Question-Comment Matrix with Government Responses 7Nov23.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- MQ9 CAT/CWD and ISR Training Support Consolidation Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA489023R0065
About this file
This document contains a question-comment matrix and government responses related to Solicitation Number FA489023R0065 for MQ-9 CAT/CWD and ISR Training Support Consolidation. The solicitation is a consolidation of two prior contracts to provide MQ-9 academic instruction, courseware development, and test support. It is set aside for small businesses and involves the Department of the Air Force Air Combat Command. Key details include requirements for instructors qualified in MQ-9 syllabi, provision of an LMS system, vehicles and equipment for various training locations, and course examinations. The document seeks clarification on personnel levels, deliverable timelines, and software licenses, among other issues. The government provides responses to address offeror questions and confirm requirements.
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 | ||
| 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 | ||
| 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 7Nov23
FA4890-23-R-0065 - MQ-9 ATS
| 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. |
| 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 evalute their needs based on operational and traininng 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 20 | Combo Appendix 2 -- Evaluation Factors | 23-24 | Paragraph 3.2.4, Table 4 | 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. | ||||
| 21 | Combo Appendix 2 -- Evaluation Factors | 23-24 | Paragraph 3.2.4, Table 4 | 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 teamming situations, therefore allowing even more small businesses access to this requirement. | ||||
| 22 | Combo Appendix 2 -- Evaluation Factors | 23-24 | Paragraph 3.2.4, Table 4 | 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 relevant past performance (opening the appature from MQ-9 to all RPA training programs, reducing the dollar value from the contracts current value to $25M, and performing at only two locations versus four as the current contract requires).
| 23 | J&A Document | 3 | 1 | The Justification and Approval document for the consolidation stated, "the consolidated contract is estimated to be valued for [REDACTED] a five-year contract period of performance." If this J&A was released to the vendor, this redaction creates an unfair advantage to the incumbent. Please publish the estimated value. | No we won't publish the estimated value. That is source selection sensitive information and has not been provided to anyone outside the Government. |
| 24 | PWS | 70-71 | Appendix 6 and 7 | The embedded PDF files will not open in the published PWS for Appendix 6 and 7. Will the Government please provide accessible copies of these appendices? | Yes. |
| 25 | PWS | 7 | 1.2.3. | With JTAC personnel operating on ranges, will the DFARS 252.228-7001 Ground and Flight Risk clause be included? | No, the requirements for DFARS 252.228-7001 are not met. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .