A4. Question-Comment Matrix - Government Responses (29Nov23).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 22 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MQ9 CAT/CWD and ISR Training Support Consolidation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA489023R0065
About this file
This document contains government responses to questions from offerors regarding Solicitation Number FA489023R0065 for MQ9 CAT/CWD and ISR Training Support Consolidation. The solicitation seeks a contractor to provide MQ-9 Academic and Mission Qualification Training support at multiple Air Force locations, including Creech Air Force Base, March Air Reserve Base, Hancock Field Air National Guard Base, and Holloman Air Force Base. Key details include that the contractor will develop various levels of Computer-Based Training and Instructor-Led Training courseware. The government responses clarify requirements around courseware development, staffing levels and positions required, and storage of government-furnished equipment. Workload is estimated at 8 hours per day per full-time equivalent. The government emphasizes meeting defined workload and staffing levels as proposed.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| A4.Question-Comment_Matrix (30Nov23) FINAL.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| FA489023R0065 Amendment 0003.pdf | ||
| A4. Question-Comment Matrix - Government Responses (21Nov23).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 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 29Nov23
| FA4890-23-R-0065 - MQ-9 ATS | |||||
| Offeror | |||||
| Q# | Doc | Pg # | Para # | Comment/Question/Recommendation | Government Response |
| 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? | Current contractor uses their website to run their menu trainer or other courseware for syllabus events. The menu trainer is just a simulation of the current MQ-9 HUD/HDD. Courseware developed would be available upon new contract award. |
| 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 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. | |||
| 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 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. | |||
| 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 does not currently lease space for the contractor, the pay for their own facility to store GFE and facilitate JTACS. Gov tracks GFE or determines its being safely stored only by an annual inspection, which is done by photo. Due to the location of the training range, and Holloman FB, these are not collocated | |
| 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 current contractor leases a secure building facility which stoes all GFE and vehicles required to execute workload. This is not located at Hollman AFB. There is not a requirement to store equipment at Holloman AFB. | ||||
| 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 securely stored. The government currently tracks GFE and determines its being safely stored only by an annual inspection, which is documented by photo. | ||||
| 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? | All workload is inclusive to meet the hours per day/week | ||||
| 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? | Performance Techs were spefcially asked for at Holloman and Hancock. The contractor is allowed to determine workload mix they deem appropriate to meet the requirements in the PWS. If future workload dictates a modification to workload, performance techs can be added. | |||||
| 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? | Performance Technicians can be mixed into JTAC teams to perform certain roles focusing on airspace and command and control. The intent it so allow a slightly expanded hiring pool and diversity in experience given the increased focus of MQ-9 Initial Qualification Training on the terminal environment. | |
| 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. A1.6.4.2. states a separate site manager is required for March (geographic limitation) if contractor feels it's appropriate to meet workload, then this position can be combined or separated for Creech and Hancock.
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 intent was to address training solely in the ROC/SIM arena; the maximum number of ROC/SIM training would be 15 syllabus events/week | ||||
| 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 intent was for this 18 evenst to be a combination of live flight and ROC/SIM events | ||||
| Follow-on response to Question #64 83 | PWS | 7 & 60-61 | 1.2.2.8 (4) & A1.7.5.9 CWD Table | In the table, first row it states: |
“IMI Level 1 | 20 new |10 revisions | 10 reviews | 26 new equivalents.”
In the table, fifth row it states:
“Instructor Led1 | 22 new | 22 revisions | 22 Reviews | 35 new equivalents.”
PWS 1.2.2.8 states:
“ICW/CBT lessons are considered level II lesson and as instructor led lessons are considered level I lessons.”
PWS makes the delineation that Level I = Instructor Led lessons. With that in mind, what is the difference between the first row (IMI level I) and fifth row (Instructor Led)?
Should these two rows be combined or is one a duplicate? If neither, can gov’t please provide the differences between the two rows? See first response: --PWS A1.7.5.9. Level 1 - is Passive. The student acts solely as a receiver of information. A PPT or brief only --An Instructor Led package contains other items: Lesson Strategy Report, an Examination Package, an Academic Lesson Plan, a Lesson Presentation (PowerPoint), and any necessary teaching aids (worksheets, scenarios, case-studies etc.) --If following award a workload modification is required to better meet CWD development, then it can be done.
Follow-on response to Question #65 84 PWS 7 & 60-61 1.2.2.8 (4) & A1.7.5.9 CWD Table Follow up Question: A1.7.5.9 table includes a detailed footnote for Instructor-Led packages, specifying the components such as Lesson Strategy Reports, Examination Packages, Academic Lesson Plans, Lesson Presentations (PowerPoint), and various teaching aids. This level of detail is immensely helpful for understanding the expectations and requirements for Instructor-Led packages.
However, descriptive footnotes are not provided for IMI Levels 1-4. The current documentation outlines the total number of new items, revisions, and reviews required per IMI level, but it lacks specific information on the types of products included within each IMI level.
| For a comprehensive understanding and to ensure alignment with the government's expectations, could you please provide clarification on the types of products required for each IMI level? Alternatively, a detailed description of what each IMI level consists of, similar to the footnote provided for Instructor-Led packages, is required to estimate workload. | IMI levels aren't specifically identified in a AFI. DAFI 36-2675 references MIL-HDBK-29612-3A, which contains IMI levels, that could be a good base for expectations, along with current industry standards. | |||
| Follow-on response to Question #74 85 | PWS | 50, 52, 55, 57 | A1.4.2.2, |
A1.5.3, A1.6.3.4, A1.7.3.2 The government’s workload tables appear very straightforward with the expectation that 8 hours a day equals 1 FTE, 16 hours a day equals 2 FTEs, and so on. And it appears the government sees a lot of risk in lowering FTE to meet requirements.
As such, will the government consider removing, "Any buying of risk should be explained within the plan provided with proposal" from the government’s answer?
If not, how is industry going to “buy risk” and “explain it” without being given a very detailed workload analysis for every position in ATS. Said another way, only the government and the incumbent know exactly what “buying risk” entails. The workload tables for ATS support positions are a standard 8 hour a day office job for 1 individual. For example 1 registrar, or 1 GTIMS. To try and have 1 individual cover both those duties could create a situation where workload is missed. Revising the Government's initial response would reduce the ability of industry to provide additional solutions.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .