®, Zoom®, etc.).
| 60 | PWS | 7 | 1.2.2.8 (4) | Please define Cross-Check Trainers, identify their components, and describe the interactivity that makes them Level III or IV. | These are interactive application that provided students with an experience similar to sitting inside the simulator. |
| 61 | PWS | 7 | 1.2.2.8 (4) | Please define The Menu, identify it’s components, and describe the interactivity that makes it IMI Levels III or IV. | These are interactive application that provided students with an checklist experience similar to sitting inside the simulator or GCS. |
| 62 | PWS | 7 & 60-61 | 1.2.2.8 (4) & A1.7.5.9 | Please provide course syllabi for courses. | The workload for the current PFT is identified in Appendix 1. The Government does not believe the course syllabi are necessary for the offeror to calculate workload analysis since all required information to make those calculations is included within the PWS. |
| 63 | PWS | 7 & 60-61 | 1.2.2.8 (4) & A1.7.5.9 | Please list the number of courses and the correlating course titles and instructional hours. | The workload for the current PFT is identified in Appendix 1. |
| 64 | PWS | 7 & 60-61 | 1.2.2.8 (4) & A1.7.5.9 CWD Table | Reference: 1.2.2.8 (4) states: “ICW/CBT lessons are considered Level II lesson and as instructor led lessons are considered Level I lessons. The Menu and Cross-Check Trainers are considered Level III, or Level IV.” |
CWD Table from A1.7.5.9:
New Revision Review New Equivalent Hours Workload Rate 100% 50% 10% IMI Level 1 20 10 10 26 IMI Level 2 29 15 15 39 IMI Level 3 12 6 6 17 IMI Level 4 10 5 5 13 Instructor Led¹ 22 22 22 35
Question: Are IMI Level I lessons instructor led? If they are, what is the a difference between IMI Level I (20, 10, 10, 26) and Instructor Led (22, 22, 22, 35)? PWS A1.7.5.9. Level 1- Passive. The student acts solely as a receiver of information. A PPT or brief. Per PWS Note 1 Instructor-Led Package consists of a Lesson Strategy Report, an Examination Package, an Academic Lesson Plan, a Lesson Presentation (PowerPoint), and any necessary teaching aids (worksheets, scenarios, case-studies etc.).
65 PWS 7 & 60-61 1.2.2.8 (4) & A1.7.5.9 CWD Table Reference: 1.2.2.8 (4) states: “ICW/CBT lessons are considered Level II lesson and as instructor led lessons are considered Level I lessons. The Menu and Cross-Check Trainers are considered Level III, or Level IV.”
However, the FY 24-30 MQ-9 COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT chart on A1.7.5.9 simply states the IMI levels and equivalent hours. This chart specifically calls out the Instructor-led courses but does not specify the other types.
Question: For the numbers in this chart, what are the corresponding types of courseware (Instructor Led, ICW/CBT, Menu and Cross-Check Trainers, etc…) for IMI Levels 1 - 4?:
New Revision Review New Equivalent Hours Workload Rate 100% 50% 10% IMI Level 1 20 10 10 26 IMI Level 2 29 15 15 39 IMI Level 3 12 6 6 17 IMI Level 4 10 5 5 13
| Instructor Led¹ 22 22 22 35 | Table identifies the number of New/Revision and Review lessons required. | |||||
| 66 | PWS | 10 & 11 | 1.2.3.17 | Will the current LMS be transferred to the new contractor in the transition phase? | PWS 1.2.3.18 All LMS database(s), data and files are the property of the Government. At the completion of this contract, the contractor shall provide the Government with the LMS database data, files and any source code for all products developed under this contract: At the completion of this contract, the contractor shall provide the Government with the Master Files and any source code for all products developed under this contract. | |
| 67 | PWS | 9 | 1.2.3.7.1 | Hancock Field additional tasks |
| Question: Are 1-4 tasks included in appendix 2 workload? If not, can the government provide workload? | The Government is currently working on this answer and will publish ASAP. | ||||
| 68 | PWS | 12 & 14/15 | 1.2.4 & 1.2.4.6 | Aircrew Training Support |
| Question: Can gov’t confirm that Joint Test and Training Operations Center Support (1.2.4) is the same as Joint Test and Training Operations Center (JTTOC) Mission Management Specialist (1.2.4.7)? | 1.2.4.6. Joint Test and Training Operations Center (JTTOC) Mission Management Specialist (MMS) (Holloman AFB) falls under 1.2.4. | ||||
| 69 | PWS | 27 & 29 | 3.3.1 & 3.5.6 | Reference: 3.3.1. Office Space. (Holloman AFB) Holloman AFB due to its location from the training ranges is authorized to rent/lease/own office space outside of Holloman AFB. This location will have securable storage areas for Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). |
Reference: 3.5.6. JTAC Office Space. Office space at March ARB, Hancock Field ANGB, and Creech AFB will be provided by the local Wings. Holloman AFB due to its location from the training ranges is authorized to rent/lease/own office space outside of Holloman AFB. This location will have securable storage areas for GFE.
| Question: [Ref PWS 3.3.1 & 3.5.6] The current language states that due to its location from the training ranges, Holloman AFB is "authorized" to rent/lease/own office space outside of the base. Given the critical importance of ensuring the security of the fleet and GFE, we recommend that "authorized" be replaced with "required"? | The Government does not believe this word change is necessary. | |||||
| 70 | PWS | 30 | 4.01, 4.0.2, 4.1.1 | Are the Site Manager and the JTAC Supervisor (both noted as key personnel in PWS 4.1.1) separate positions at Creech, March, and Hancock? Or can the JTAC Supervisors be dual-hatted as Site Managers? | There is no requirement to have two separate bodies, proposal can determine best way to meet PWS requirements | |
| 71 | PWS | 30 | 4.2.1.1 | PWS item 4.2.1.1 states the required qualifications for the JTAC supervisor. What are the required qualifications for the Site Manager? | No specific requirement to act as a Site Manager, proposal can determine best way to meet PWS requirements | |
| 72 | PWS | 32 & 58 | 4.2.1.4, 4.2.1.4.1 | Performance Technician: PWS sections 4.2.1.4 and 4.2.1.4.1 states Performance Technicians are required at Holloman AFB and Hancock AFB, but does not provide for the other locations. |
| Question: Can Performance Technicians be used at all locations? | The contractor is allowed to determine workload mix they deem appropriate to meet the requirements in the PWS. | |||||
| 73 | PWS | 32 & 58 | 4.2.1.4.1, A1.7.4.1 | Discrepancy between PWS sections 4.2.1.4.1 and A1.7.4.1: Can the government please confirm Performance Technicians are required at Hancock? | The Government is currently working on this answer and will publish ASAP. | |
| 74 | PWS | 50, 52, 55, 57 | A1.4.2.2, |
A1.5.3, A1.6.3.4, A1.7.3.2 A1.4.2.2 Holloman AFB FTU Support A1.5.3 11 ATKS FY24-28 Training Requirements (Creech) A1.6.3.4 March ARB FTU Support A1.7.3.2 Hancock Field ANGB FTU Support
| Question: Can the gov’t confirm workload provided is a minimum FTE/hour requirement and each position is dedicated/standalone and unable to be combined with any other positions? | The PWS workloads were intended to have positions filled at each location by a single individual. Combining workloads within a proposal is at the risk of the contractor since any combining of positions opens risk up to the Government if individuals are tasked with more than 1.0 FTE. Any buying of risk should be explained within the plan provided with proposal. | ||||
| 75 | PWS | 52 & 57 | A1.5 & A1.7 | Site Lead workload |
| Question: Creech/Nellis and Hanock did not specify Site Manager requirements like Holloman and March did. Can the government confirm that a site lead is required for each location? | PWS 4.0.1. Site Manager is required for each location, but unique requirements were identified for Holloman and March. PWS 1.2.4.10. identify universal duties. | ||||
| 76 | PWS | 56 | A1.6.4.2 | March workload: A1.6.4.2. Workload. The contractor will have teams, plus one site lead personnel to provide 40 hours of support to the FTU mission per individual contractor per seven-day week, that will meet A1.3.6 requirements. |
Question: Can the government confirm that a dedicated, on-site, full-time site manager, that is not part of the JTAC teams, is required at March, but not at Creech or Hancock?
Question: Can the Site Manager (with JTAC quals), meet the requirement of “a minimum of one JTAC qualified person is required in the FTU training facility for each training day? Q1: Each location requires a Site Manager.
Q2. The Government only states the requirement. The offeror in their proposal chooses how to staff to meet the requirement.
77 PWS 56 A1.6.4.2.1 ROC/SIM Support
| Question: ROC/SIM require 10-15 events supported. However, can the government confirm the overall number of events that require support (total TDY and ROC/SIM combined)? | The Government is currently working on this answer and will publish ASAP. | |||||
| 78 | PWS | 3, 4, & 5 | 1.2.1.2 | There are 21 specific tasks under AAI however only one task (IRC, A1.4.2.1) has provided workload to compute required FTEs. Can the government provide historical or desired workload for the other specific tasks to better estimate required workload/FTE breakdown? | The AAI is required to meet the workload identified in the table. | |
| 79 | Revised Pricing Schedule_6Nov23 | Please clarify which CLINS the following items are to be priced: 1. LMS subscription |
2. Software subscription 3. Office space/Warehouse costs
| 4. Vehicles | The offeror can choose where to price these items. Suggestions are as a part of phase-in or as ODCs on the support CLIN. | |||||
| 80 | Revised Pricing Schedule_6Nov23 | What types of equipment does the government anticipate requesting in CLINS 0106, 0126, 0146, 0166 ? | Intent of Equipment CLIN was to used for A8.4. Contractor Purchased Equipment, Government Owned. Equipment not covered by A8.4 can be billed as either part of the Phase-In costs or ODCs. | |||
| 81 | Given that an amendment was just released, will there be an opportunity to submit another round of questions? | No, the amendment was in response to questions already received from industry. Amendment should reduce total amount of questions from industry. | ||||
| 82 | PWS | 58 | A1.7.4.3 | "On days where greater than 18 training missions are required, the JTAC supervisor/site manager may divide JTAC Teams to cover additional missions or may support the additional JTAC requirement from the FTC." | ||
| Are the 18 training events referring to live flight only, ROC/SIM only, or a combination of live flight and ROC/SIM to hit the 18 training events? | The Government is currently working on this answer and will publish ASAP. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .