16-R-0001_DRAFT_RFP_Q A_8_Feb_16.pdf

NUMBER REFERENCE QUESTION ANSWER

1 N/A Can you please explain how the Government will determine "Substantial Confidence" when grading past performance?

Please reference RFP, Addendum to 52.212‐2 Evaluation ‐ Commercial Items. "Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort".

2 N/A For any graphs (non‐charts) submitted within the proposal, can 'Arial Narrow' or 'Ariel' be used instead of the required 'Times New Roman'?

Arial Narrow' or 'Ariel' fonts can be used in your proposal so long as the size of the font is not smaller than the font referenced in RFP, Addendum to 52.212‐1, Instructions to Offerors ‐ Commercial Items, Paragraph 5.3.

3 RFP, p.6, Item 0105 Please verify the Continuation Training, Instrument Refresher Course (IRC) will be provided to B‐2 crews IRC classroom instruction is only provided to B‐1 and B‐52 crews. B‐2 IRC performance is courseware only.

4 RFP, p. 11, Item 1105 Please verify the Continuation Training, Instrument Refresher Course (IRC) will be provided to B‐2 crews IRC classroom instruction is only provided to B‐1 and B‐52 crews. B‐2 IRC performance is courseware only.

5 RFP, p. 16. Item 2105 Please verify the Continuation Training, Instrument Refresher Course (IRC) will be provided to B‐2 crews IRC classroom instruction is only provided to B‐1 and B‐52 crews. B‐2 IRC performance is courseware only.

6 RFP, p. 21, Item 3105 Please verify the Continuation Training, Instrument Refresher Course (IRC) will be provided to B‐2 crews IRC classroom instruction is only provided to B‐1 and B‐52 crews. B‐2 IRC performance is courseware only.

7 RFP, p. 26, Item 4105 Please verify the Continuation Training, Instrument Refresher Course (IRC) will be provided to B‐2 crews IRC classroom instruction is only provided to B‐1 and B‐52 crews. B‐2 IRC performance is courseware only.

8 RFP, p. 40, Par 3

Request the Government schedule the "pre‐proposal" conference as soon as possible. It is preferred that a pre‐ proposal conference be held before release of the final RFP so bidders can obtain clarification and answers to questions prior to engaging into technical and pricing solutions. The longer the Government waits to answer questions and/or hold conference, the shorter the actual propsoal period for bidders to craft their final solutions.

The Government intends to hold the pre‐proposal as soon as possible after the release of the solicitation. The Government will ensure that all questions regarding the solicitation are answered in a timely manner to allow sufficient time for potential offerors to develop their proposals.

9 RFP, p. 51, Par 2 B Request the Government identify the "key USAF" personnel positions that must be addressed to satisfy the referenced evaluation requirement. Rationale: With the subject nature of source selection, bidders need to understand the Government's specific requirement for coordination.

Key personnel will include be FTU Squadron leadership, TRSS commander, Contracting Officer, and Contracting Officer's Representative

10 RFP, p. 51, Par 3 A

Reference states "The proposed LMS/CMS ensures all data, files, records, lessons, reports, etc. from the current LMS/CMS (Structured Query Language (SQL) ‐ based) will transfer to any proposed LMS/CMS architecture without loss of material or fidelity". Request the Government provide better definition of its evaluation criteria.

This evaluation criteria is ambigous as it does not state how the bidder will be evaluated. Whereas all Source Selection has a degree of subjectivity, this evaluation criteria does not provide sufficient insight into what key elements are required to be address to show compliance. Also, the Government has not provided, and has not stated they will provide information needed concerning the current LMS/CMS to allow bidders adequately understand the scope, magnitude, and specific capabilities and elements to be transitioned.

This will be changed/addressed in the final RFP.

11 RFP, p. 51, Par 3 C

Reference states "Clearly describes how the proposed LMS/CMS will provide continuous access (available 24/7) to Bomber operations world‐wide." Request the Government clarify the point of demarcation where the contractor's responsibility ends. For example, the Contractor should not be responsible for remote and even local unit's inability to access systems, network, or internet resources that allows them access to the LMS/CMS.

Contractor is responsible for ensuring data is available by internet connection 24/7. Network/internet accessibility for the unit is the responsibitlity of the unit.

12 RFP, p. 51, Par 3 D

Reference states "Clearly explain how the proposed LMS/CMS will be accomplish the functions of the current LMS/CMS to include: (1) track student progress on CBTs; (2) track student progress of courses; (3) provide an Electronic Gradebook (EGB); (4) provide instructor documents." Request the Government establish a bidder's library that contains all Requirements Specifications, System Specifications, Database Schemas, Database Element Descriptions. This information is needed for both Unclassified and Classified instantiations. Rationale:

The Government's evaluation criteria is predicated on bidders knowing the current LMS/CMS. If the Government does not make detailed information concerning the current LMS/CMS capabilities and database architecture available, the Government has disadvantaged the bidder's capability to provide a compliant response.

The Government is currently determining if the current LMS/CMS will be available to the follow‐on contractor or if it is proprietary (the current contract was awarded by ACC/AMIC not AFGSC). If it will be available, this will no longer be an evaluation factor. If it is not available for a follow‐on contractor, then your company would be proposing your own system of choice, hence the requirement to clearly explain these things to the government for purposes of evaluation

13 RFP, p. 51, Par 3 E References states "Clearly explain how the proposed LMS/CMS systems/equipment will be functional at the end of the phase‐in period, with any proposed upgrades or enhancements functional no later than the end of the base year IAW PWS para XX". Please provide correct PWS para reference.

RFP corrected to read "Clearly explain how the proposed LMS/CMS systems/equipment will be functional at the end of the phase‐in period, with any proposed upgrades or enhancements functional no later than the end of the base year IAW PWS para 4.2.1.1."

14 RFP, p. 51, Para 3 E

Reference states: "Clearly explain how the proposed LMS/CMS systems/equipment will be functional at the end of the phase‐in period, with any proposed upgrades or enhancements functional no later than the end of the base year IAW PWS para XX". The evaluation criteria includes the phrase 'with any proposed upgrades or enhancements". Does the Government have a Requirements list that includes additional upgrades it requires?

Will this be provided with the Final RFP? Rationale: Since this is PPT source selection, there should be NO tradeoffs concern technical approach, a bidders' own proposing of enhancements should have no effect on acceptability ratings. Also ,reading the PWS, there is no provision for the Government to induce additional requirements into the LMS/CMS beyond the initial installation. Request the Government clarify this phrase in the evaluation criteria.

No upgrades or enhancements are required. However any upgrades / enhancements proposed by the contractor must be completed by the end of the first year.

15 RFP, p. 52, Para 4.1.4

Reference states “ Provides detailed list of Contractor Furnished Equipment that is compliant with Air Force Network Integration Center (AFNIC) approved products list and sufficiently meets Base Communication Squadron system integration requirements” . Request the Government provide a URL or a listing of the AFNIC approved products list. Rationale: Access is required to ensure LMS/CMS solutions meet requirements.

AF AO Approved SW resources have been provided on FBO.

16 RFP, p. 52, Para 4.1.4

Reference states “ Provides detailed list of Contractor Furnished Equipment that is compliant with Air Force Network Integration Center (AFNIC) approved products list and sufficiently meets Base Communication Squadron system integration requirements” . Request the Government provide any and all local base policies, instructions, procedures, etc. that is needed to ensure LMS/CMS implementations “sufficiently meets Base Communication Squadron system integration requirements.”

The government will provide assistance and instruction during phase‐in for implementation.

B‐1/B‐52 CAT/CWD ‐ DRAFT RFP Q&A

RFP, p. 54, Para 4.3.4 Table

The last two rows of the table appear to repeat the last two rows of the table defining Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings. Please clarify.

Table corrected to include the definition of "Not Relevant"

RFP, p. 56, Para 4.3.9.2.

Is it the Government’s intent to limit this competition to only companies that have previous Prime Contractor experience performing aircrew or aviation operations training? Rationale: The wording of the Relevancy definition, as written, eliminates all companies performing as subcontractors, and eliminates the possibility of new Prime contractors with complementary expertise from competing.

There a varying levels of relevancy and these are defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and reflected in the table on page 54 of the draft RFP. Relevant experience does not only include experience as a Prime contractor. Paragraph 4.3.3 of the RFP states, "Past performance regarding predecessory companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or sub‐contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be considered as highly as past performance information for the principle offeror." This includes previous work done as a subcontractor for someone now proposing as a prime. If you were concerned about paragraph 4.3.9.2 of the RFP (page 56), this was an inadvertant carryover from the previous LPTA source selection conducted by ACC/AMIC 5 years ago and this has been removed from the final RFP.

19 RFP, p.56, Para 4.3.9.2.

The Government has developed a very precise Relevancy criteria that intentionally excludes competition.

We recommend the Government reword the Relevancy criteria to allow relevancy credit for portions of the PWS that are not unique to aircrew training, such as ISD courseware development, device training, classroom instruction, maintaining a highly credentialed instructor workforce, implementing LMS/CMS solutions, etc. The unique aspects of this contract is the platform and instructional material - bidders should be permitted to show their ability to support aircrew training specifics by providing a compliant technical proposal. Just because a company has not had a contract supporting aircrew training should not automatically result in a “No Confidence” rating on past performance, which is what the current Relevancy definition does. It should also be noted, this work is covered under a CBA, where the returning workforce brings its own qualifications that were providing to the current incumbent during previous transition and will be provided to the follow-on contractor.

The Confidence Rating takes into account the recency and relevancy of all offeror's past performance, whether the offerors' past effort is determined to be Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, etc. As your example points out, there are portions of work in this requirement that are not specific to aircrew training and experience in this type of work would likely increase an offeror's confidence rating. The "No Confidence" rating within the "Past Performance Relevancy" table is an error. The table will be corrected to include a rating for "Not Relevant" and the "No Confidence and Unknown Confidence" rows within the table will be deleted from the Relevancy definitions table. If you were concerned about paragraph 4.3.9.2 of the RFP (page 56), this was an inadvertant carryover from the previous LPTA source selection conducted by ACC/AMIC 5 years ago and this has been removed from the final RFP.

20 PWS, p. 3, Para 1.1.

Reference states the place of performance to be Barksdale AFB, LA and Dyess AFB, TX. Does the Government anticipate permanent party requirements at Ellsworth AFB, SD to satisfy Continuation Training or any other training requirements? Rationale: PWS work tables show training support at Ellsworth AFB and also shows simulator information at Minot AFB, ND.

Optional CLIN X109 will require performance at Ellsworth AFB, SD if exercised. This is expected to be permanent party. There are no requirements for performance at Minot AFB, ND. References to Minot AFB have been removed.

21 PWS, p. 3, Para 1.1.

Reference states the place of performance to be Barksdale AFB, LA and Dyess AFB, TX. From a historical perspective, has there been permanent Contract positions supporting Ellsworth AFB, SD continuation training requirements?

There have historically been no contract positions supporting Ellsworth AFB CT requirements as this optional CLIN has not been exercised in the past.

22 PWS, p. 4, Para 2.2.

Will the Government provide a bidder’s library containing all Plans of Instruction, Syllabi, Lesson Plans, Training Plans and training materials for review? Rationale: Access is required to understand the scope, magnitude and flow of classroom training and its integration with device and live fly training.

No. These items are not releasable to the public domain. Documents and examples will be made available during site visit/industry day

PWS, p. 4, Para 2.2.1.4.

Request the government provide additional details on all “Learning Centers” that must be supported, to include number of computers, hours of operation, and specific requirement for SME support. Rationale:

Since the Government is requiring the contractor to make available Instructors for Learning Centers, bidders need to understand the scope and magnitude of the requirement.

B‐52 learning center houses 8 computers. B‐1 learning lab has 16 computers. CBT / self‐paced learning is included in the daily schedule and SME support is required during the actual CBT/self‐paced event.

PWS, p. 5, Para 2.2.1.7.

Reference states “Provide Instrument Refresher Course (IRC) instruction as required in B-52/B-1 syllabi.” Request the government provide a copy of the syllabi and course material associated with IRC instruction.

Course material is not releasable to the public domain. Course material will be made available during site visit/industry day.

PWS, p. 5, Para 2.2.1.8.

Reference states “Coordinate and conduct aircraft preflight required to support the syllabi.” Request the Government clarify whether aircraft preflight is within classroom or device environment or on operational aircraft. Rationale: Requirement does not state “aircraft preflight training”.

Syllabus may include aircraft pre‐flight on operational aircraft.

PWS, p. 5, Para

2.2.1.14. Please provide a list of the AFMANs and AFIs to be referenced.

Build training materials IAW current ISD guidance set forth in AFI 36‐2201 and AFH 36‐2235 Vols 1‐12. Contractor shall use DoDI 1322.20, Development and Management of Interactive Courseware (ICW) for Military Training and research/report ICW in the Defense Instructional Technology Information System (DITIS) IAW ACCI 36‐2250.

PWS, p. 5, Para

2.2.1.15. Please define “production folders.” Folder that is maintained on all individual course lessons containing historical data for the lesson.

PWS, p. 5, Para 2.2.1.15.

Please provide reference(s) to documentation that lists the structure and content of the production folder.

As a minimum, the historical data maintained in lesson production folders will include:

‐ Initial and current ISD management/project plan.

‐ Supporting documents pertaining to the lesson (such as tasking letters, curriculum meetings, acceptance documents, and analysis data/results).

‐ Initial and current validation plan and results (to include course materials, course content, and exams).

‐ Design and development documents (such as scripts and storyboards).

‐ Master copies of all lesson strategy reports applicable to the lesson in paper form.

PWS, p. 5, Para

2.2.1.17. Will the Government provide the facilities at each location to house library materials? Yes, facilities will be provided to house library materials.

PWS, p. 6, Para 2.2.2.11.

Request the Government provide a list and copies of local FTU written policies for review. Local FTU written policies will be provided during phase‐in.

31 PWS, p. 7, Para 3.3.1.

Request the Government grant access to existing courseware materials ASAP and preferable before release of the final RFP. Rationale: Given the extent of writing that this proposal requires, bidders need to use the proposal period to write the proposal and not attend pre-proposal conferences or access bidder’s libraries to research the requirement.

Course material is not releasable to the public domain. Course material will be made available during site visit/industry day.

32 PWS, p. 9, Para 3.4.8.

Is there a classroom aspect to the IRC or is it solely CBT based? Rationale: The RFP and PWS specifically call out IRC but does not explicitly discuss classroom instruction.

Classroom instruction is required for B‐1 and B‐52 as part of the syllabus. B‐2 IRC references are coureware development (CBT) only.

33 PWS, p. 10, Para 3.5.2. Third sentence mentions a “program management agency.” Please define. Program management agency will be the servicing TRSS detachment and the Contract Officer's Representative.

34 PWS, p. 12, Para 4.2.

Why is the Government spending money to purchase the same LMS/CMS capability that is currently in place? We have noticed this on many CAT/CWD contracts. Each program re-compete, the Government spends additional money to purchase the same capabilities over and over.

The Government will take this comment into consideration.

35 PWS, p. 12, Para 4.2.

Recommend the Government make the LMS/CMS a cost reimburseable expense and the final deliverable become property of the Government for future use. Rationale: The capability will roll into the next acquisition – saving the Government money.

The Government will take this comment into consideration.

36 PWS, p.12, Para 4.2.

Since the Government is going to pay for the stand-up and configuration of an LMS/CMS, why doesn’t the Government make the LMS/CMS a deliverable to the Government to be maintained by current and follow-on contractors? Since the RFP and PWS requests the same capabilities as the current system, it appears to be fiscally wasteful to repurchase the product. Not to mention, the added expense of training the B-52/B-1 force to learn a whole new interface and process.

The Government will take this comment into consideration.

PWS, p.12, Para 4.2.1.1.

Reference states that the LMS/CMS must "Perform all functions of B-1/B-52 Academic Database system(s) that were in place at contract award.” Request the government provide all current User Manuals, Requirements and Specification Documentation, Data Base Schemas to include complete SQL definitions of each field element. This information is needed for both Unclassified and Classified instantiations. Rationale. This information is needed as part of the Final RFP or a Bidder’s library to ensure bidders have adequate access to current information to satisfy the Government’s stated requirements. Without this information, the Government has disadvantaged a bidder’s ability to provide a compliant proposal response.

Government will provide more information on the current system at a later date.

PWS, p. 12, Para 4.2.1.1.

Reference states that the LMS/CMS must "Perform all functions of B-1/B-52 Academic Database system(s) that were in place at contract award.” Request the Government provide the requirements specification for LMS/CMS implementation. Rationale. Neither the RFP nor PWS provide sufficient details for complete understanding by bidders. Detailed requirements are necessary to formulate an LMS/CMS strategy for the proposal and in preparation for implementation at contract award. Without this information, the Government has disadvantaged bidders.

Government will provide more information on the current system at a later date.

PWS, p. 12, Para 4.2.1.3.

Reference states to “Track student progress on CBTs including time spent using individual CBTs.” Please clarify whether this is a current capability within current courseware CBTs in place for B-52/B-1 FTU and CT training.

This is a current capability within LMS/CMS

PWS, p. 12, Para 4.2.1.9.

Reference states to “Proposed systems will accept data from current academic database with no loss of material or fidelity. (Current system is Structured Query Language (SQL) -based ).” Please provide database schema with relationships and key fields. Please also provide detailed element descriptions.

Rationale. Information is needed to understand the Government’s requirement and prepare a response to the RFP.

Government will provide more information on the current system at a later date.

PWS, p. 13, Para 4.2.2.2.

Reference states to “Ensure proposed LMS/CMS will accept all data, files, records, lessons, reports, etc.

from the currently in use Academic Database without loss of data. ” Request the Government establish a bidders library that contains all Requirements Specification, System Specifications, Database Schemas, Database Element Descriptions. This information is needed for both Unclassified and Classified instantiations. Rationale: This information is needed to provide a compliant response to the solicitation and prepare efforts for implementation during the Transition Period.

Government will provide more information on the current system at a later date.

42 PWS, p. 12, Para 4.2.

Reference states to “Ensure proposed LMS/CMS will accept all data, files, records, lessons, reports, etc.

from the currently in use Academic Database without loss of data. ” Request the Government establish a bidders library that contains all Requirements Specification, System Specifications, Database Schemas, Database Element Descriptions. This information is needed for both Unclassified and Classified instantiations. Rationale: This information is needed to provide a compliant response to the solicitation and prepare efforts for implementation during the Transition Period.

Government will provide more information on the current system at a later date.

PWS, p. 19, Para 4.11.2.

Please explain why the table includes the last line depicting the WST (Minot AFB) simulator. Rationale.

There is no core or optional training specified for Minot AFB, ND.

References to Minot AFB have been removed.

PWS, p. 19, Para 4.11.3

Please explain why the table includes the last line depicting the WST (Ellsworth AFB) simulator.

Rationale. Does the Government expect permanent contractor personnel to be assigned to Ellsworth AFB, continuation training if the optional task is exercised?

Optional CLIN X109 will require performance at Ellsworth AFB, SD if exercised. This is expected to be permanent party.

45 PWS, p. 20, Para 4.12.

Please provide access to the AFNIC APL and SDC for both Unclassified and Classified network and computing operations. Rationale: Information is needed to develop a compliant proposal.

AF AO Approved SW resources have been provided on FBO.

46 PWS, p. 21, Para 4.13.

Request the Government provide access to the Style Guide so bidders can reference when preparing proposal responses. Rationale: The Style Guide is needed to fully understand the Government’s requirement.

Style Guide will be posted as an attachment to the RFP

PWS, p. 33, Para 8.6.6.1.

Please define “EGB” as used in the referenced paragraph. Electronic Grade Book. Each student has an Electronic Grade Book for event tracking and training accomplishment reporting.

PWS, p. 33, Para 8.6.6.1.

Reference states “Physical location of this equipment will be described in the Instructional Systems Development Management Plan ISDMP. “ Please clarify that the Government only requires the location of equipment to be stated in the ISDMP. Rationale. The evaluation criteria aligns LMS/CMS information under Subfactor B: Training Management and Approach.

Government only requires the location of the equipment to be stated in the ISDMP. Location is at the discretion of the contractor.

49 DD254

The DD254 specifies in Item 13 that contract performance is restricted to the locations in item 8a. Item 8a specifies Dyess AFB ad Barksdale AFB but the DD254 does not identify Ellsworth AFB and Minot AFB in para 4.11 of the workload tables. The RFP Delivery Information specifies Ellsworth but not Minot. Can the government confirm the performance locations?

Locations include Barksdale, Dyess and may include Ellsworth upon activation of the optional B‐1 CT CLIN. The DD254 will be updated to reflect Ellsworth in the event that CLIN is activated. Minot will not be a performance location.

50 PWS, para 4.2 The Draft PWS in para 4.2 identified that there may be classifies coursewre and materials. Is there a requirement for classified training to be delivered via an LMS/CMS accessible via the classified SIPRNET?

All unclassified material shall be accessible from the FTU/TRSS unclassified LAN from military or civilian workstations, while all classified material shall be located on a classified server that can be accessed via a SIPRNET web page, with password controls (if SIPRNET is not available, then electronic media will be made available to the instructors).

51 RFP, Para 9.1.

Draft RFP para 9.1. states a due date for the Past Performance Volume and PPQs. Does this indicate that the Past Performance Volume and PPQs will be due at a date earlier that the other Volumes or will the due date be the same for all Volumes and the PPQs?

The Government intends to request Past Performance volumes and PPQs to be due on the same date and time as the Technical and Price Volumes. This paragraph will be updated once the solicitaiton is released.

PWS, App 1, A1.4.2.2.1.

1) B-52 FTU Training Device Events – High Order Trainer (CLIN X103). In reference to both “E IQ” and “E TX2/3” the figures for “Brief and Debrief Time Required” show “0.00.” From our calculations these figures should be “594.00” and “108.00” respectively. Due to this difference the Total Hours are not consistent. Can you clarify these figures?

Some simulator events do not require brief and debrief time per the syllabus. Actual brief and debrief time should show 18 hours for EIQ and 22.5 hours for TX 2/3. The total hours requirement should show 3914.55 and will be adjusted in the next draft.

PWS, App 1, A1.4.2.2.2.

1) B-52 FTU Training Device Events – Lower Order Trainers (CLIN X103). The Average PFT Students per Class show “6.0” and the Average Student Classes per Year show “3.0.” Then the Simulator Events per Student per Course across to the Total Hours show “0.0.” This would indicate that there are no simulator events for the AC TX2/3 course(s). Are there actually no simulator events required for the AC TX2/3 course(s)?

There are no simulator events for the AC TX 2/3 course(s).