MQ-9 ATS PPC Slides - 7Nov23.pdf

This Briefing is:

UNCLASSIFIED

Headquarters Air Combat Command

Pre-Proposal Briefing

MQ-9 ATS

Mr. Jonah Rouse, HQ ACC TRSS Capt Anita Naylor, HQ ACC AMIC

Maj Derrick “HAWC” Benson, 49th WG/A3T

07 Nov 2023

Introductions

• HQ ACC TRSS Program Manager

• Mr. Jonah Rouse

• HQ ACC AMIC Contracting Officer

• Capt Anita Naylor

• Holloman Government SME

• Maj Derrick Benson – 16th TRS/ADO

• Attendees Welcome

Purpose

To provide industry a review of the contract requirements, a clear understanding of the solicitation, and answer pre-submitted questions.

Schedule

• Program Overview

• Acquisition/Solicitation Overview

• Quality Assurance

• Solicitation Milestones

• MQ-9 Weapons System Overview

• Review Advance Questions and Answers

• Wrap Up

Rules of Engagement

• Keep cameras off and stay muted

• No live questions will be answered

• No recording devices, cameras or cell phones are permitted

• ACC AMIC/PKB is the POC for information

• Remarks and explanations provided at the conference shall not change the terms of the solicitation unless it is formally amended in writing

• All questions must be submitted in writing no later than 17 November 2023

• Government is not liable for expenses incurred by offerors prior to contract award

Program Overview

• Performance Locations

• PWS Requirements

• Deliverables

Mr. Jonah Rouse MQ-9 ATS Program Manager

• Performance Locations

• MQ-9 FTU, Holloman AFB, NM

• MQ-9 FTU, March ARB, CA

• MQ-9 FTU, Hancock ANGB, NY

• MQ-9 FTU, Creech AFB, NV

Hancock Field

Creech AFB

March ANGB

Holloman AFB

• Key PWS Requirements

• Aircrew Academic Training (AAI)

• Courseware Development (CWD)

• JTAC/ISR Support

• Training Support

• PWS Tasks

• Provide training for FTU’s at Holloman, Creech, March, and Hancock supporting MQ-9 Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Aircrew Academic Instruction (AAI);

Courseware Development (CWD); and Air and Ground Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) test and training support.

• PWS Tasks

• Develop/Adhere to:

• Transition Plan

• ISD Management Plan

• Training Workload Management Plan

• Instructor Training and Certification Plan

• OPSEC Standing Operating Procedures Plan

• Strike Mitigation Plan

• Quality Control Plan

• Range Vehicle and Cell Phone, and Supply Support Plan

• Aircrew Academic Instruction (AAI)

• Conduct academic instruction in support of Instrument

Refresher Course (IRC), must be IRC qualified

• Provide support as necessary to CWD tasks in paragraph

1.2.2.4.

• Observe operations as determined by the government for familiarity and synchronization with MQ-9 operations IAW paragraph 1.0.

• Courseware Development

• Develop new courseware

• Review and revise existing courseware

• Develop/update computer-based training materials

• Respond to out-of-cycle changes and urgent action directives

• Use AF Instructional Systems Development (ISD) model

• JTAC Team Composition

• Lead, Training Specialist, Performance Tech

• Sample Daily MQ-9 JTAC Team Requirements

• Transit to training location

• Communicate with RPA IPs to coordinate and execute missions

• Conduct required time of mission support

• Set up Video Downlink (VDL)

• Set up radios

• Plan a series of events that will accomplish the training objectives for a particular syllabus event

• Pace the events to allow for student learning as well accomplish all events in the two-hour block of time

• Execute the training ride

• Debrief any items, good or bad, from their side

• Training Support Functions

• Example (GTIMS, Registrar, Console Operators)

• Develop/Maintain Learning Management System

• Provide

• Courseware Development Schedule

• Required Reports and Deliverable

• Support Functions

• Meet Employee Qualification Requirements

• Meet Security Requirements

• Maintain Master Files

Deliverables Appendix 4 in PWS

• Plans Due with Proposals

• Training Workload Management Plan

• Plans Due Post Award

• Courseware Delivery Schedule (CDS)

• Transition Plan

• Instructional Systems Development Management Plan (ISDMP)

• Instructor Training and Certification Plan (ITCP)

• OPSEC Standing Operating Procedures Plan

• Strike Mitigation Plan

• Quality Control Plan

• Range Vehicle and Cell Phone, and Supply Support Plan

Acquisition Overview

Capt Anita Naylor Contracting Officer

ACC AMIC/PKB

anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil

Ms. Daisy Reantaso Contract Manager

ACC AMIC/PKB

imelda.reantaso.1@us.af.mil mailto:anita.naylor.3@us.af.mil mailto:imelda.reantaso.1@us.af.mil

• Contracting Office (ACC AMIC/PKB) is the POC for information pertaining to this requirement.

• Terms of the solicitation and PWS remain unchanged unless it is formally amended in writing and issued by the Contracting Officer.

• Questions during this conference must be in writing.

• Proposals due NLT 1600 EST 30 November 2023.

• Authority

• FAR Part 12: Commercial Contracts

• FAR Part 15: Negotiated Contracts

• DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 20 August 2022

• Notice to Offerors

• Competition/an adequate number of proposals is expected

• Government intends to make award without discussion but reserves the right to conduct discussions, if deemed necessary. Therefore, you are cautioned to submit your best proposal upfront.

• NAICS Code 611512, “Flight Training”

• Size Standard $34M

• SB Set-Aside

• Contract Type

• Commercial (FAR Part 12)

• Non-personal services

• Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) Line Items

• Fixed Price with Equitable Price Adjustment Line Items for NM

GRT, Travel, Fuel, Equipment, and Shift Differential.

• Services are currently being met through two different contracts.

Period of Performance

FY24 – Phase-In: 01 May 24 - 30 Jun 24 FY24 – FY25 - Base Year: 01 Jul 24 - 30 Apr 25 FY25 – FY26 - Option Year One: 01 May 25 - 30 Apr 26 FY26 – FY27 - Option Year Two: 01 May 26 - 30 Apr 27 FY27 – FY28 - Option Year Three: 01 May 27 - 30 Apr 28 FY28 – FY29 - Option Year Four: 01 May 28 - 30 Apr 29 FY29 – FY30 - Six Month Extension: 01 May 29 - 30 Oct 29

Basis For Award

• Subjective tradeoff procedures where past performance is more important than price and technical

• Factors Considered for Award

• Gate: Facility Clearance

• Factor 1: Technical Capability

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Price

Hierarchy of Importance

• Past performance is most important

• Offeror must possess a TS security clearance before being evaluated on technical

• Proposal must be technically acceptable before being evaluated on past performance

• Past performance must be found Substantial, Satisfactory, or Neutral

Performance before being evaluated on price

• Factor Importance

• Past performance is significantly more important than price; however, price will contribute to the award decision

• The greater the equality of proposals for past performance, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the government

• The technical factor will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable and is not part of the trade-off determination

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

• The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement.

The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined below. Deficiencies and weaknesses will be used to assess technical ratings.

• All subfactors must receive a rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award. All aspects must be rated acceptable for the Subfactor to be rated acceptable

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

• Evaluation Ratings Acceptable: All requirements are met Unacceptable: Deficient in any 1 requirement subfactor

• If any subfactor within a requirement is deemed unacceptable, then the entire proposal will be deemed unacceptable

• Proposals deemed unacceptable will be eliminated from further competition

• A subfactor may also be deemed deficient due to a combination of significant weaknesses and/or weaknesses

FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL

Subfactor A: Workload Analysis per Support Category IAW PWS Appendix 1 Aspect 1) Courseware Delivery (CWD) Manning Workload Analysis Requirements. Proposal provides a detailed CWD manning workload analysis derived from PWS (Para A1.4) for all courseware requirements that clearly explains CWD manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees (if used). Each employee must be identified by position titles specifically called out in the CBA, unless proposing the use of a non-CBA covered position. Courseware development time will be presented as both a rate (number of hours proposed per instructional hour) and total hours required to complete all deliverables (listed in Appendix 4 of the PWS) to include administrative support. Offeror will provide a percentage breakdown for each skillset (individual) required to produce a given deliverable and clearly identify the total hours for each skillset (individual) proposed to meet all PWS requirements. This analysis shall be provided for each servicing location (March ARB, Holloman AFB, Hancock NGB, and Creech AFB).

Subfactor A: Workload Analysis per Support Category IAW PWS Appendix 1 Aspect 2) Air Support Training (ATS) Manning Workload Analysis Requirements. Proposal provides a detailed ATS manning workload analysis derived from PWS (Para A1.4) for all ATS requirements that clearly explains ATS manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees (if used). ATS analysis will be presented as a total number of hours required to meet PWS ATS requirements and total number of FTEs required to complete ATS requirements. Each employee must be identified by position titles specifically called out in the CBA, unless proposing the use of a non-CBA covered position. Offeror will provide a percentage breakdown for each skillset/FTE/individual required to meet ATS requirements and clearly identify the total hours for each skillset/FTE/individual proposed to meet all PWS requirements. This analysis shall be provided for each servicing location (March ARB, Holloman AFB, Hancock NGB, and Creech AFB).

Subfactor A: Workload Analysis per Support Category IAW PWS Appendix 1 Aspect 3) Aircrew Academic Instruction (AAI) Manning Workload Analysis Requirements. Proposal provides a detailed AAI manning workload analysis derived from PWS (Para A1.4) for all AAI requirements that clearly explains AAI manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees (if used).

AAI analysis will be presented as a total number of hours required to meet PWS AAI requirements and total number of FTEs required to complete AAI requirements. Each employee must be identified by position titles specifically called out in the CBA, unless proposing the use of a non-CBA covered position. Offeror will provide a percentage breakdown for each skillset/FTE/individual required to meet AAI requirements and clearly identify the total hours for each skillset/FTE/individual proposed to meet all PWS requirements. This analysis shall be provided for each servicing

Subfactor A: Workload Analysis per Support Category IAW PWS Appendix 1 Aspect 4) Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) Manning Workload Analysis Requirements. Proposal provides a detailed JTAC manning workload analysis derived from PWS (Para 1.2.3., 4.2.1., A1.1., A1.1.2., A1.4, A1.5, A1.6, A1.7) for all JTAC requirements that clearly explains JTAC manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees (if used). JTAC analysis will be presented as a total number of hours required to meet PWS JTAC requirements and total number of FTEs required to complete JTAC requirements. Each employee must be identified by position titles specifically called out in the CBA, unless proposing the use of a non-CBA covered position. Offeror will provide a percentage breakdown for each skillset/FTE/individual required to meet JTAC requirements and clearly identify the total hours for each skillset/FTE/individual proposed to meet all PWS requirements. This analysis shall be provided for each servicing

Subfactor B: Training Workload Management Plan IAW PWS 1.3.3 and PWS Appendix 1 Aspect 1) Narrative to Accompany Workload Analysis. Proposal provides a detailed TWMP which outlines its management approaches, methods, and policies for ensuring all employees will be trained in accordance with this PWS. The TWMP shall include workload analysis and long-range planning, as well as proposed scheduling procedures; manning workload table that clearly identifies all proposed manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees for AAI, CWD, ATS, and JTAC requirements at each site. CWD development chart that clearly outlines the estimated development time in hours/hour of courseware for all types of courseware required by this PWS and identifies the percentage breakdown of work for each skill category on the CWD team and ISME support; and a table that details how an employee’s work year is broken down to include scheduled leave, holidays, ancillary training, and direct work that make up a "2080 hour" standard work year.

Subfactor B: Training Workload Management Plan IAW PWS 1.3.3 and PWS Appendix 1 Aspect 2) Scheduling Risk Mitigation. Proposal demonstrates effective processes for daily and long-range scheduling that mitigate the risks associated with workload fluctuations or other factors to ensure all work is accomplished meets PWS para 1.2.3, 4.8, and A1.4, A1.5, A1.6, A1.7.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

• Only offerors who receive acceptable ratings in Factor 1 will be evaluated for Factor 2 – Past Performance.

• Evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant present and past performance

• Max of three performance references (finalized CPARS are requested)

• Offerors proposing as prime with no government CPAR evaluation records are required to submit up to three Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs)

• The Government will evaluate this factor to assess the Offeror’s recent and relevant present and past performance record to determine confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed.

• For purposes of this evaluation, the “offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors, and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the prime contractor’s team under this effort.

• The Government will evaluate the offeror’s recent and relevant demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost, and schedule.

• There are four steps in evaluating past/present performance information:

• Step 1: Determine whether the offeror’s performance information is recent

• Step 2: Determine whether the offeror’s performance information is relevant to the effort being acquired (this acquisition)

• Step 3: Determine performance quality of the offeror’s performance information

• Step 4: Assign the performance confidence rating at the factor level

• The Government will use the following definitions in assessing each past performance reference either submitted as part of the proposal or obtained through other means:

• Recency

• A recency determination will be made for each PPI reference provided. Recency for this acquisition is defined as contract performance (minimum of six months) within the last three years preceding the date of issuance of the solicitation. References for contracts with less than six months of performance will not be considered. Each performance reference will be assigned a rating of “Recent” or “Not Recent”.

• Relevant Contracts

• Relevancy, as it pertains to this source selection, is where past performance encompasses essentially the same level of complexities (e.g., multi-location, dollar value, contract type, subcontract/teaming, etc.) as this RFP, and where cost, schedule, and performance evaluation occurred (table on next page).

• Performance Quality

• The Government will evaluate the rated quality of work and for proven record of compliance with PPIRS, FAPIIS, CPARS, or other sources.

RATING DESCRIPTION

Very Relevant

Effectively managed an Air Force RPA training program as prime contractor while providing courseware development and maintenance services utilizing the Instructional Systems Development (ISD) model. Performance efforts must have included Instrument Refresher Course experience and had to have been performed at a minimum of two locations. Very relevant in terms of magnitude is a contract or task order that provided for at least 30 FTEs each period of performance (i.e., base year, option year, etc.) and the total contract value was more than $25M.

Relevant

Effectively managed a DoD RPA training program as prime contractor while providing courseware development and maintenance services utilizing the Instructional Systems Development (ISD) model. Performance efforts must have an advance training course requirement and had to have been performed at a minimum of two locations. Relevant in terms of magnitude is a contract or task order that provided for at least 20 FTEs each period of performance (i.e., base year, option year, etc.) and the total contract value was more than $15M.

Somewhat Relevant

Performance for having managed any military aircrew training program that consists of one or more of the following: academic instruction, simulator instruction, or courseware development utilizing an Instructional Systems Development (ISD) model for at least one location. Somewhat relevant in terms of magnitude is a contract or task order that provided for at least 15 FTEs each period of performance (i.e., base year, option year, etc.) and the total contract value was more than $10M.

Not Relevant Performance efforts that involved no military aircrew training support and little or none of the additional performance efforts or magnitude

• Performance Confidence Assessment - The assessment of recency, relevancy, and performance quality will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating as defined in the following table:

ADJECTIVAL

RATING DESCRIPTION

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

• Offerors without a record of relevant and recent past performance, or for whom information is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, and as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating for the past performance factor.

• Regarding the best value award decision, a Satisfactory performance confidence rating is significantly more important than a Neutral confidence rating.

• The government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating.

• The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

• Only offerors who receive an overall acceptable rating in Factor 1 –

Technical AND a Substantial, Satisfactory, or Neutral Performance Confidence rating in Factor 2 – Past Performance will be evaluated for Factor 3 – Price.

• This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition to ensure the awarded price is fair and reasonable; thus, offerors are cautioned to present their best proposal up-front. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE

• Not assigned a rating.

• Evaluated using FAR 15.404-1 techniques to ensure Government receives fair, reasonable, and balanced price.

• Evaluated to determine if offerors have a clear understanding of requirements and if proposed price is consistent with technical approach.

• The Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP) will consist of the transition period, base year, optional years to include a six-month extension of services IAW

FAR 52.217-8.

• Evaluated to determine reasonableness based on a comparison of each offeror’s proposed Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP).

• The Government reserves the right to award to a higher priced offer if that offer is determined affordable and represents the best value to the Government.

CLIN Structure – Phase-In

ITEM SUPPLIES/SERVICE QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE EXTENDED

AMOUNT

Phase-In CLINs per Location

Holloman AFB Phase-In Phase-In for non-personal services. Contractor shall furnish all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and all other items that are required to perform MQ-9 Air Training Support at Holloman AFB, NM IAW the PWS.

2 Months $ -

Creech AFB Phase-In Phase-In for non-personal services. Contractor shall furnish all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and all other items that are required to perform MQ-9 Air Training Support at Creech AFB, NV IAW the PWS.

2 Months $ -

March ARB Phase-In Phase-In for non-personal services. Contractor shall furnish all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and all other items that are required to perform MQ-9 Air Training Support at March ARB, CA IAW the PWS.

2 Months $ -

Hancock Field ANGB Phase-In Phase-In for non-personal services. Contractor shall furnish all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, and all other items that are required to perform MQ-9 Air Training Support at Hancock Field ANGB, NY IAW the PWS.

2 Months $ -

CLIN Structure – Holloman Holloman CLINs for Base Year

Holloman MQ-9 AAI Base Year Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, all other items and services that are required to perform MQ-9 AAI IAW the PWS.

10 Months $ -

Holloman MQ-9 CWD Base Year Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, all other items and services that are required to perform MQ-9 CWD IAW the PWS.

10 Months $ -

Holloman MQ-9 Support Positions Base Year Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, all other items and services that are required to perform MQ-9 support positions IAW the PWS.

10 Months $ -

Holloman Fuel Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. The Government intends to reimburse the actual cost of fuel that the contractor is required to pay during performance of this contract IAW the PWS. Fuel will be invoiced monthly as needed. Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended. Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

Holloman Travel Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. In the event the Government requests the contractor to travel in performance of this contract, the contractor will use this CLIN. Prior to scheduled travel, the COR shall authorize the travel in writing. Travel will be invoiced monthly as needed. Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended. Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000.00

Holloman Equipment Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. In the event the Government requests the contractor to provide equipment in performance of this contract, the contractor will use this CLIN. Prior to purchasing equipment, the COR shall authorize the purchase in writing.

Equipment will be invoiced monthly as needed. Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended. Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $ 56, 875.00 $ 56, 875.00

Holloman Shift Differential Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. IAW the PWS, the contractor will be paid shift differential for work performed at each location based on actual hours worked from the previous month IAW current CBA Shift Differential rates. Contractor shall attach all payroll information and backup data to support and validate actual hours to the WAWF invoice for payment. The COR will review, approve and certify in the WAWF accordingly. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended. Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $ 49.720.00 $ 49.720.00

New Mexico Gross Receipts Tax Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA NTE Amount. NM Gross Receipts Tax will be reimbursed for all services occurring in New Mexico for the base year. The Government intends to reimburse the actual NMGRT that the contractor is required to pay after verification by the Program Manager of the actual amounts and receipt of funds. NMGRT will be invoiced monthly as needed.

Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount as been expended.

1 Lot $ 400,000.00 $ 400,000.00

CLIN Structure – Creech Creech CLINs for Base Year

Creech MQ-9 AAI Base Year Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, all other items and services that are required to perform MQ-9 AAI IAW the PWS.

10 Months $ -

Creech MQ-9 Console Operator Base Year Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, all other items and services that are required to perform MQ-9 console operators IAW the PWS.

10 Months $ -

Creech MQ-9 Support Positions Base Year Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, all other items and services that are required to perform MQ-9 support positions IAW the PWS.

10 Months $ -

Creech Fuel Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. FFP CLIN with EPA. The Government intends to reimburse the actual cost of fuel that the contractor is required to pay during performance of this contract IAW the PWS. Fuel will be invoiced monthly as needed. Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended. Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00

Creech Travel Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. In the event the Government requests the contractor to travel in performance of this contract, the contractor will use this CLIN. Prior to scheduled travel, the COR shall authorize the travel in writing. Travel will be invoiced monthly as needed. Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended. Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00

Creech Equipment Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. In the event the Government requests the contractor to provide equipment in performance of this contract, the contractor will use this CLIN. Prior to purchasing equipment, the COR shall authorize the purchase in writing. Equipment will be invoiced monthly as needed.

Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended. Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $41,250.00 $ 41,250.00

Creech Shift Differential Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. IAW the PWS, the contractor will be paid shift differential for work performed at each location based on actual hours worked from the previous month IAW current CBA Shift Differential rates. Contractor shall attach all payroll information and backup data to support and validate actual hours to the WAWF invoice for payment. The COR will review, approve and certify in the WAWF accordingly. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended. Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $62,500.00 $ 62,500.00

CLIN Structure – Hancock

Hancock CLINs for Base Year

Hancock MQ-9 AAI Base Year Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, all other items and services that are required to perform MQ-9 AAI IAW the PWS.

10 Months $ -

Hancock MQ-9 Console Operator Base Year Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, all other items and services that are required to perform MQ-9 console operators IAW the PWS.

10 Months $ -

Hancock MQ-9 Support Positions Base Year Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, all other items and services that are required to perform MQ-9 support positions IAW the PWS.

10 Months $ -

Hancock Fuel Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. FFP CLIN with EPA. The Government intends to reimburse the actual cost of fuel that the contractor is required to pay during performance of this contract IAW the PWS. Fuel will be invoiced monthly as needed. Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment.

The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended.

Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00

Hancock Travel Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. In the event the Government requests the contractor to travel in performance of this contract, the contractor will use this CLIN. Prior to scheduled travel, the COR shall authorize the travel in writing. Travel will be invoiced monthly as needed. Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended. Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00

Hancock Equipment Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. In the event the Government requests the contractor to provide equipment in performance of this contract, the contractor will use this CLIN. Prior to purchasing equipment, the COR shall authorize the purchase in writing. Equipment will be invoiced monthly as needed.

Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended. Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $39.375.00 $39.375.00

CLIN Structure – March

March CLINs for Base Year

March MQ-9 AAI Base Year Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, all other items and services that are required to perform MQ-9 AAI IAW the PWS.

10 Months $ -

March MQ-9 Console Operator Base Year Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, all other items and services that are required to perform MQ-9 console operators IAW the PWS.

10 Months

March MQ-9 Support Positions Base Year Contractor to provide all personnel, equipment, tools, materials, supervision, all other items and services that are required to perform MQ-9 support positions IAW the PWS.

10 Months $ -

March Fuel Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. FFP CLIN with EPA. The Government intends to reimburse the actual cost of fuel that the contractor is required to pay during performance of this contract IAW the PWS. Fuel will be invoiced monthly as needed. Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment.

The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended.

Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

March Travel Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. In the event the Government requests the contractor to travel in performance of this contract, the contractor will use this CLIN. Prior to scheduled travel, the COR shall authorize the travel in writing. Travel will be invoiced monthly as needed. Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended. Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00

March Equipment Base Year FFP CLIN with EPA. In the event the Government requests the contractor to provide equipment in performance of this contract, the contractor will use this CLIN. Prior to purchasing equipment, the COR shall authorize the purchase in writing. Equipment will be invoiced monthly as needed.

Contractor shall attach all receipts to the WAWF invoice for payment. The contractor shall notify the Government when 80% of the funded amount has been expended. Do not price this line item.

1 Lot $ 39.375.00 $ 39,375.00

Solicitation Review

• Using combined synopsis/solicitation format

• If amendments are issued, they will be posted to SAM.gov

• Must acknowledge all amendments (if any) within your proposal

• Pricing

• Make sure your prices are divisible by 12 and whole dollars

• If/When using rounded numbers, make sure the rounding method is clear

• Values add up correctly (Unit Prices x Quantity = Total Cost)

Solicitation Review

• Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria

• Look at both very carefully

• Make sure you are registered in SAM.gov for applicable NAICS and reps and certs

• Your company will need to be found responsive prior to any evaluation occurring

Quality Assurance

• Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) appointment will be provided to the awardee in writing

• COR: Mr. Jonah Rouse (ACC TRSS)

• Local Government Subject Matter Experts (SME):

Identified after contract award

Notional Milestones

Description Estimated Date

Issue Final RFP 30 Oct 23

Pre-Proposal Conference 07 Nov 23

Q & A Due 17 Nov 23

RFP Closing Date 30 Nov 23

Initial Evaluation Complete 05 Dec 23

Competitive Range 08 Jan 24

Request FPRs 16 Feb 24

Source Selection Decision 29 Mar 24

** Notice of Award 05 Apr 24

Phase-In 01 May 24

Contract Start Date 01 Jul 24

MQ-9 Weapon System

Maj. Derrick “HAWC” Benson

49 WG/A3T

MQ-9 Weapons System

• MQ9 Aircraft

• RPA Systems

• Capabilities

• Challenges

MQ-9 Characteristics

MQ-9

2x500 lb LGB/GPS

A-10 Size

4xHellfire

Wingspan: 66 FT Length: 36 FT

Max Speed: ~230 KT Endurance: ~20 hrs

Max Altitude: ~50,000 ft

Total Payload: ~3000 lbs (6 hard point stations)

RPA System Components

Aircraft

PACS

KU SATCOM (local configuration)

Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited USAF WPAFB 08-3909, Dated 30 June 2008

Remote Split Ops Global Combat Capability

*In near future, SLR will replace LRE allowing MQ-9s to land/takeoff virtually anywhere.

BEALE

DGS

Creech AFB

Training

MCE

& Ops Ctr

AFCENT

SOUTHCOM

ANG Support

Satellite

From the CONUS, we can control aircraft in one AOR, multiple AORs, SWITCH between theaters as mission/weather dictates and send data anywhere in the world

Receiver “Farm” LRE

Predator Video Distribution Network

CAOC

RPA

CAP

Langley

DGS1

Capabilities UNCLASS

Multispectral Targeting System GBU-12 LGB

GBU-38 GPS

GBU-49 Dual

HELLFIRE Laser Guided Missile

AGM-114

Synthetic Aperture Radar

Capabilities: Targeting Pod

• Raytheon MTS-A/MTS-B

• MTS-B 1.5X magnification of MTS-A

• Extremely accurate laser

• IR marker

• EO: Day only

• IR: Day, night

• LLTV: Fused EO/IR

Enhanced Imagery with Increased Standoff

LTM

IR WFOV

EO/IR MFOV

EO WFOV

EO/IR/LL NFOV

LRD

GBU-12 Paveway II

• Laser Guided Bomb

• Weight: ~500 lb

• Length: 10.8 ft

• Diameter: 11 in

AGM-114 Hellfire

• Laser Guided Missile

• Weight: 100–108 lb

• Length: 64 in

• Diameter: 7 in

Capabilities: Ground Attack

(Possible) GBU-49 Paveway II

• Laser/GPS Guided Bomb

• Weight: ~500 lb

• Length: ~10.8 ft

• Diameter: ~18 in

GBU-38 JDAM

• GPS Guided Bomb

• Weight: ~500 lb

• Length: 10.5 ft

• Diameter: 17 in

Capabilities: Ground Attack

Day TV Ultra Wide Field of View

20,000ft AGL, 6 NM

Powerline Transformer

Day TV Camera Narrow Medium Field of View

20,000ft AGL, 7 NM

Narrow Field of View 20,000ft AGL, 7 NM

Ultra Narrow Field of View

20,000ft AGL, 6 NM

Infrared Camera Ultra Wide Field of View

Narrow Medium Field of View

Narrow Field of View

Ultra Narrow Field of View

Ultra Narrow 2X Field of View

Truly a Multi-Role Asset

Precision Strike

SCAR

Urban CAS

DSCA

Convoy Over Watch

Counter-Narcotics Target Development High Value Targets

We support diverse missions across the joint/coalition force!

Disaster Relief

24/7 Full Motion Video & Persistent Strike Capability http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah-imagery10.htm http://www.gadod.net/files/e107_images/newspost_images/fuel_truck_convoy_a.jpg

Your Challenges

• Courseware application accessibility

• Apple vs PC; Air Force Base Comm

• SMEs

• As CAS/AI and other phases of the syllabus are reduced, modified, or eliminated, being able to keep a small cadre of SMEs available with real world experience to teach is crucial

• Maxing PFT

• With active duty taking over all academic lessons and flight instruction, any maxing of scheduled training events could strain the manning of the FTU putting greater reliance on the ATS contract

Contract Failures To Avoid

• Poor execution

• Timely, Correct, Professional, Flexible

• Lack of syllabus knowledge

• Contractors that are knowledgeable and have experience in every phase of the syllabus: CON, EP,TR, BSA, BME, JI (CAS, AI, SCAR)

• Use of old/wrong techniques

• Contractor must be able to adapt to the modern warfighting TTPs

• Constant innovation and learning

• Being flexible with numerous syllabus changes

• Inadequate completion of courseware

• Scheduling/Manning issues

• Having individuals/teams ready for courseware development, admin, or ISR events/tasks

Q&A

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

ANSWERS

Advance Questions

Q# Doc Pg # Para # Comment/Question/Recommendation Government Response

1 PWS Overall

Does the government intend to provide additional detail on inspection systems or corrective action to address the potential for disputes over adequacy or deliverable and corrective measures?

The QASP will identify how compliance issues will be handled during contract performance. The QASP will be provided post-award.

2 PWS 3 1.2.1

States, “The contractor shall conduct aircrew academic instruction in support of formal course syllabi, training plans, event instructor guides and CT.” But then states, "Academic instruction will consist of the Instrument Refresher Course (IRC)."

Question: Do instructors need to be certified in all MQ-9 syllabi + CT or just IRC?

The intent was for AAI be qualified in IRC, as that will be the only contractor Academic Instruction given. During that teaching, the AAI has the ability to tailor topics that would be MQ-9 specific, but there is no MQ-9 syllabi "qualification" requirement.

3 PWS 6 1.2.2.5

Will the government provide up-to-date GFI within a certain time-frame from when the updates are made or after the SME notification to contractors of changes?

Looking for clarification on GFI? Deliverables dates are addressed in Appendix 4 and should be in accordance with Courseware Deliverance Schedule

(CDS).

4 PWS 6 1.2.2.5 (1) Will the government provide review criteria?

A1.7.5. details CWD procedures, including review evaluations. During perfromance this will also be coordinated with Government SME.

5 PWS 10 1.2.3.17

PWS States: The contractor shall provide a LMS internet-based knowledge portal which provides student, instructor, and other required personnel access to approved courseware for each unclassified course of instruction specified in the PWS. Question: Does the government mave a preference for an LMS? Will the government provide any data on the current LMS system?

No preference, Moodle is current system, which is a paid subscription.

Q# Doc Pg # Para # Comment/Question/Recommendation Government Response

6 PWS 11 1.2.3.17.4

PWS states: The contractor shall ensure there is no lapse in coverage by renewing licenses as required.Question: Will the government provide a list of SW licenses that are currently in use?

If a new LMS is implemented, any software necessary to support would need to be determined at that time. Coordination between current and winning vendor would best address transfer of any potential required licenses. Current contract has 3 Articulate subscriptions, 1 Adobe XD Photoshop, and 1 Survey Monkey.

7 PWS 29 3.5.3

PWS States: The contractor is required to provide one (1) large vehicle and one (1) off-road ATV/UTV, (March AFB) or (1) off-road two-wheeled vehicle, i.e. motorbike, per each team. Question:

Will the government provide an inventory of current range vehicles?

March: 4 trucks, 3 dirt-bikes Hancock: 4 SUV Creech 3 trucks, 3 dirt-bikes Holloman 9 trucks, 8 dirt-bikes

The winning vendor will need to evaluate their needs based on operational and training requirements.

8 PWS 49 A1.2.2.3.3

Shows March ARB flying training days as 226; but then A1.3 (4) shows 250 flying training days.

Question: Which number is correct?

The 250 number includes all potential flying and simulator training days. The 226 was calculated using a mixed 4- and 5-day flying work week at March ARB: they alternate that flying schedule.

9 PWS 58

A1.7.4.2 & A1.7.4.3 (Note)

States, “…the contractor will have enough personnel to support up to 12 syllabus events.” But then goes on to discuss "But then, 'On days where greater than 18 training missions are required,…'” Question: Which is the max--12 or 18 events per day?

12 events is correct, this was an oversight during PWS drafting review

10 PWS 58 A1.7.4.2

Discussion concerning Hancock Field, “If only ROC/SIM events are required…” However, back in A1.6.4.2.1, at March each ROC/Sim event “will be supported by up to two JTACs.” Question: How many JTACs per ROC/SIM event are required at Hancock Field?

A1.6.4. is addressing March Workload requirements, For A1.7.4.2 whatever vendor determines is appropriate to "have enough personnel to support up to 12 syllabus events". But using March as guide a minimum of 1, maximum of two would be prudent; however, that number will be contractor directed.

Q# Doc Pg # Para # Comment/Question/Recommendation Government Response

11 PWS 61 A1.7.5.9 Has the government identified a preferred target Level 4 AR or VR headset? No preference.

12 PWS 74 AT 2.3.1 Are the examinations separate from check on learning within the training system (LMS)?

From AT2.5. "Computer generated unique examination packages testing appropriate objectives are acceptable and appropriate". The contract only requires IRC training; however, that AFI driven testing will be given by USAF military Stan/Eval represenatives.

13 PWS Appendices 6 & 7

Range Charts /

JTAC Lead Trng Plan

The embedded PDFs in the current PWS are not accessible. Question: Will the government provide the documents in either an amendment or data repository?

Yes

14 Combo 21 3.1.2

The EF 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."

Question: Since the PWS does not state the FTE requirements for I/SMEs, will the government provide the I/SME FTE count?

Per A1.7.5. The contractor shall provide at least one (1) previously qualified MQ-9 instructor pilot and at least one (1) previously qualified MQ-9 instructor SO to fulfill the SME requirements for all CWD work listed in paragraph A1.7.5.9.

15 Combo 11 & 12

6.2.6.1, 6.2.6.2, 6.2.6.3, 6.2.6.4

Each Aspect contains sentence, “Each employee must be identified by position titles specifically called out in the CBA, unless proposing the use of a non-CBA covered position.” In the past ACC Contracting Officers have told us that the Government is neutral regrading any CBAs.

Question: Why are terms of the CBAs made part of the Government's solicitation requirements? (The PWS should be the governing document.)

The PWS is the governing document for the requirement; however, IAW FAR 22.1002-3, wage determinations based on collective bargaining agreements, the CBA on prior contracts are required to be honored on recompetes.

Q# Doc Pg # Para # Comment/Question/Recommendation Government Response

16 Combo 14 7.4

States, “The Offeror shall provide a CPAR for each referenced contract.” Question 1: Does the Govt want only one CPAR report? Question 2: Should this be the most recent? Question 3: Or, does the Govt want the entire set of CPARS covering the entire period of performance?

The Government requests the CPAR record covering the entire period of performance be provided. If the contract has part of the period of performance which does not meet the definition of recent, that portion of the CPAR record does not have to be provided.

17 Combo 14 7.4.4.1

Currently, the Government is allowing up to three

(3) task orders to be combined under a single award IDIQ. Question 1: Will the Government consider allowing task orders under a multiple award IDIQ to be combined/bundled? Question 2:

What if they are related and/or conducted concurrently?

1. No.

2. No.

18 Combo 15 7.5 Are subcontractors required to submit an Organizational Structure Change History along with the prime?

No.

19 Combo 24 3.2.5

States "The Government will be objective as possible when assessing performance quality;

however, as no formula can account for all combinations of performance quality assessment, there will be subjectivity in the process." Question:

How will subjectivity be applied with respect to confidence ratings when one vendor has Relevant Past Performance and Exceptional CPARS, and another vendor has Very Relevant Past Performance but Very Good or Satisfactory CPARS (or something similar to this example)?

As this is subjective and not objective, it will depend on the circumstances for each submission. No formula can be applied to account for all situations.

As one offeror may receive a "Relevant" rating for one reason, and another receive a "Relevant" rating for another. The combinations of situations does not allow for objectivity which is why subjectivity will be applied.

Q# Doc Pg # Para # Comment/Question/Recommendation Government Response

Combo Appendix

2 -- Evaluation

Factors

23-24 Paragraph

3.2.4, Table

The anticipated contract is for support of MQ-9 academic instruction, courseware development, training, and test support. However, there is no mention in the Past Performance Relevance evaluation of the MQ-9.

In order to ensure the Government receives high quality services performed by an appropriately experienced contractor, will the Government consider adding MQ-9-specific experience to the Past Performance Relevance evaluation?

The past performance evaluation lists "Air Force RPA training program" within the past performance relevancy rating method therefore broadening the scope beyond just MQ-9 past performance. The Government has determined that experience on any Air Force RPA training program that meets all other criteria listed within the "Very Relevant" rating description will provide the same level of past performance relevancy. By providing this wider scope, more offerors will have the opportunity to be awarded a "Very Relevant" rating.

Combo Appendix

2 -- Evaluation

Factors

23-24 Paragraph

3.2.4, Table

This acquisition is set aside for Small Business.

The dollar figures contained in the Relevance critierion (for example, $25M and 30 FTEs) are very high for a company to have performed and remain within the size standard for this NAICS ($34M). Requiring values and FTE counts of this magnitude potentially harms otherwise qualified small businesses, as they may have work that is otherwise "Very Relevant" but performing contracts of that magnitude would have caused it to graduate to a large.

Would the government consider revising the Relevancy factors to include dollar values and FTE counts at each level to provide a level playing field for small businesses?

The Government is not open to revising the magnitude and FTE counts listed within the past performance relevancy rating method. As the dollar values are under the NAICS code size limit for all relevancy ratings, it is possible for a company to have performed a contract that meets the "Very Relevant" size standard and still be considered a small business. Also, the Government is accepting joint ventures and other company teaming situations, therefore allowing even more small businesses access to this requirement.

Q# Doc Pg # Para # Comment/Question/Recommendation Government Response

Combo Appendix

2 -- Evaluation

Factors

23-24 Paragraph

3.2.4, Table

The Relevancy evaluation table includes several very specific evaluation criteria, and it appears an offeror must meet every single critiera at specific level rather than, for example, meeting a majority of the criteria. For example, if an Offeror otherwise meets all criteria in the "Very Relevant" box, but was not required to use the ISD model on the cited Past Performance, it appears that the Past Performance citation would not be considered "Very Relevant."

Can you please clarify if every single item listed in the Table must be met at each level in order to receive the applicable rating, or if meeting a majority of the listed critieria will suffice? Requiring an offeror to meet every single critieron at a specific level would be inconsistent with the evaluation factors for Solicitations FA489018R0001 (CATCWD) and FA4890-15-R-0008 (JTAC), which are being combined in this RFP. In the former, the Relevance evaluation was based on a series of bullet points, but it did not appear that all bullet points were required to earn a specific rating. In the latter, a much more high-level pass/fail Relevance evaluation was done, without the level of specificity in this combined RFP.

Requiring an offeror to meet every single critierion in the Relevance table to earn a specific rating would likely harm otherwise highly qualified Offerors by excluding valuable and relevant experience, and ensure that only the incumbent is selected.

The Government has selected all criteria listed within each rating's description to reflect a past performance rating that would be considered very relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, or not relevant. To make this evaluation as objective as possible, all offerors will be required to meet each item listed within the rating's description to be awarded that rating. A lack of any of the description items has been determined by the Government to reduce the relevancy of the past performance effort.

The Government has done extensive market research and acquisition planning leading to the current past performance relevancy rating descriptions and can ensure that more than just the incumbent fit the definition of very…