AFMS3 3.0 Pre Proposal Conference Slides.pptx

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e Air Force Modeling and Simulation Support Services (AFMS3) 3.0 Virtual Pre-Proposal Conference CONTRACTING OFFICER: Capt Richard Snyder DATE: 16 Jan 2025

Overview Rules of Engagement Acquisition Team Acquisition Description Acquisition Background RFP Updates Section L Section M Questions & Answers

Rules of Engagement Ensure your microphone and cameras are turned off. Participants may unmute during their turn in the Q&A portion after the briefing.

Participants are instructed to use the ‘hand raise’ feature during the Q&A portion. Questions will be taken in the order received.

This conference is not intended to be a line-by-line review of the PWS, Section L or M, or any other documents in the RFP.

This conference will end at 3pm Eastern Time.

This conference will not be recorded, nor will any meeting minutes be posted. The Government will post these slides on the RFP listing on SAM.gov. This is the last intended engagement w/industry before proposals are due.

Disclaimer: If there are any inconsistencies between this briefing and the RFP on SAM.gov, the RFP will take precedence (unless amended).

Acquisition Team Program Manager: Major Jonathon Ashley Contracting Officer: Capt Richard Snyder The COs are the only points of contacts for this acquisition

ALL CLARIFICATIONS, QUESTIONS, AND INQUIRIES MUST BE SUBMITTED TO: afdw.pk.afms3_30@us.af.mil

Acquisition Description:

AFMS3 3.0 Overview AFMS3 3.0: Follow-on contract soliciting specialized operational and technical assistance, along with subject matter expertise (SME), to advance M&S capabilities.

Aims to:

Develop & refine M&S architectures for mission interoperability and efficiency Implement robust standards & cybersecurity measures to protect systems & data Enhance engineering capabilities and training systems for realistic simulations Leverage IT solutions and security protocols for secure operations Facilitate interoperability and integration of M&S systems for Joint and Coalition operations and training

Purpose: Ensure DAF, DoD, and External Partner Agencies maintain cutting-edge M&S capabilities that are secure, interoperable, and efficient.

Contractor’s Scope: Support the government in all functions associated with delivering specialized operational and technical assistance to develop, maintain, sustain, and enhance M&S capabilities. This includes the following: M&S architecture, ensuring interoperability, maintain cybersecurity, training courseware development, and enhancing training systems & simulations to improve training and readiness.

Acquisition Description:

Current Stakeholders (AFMS3 2.0)

Acquisition Description: AFMS3 2.0 Locations

AFAMS

31 Efforts for 24 Organizations at 20 Locations – Distributed Service on a Global Scale

Acquisition Background Air Force Modeling and Simulation Support Services (AFMS3) 3.0 is a follow-on, Single Award ID/IQ AFMS3 2.0 is currently held via GSA Assisted Acquisition Services through a Task Order off the GSA OASIS Multiple Award IDIQ.

The Period of Performance runs through 11 June 2025. Incumbent is SAIC.

The new effort, 3.0, is intended to be a 5-year ordering period with a contract ceiling of $972M.

The IDIQ will be a hybrid FFP, CPFF, FPIF, T&M, and CR contract.

Minimum guaranteed Task Order will be the initial Task Order for the Air Force Agency for Modeling and Simulation (AFAMS) M&S

RFP Updates Proposals are due NLT 14 Feb 2025, 2pm Eastern Time (Amendment 2) Any files over 10mb are to be submitted via DODSAFE, Offerors need to email the org box to request a link. It is strongly encouraged Offerors follow up to ensure DODSAFE drop offs were received in time. Late submittal of proposals will may result in disqualification of the offer in accordance with FAR 15.208.

To date, 16 Jan 2025, there have been two amendments. The last one being released 14 Jan 2025.

Resumes have been added to potential work sample requirements.

Removed statement in section L, Team Members may choose to submit their CPARs directly to the Government.

PPQ’s can be sent to the offeror as well as the Government so the offeror can input the scores into the self scoring matrix prior to proposal submission. It is recommended Offerors circle back with their PPQ point of contact to have PPQ’s in work or completed sent to them. The Government will not send PPQs to offerors.

Appendix D Past Performance Information Sheet has been removed as it is essentially the same as Appendix A Work Sample Cover Sheet.

Certified cost or pricing data is required once an awardee has been determined.

Attachment 5 Pricing template, offerors are to propose a rate sheet for each location listed in Section L (31 locations, offerors may combine locations as they see fit) also propose rates for unclass, secret, and TS rates.

TEP is derived from offerors input into attachment 5 for a notional labor hour set.

Offerors can modify and add rows to attachment 5, an unlocked version has been uploaded in amendment 2.

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions with one, some, or all Offerors if necessary.

This list is not all inclusive, Offerors must thoroughly examine the updated documents of Amendment 2

Section L Instructions to Offerors Section L consists of the following volumes:

Volume I – Administrative Volume II – Gate 1: Top Secret Facility Clearance Level Volume III – Gate 2: Small Business Participation Plan Volume IV – Technical Past Experience Volume V – Technical Past Experience Ratings Volume VI – IDIQ Cost/Price Proposal Volume VII – Initial Task Order Proposal

3.4.1 Work Samples

10 Work Samples are to be submitted (Contracts/Task Orders or a combination) Each Work Sample needs to be accompanied by a CPAR or PPQ Each Work Sample must meet the qualifications in Section L para 3.4.1.3

3.4.2 Self-Rated Scoring Matrix

Offerors shall complete Appendix B Self-Scoring Matrix. Self-rated scores shall be verifiable using the work samples provided.

3.4.3 Cross Reference Matrix

The Offeror shall provide a Cross Reference Matrix which clearly identifies the exact location of the substantiating data within the work samples.

3.6.1.1 Attachment 5 – AFMS3 Labor Pricing Template

Offerors are to propose a rate sheet for each location listed in Section L (31 locations, offerors may combine locations as they see fit) also propose rates for unclass, secret, and TS rates.

Offerors shall provide copies of correspondence from DCAA or Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) regarding the most recent approval of rates and/or systems, such as Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs), Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations (FPRRs), Provisional Billing Rates (PBRs), and Accounting System Approval.

3.6.3 Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP)

This IDIQ and resultant TO’s will require meaningful numbers of professional employees.

Certified Cost/Pricing data is required upon notification by the Government that the HTRO is the apparent awardee.

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award Basis For Contract Award The Government intends to award the contract following an objective assessment and validation of the Highest Technical Rated Offeror (HTRO) with a Fair and Reasonable Price (FRP) Award Without Discussions Volume I Administrative – will be evaluated for compliance of submitted information required to be considered eligible for award.

Volume II Gate 1 Top Secret (TS) Facility Clearance Level (FCL) - Acceptable/unacceptable if offeror completely fills out and possesses a TS FCL Volume III Gate 2- Small Business Participation Plan - Each Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan (SBPP) shall be validated, based on the elements below, to determine if the Offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the participation objectives and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives.

Volume IV Technical Past Experience – The Government will validate the self-rated scores of the HTRO. To do this, the Government will use the work samples provided by the Offeror.

Volume V Technical Past Experience Ratings - The Government will validate Technical Past Experience Ratings via the Offerors CPARS or PPQ. The Government will evaluate the Technical Past Performance Ratings of each work sample provided by the Offeror in support of their Technical Past Experience self-rated score.

Volume VI: IDIQ Cost/Price Proposal - The Offeror’s IDIQ cost/price proposal (Narrative and Template) will be evaluated using Price Analysis, Cost Analysis, and Cost Realism techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404, for a price proposal that is complete, balanced, fair and reasonable with a realistic PECP.

Volume VII – Initial Task Order Proposal - Offeror’s Initial Task Order proposal will be verified to ensure Offerors are using pricing from Attachment 5 AFMS3 3.0 AFMS3 Labor Pricing Template. Offeror’s Initial Task Order proposal will be evaluated as complete, balanced, and fair and reasonable using the techniques above in para 3.6.1.

Questions?

Conclusion Thank you for attending our Pre-proposal Conference image2.jpg image3.png

Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet.xlsx Distro

RFS # Requirements Organizations POC Rank, Name POC Email Organization Effort Comments

1 Headquarters Air Force Operational Training Infrastructure Division (HAF/A3TI) Col. Nicholas Yates nicholas.yates@us.af.mil HAF/A3TI AF Operational Training & Test Infrastructure (OTTI) Support Loss of AFMS support would be catastrophic to AF/A3TI. These contractors comprise 40% of the division’s workforce and provide unique skill sets that are not typically resident in the GS workforce. Additionally, the division is not manned to perform PM or COR duties, nor do we have anyone trained in these areas. We are fully dependent on AFAMS to continue to perform this role. Some of the key impacts would be:

- Loss of SME support to ensure the operational viability of the $2.2B Joint Simulation Environment (JSE) program.

- Loss of SME support to execution requirements prioritization for the JSE program.

- Loss of technical expertise for the Master Exercise Calendar and Center Scheduling Enterprise systems resulting in degradation in FAA coordination of the National Airspace System.

- Loss of the geospatial analysis capability to evaluate the impact of renewable energy development on Air Force operations resulting in the loss of AF training space.

- Loss of PBES technical expertise resulting in the inability to program over $5B annually for Operational Training and Test Infrastructure.

Mr. Andy Chamblee andrew.chamblee.1@us.af.mil

Lt Col Matthew Hopkins matthew.hopkins.1@us.af.mil

Mr. Bob Boyles robert.boyles.4@us.af.mil

5 Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulator Program Office (AFLCMC/WNS) Mr. Gary Coe gary.coe.1@us.af.mil AFLCMC/WNS AFLCMC/WNS Cybersecurity Support

Jacquata Long jacquata.long@us.af.mil

Jeremy Holmes jeremy.holmes.9@us.af.mil

9 Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Directorate of Air and Cyberspace Operations (PACAF A3/6) Col. Jason Monaco jason.monaco@us.af.mil PACAF A3/6 Pacific Air Forces M&S Component MAJCOM Support

Lt Col Onnie Retkofsky onnie.retkofsky.4@us.af.mil

Uyen Tran uyen_tu.tran@us.af.mil

11 505th Combat Training Squadron (505 CTS) Lt Col. Michael Power michael.power.1@us.af.mil ACC 505CTS Space & Cyber Senior Technical Engineer

Elizabeth Casey elizabeth.casey.3@us.af.mil

13 United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) and Air Forces Africa (AFAFRICA) Warfare Center (UAWC) Mr. Robert Zaniewski robert.zaniewski.2@us.af.mil USAFE UAWC/DS United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) and Air Forces Africa (AFAFRICA) Warfare Center (UAWC) Support RFS13 - UAWC adamantly disagrees with the COA to divest the AFMS3 contract. Doing so would undo the tremendous efforts put forth to break down the stovepipes we previously operated in. The AFMS3 contract facilitated a community of similar mission sets now focused on communicating with each other towards a common goal.

As the largest RFS under AFMS3, we do not have the manpower or expertise to take on the management of our RFS as a separate contract. Our local contracting office is undermanned, overwhelmed, and can't provide the oversight needed.

Because our local contracting office can't manage our individual contracts, we would have to jump on an existing contract vehicle that has fees defeating the purpose of divestment. Furthermore, our local contracting office favors and prioritizes Firm Fixed Price contracts that are inherently more expensive than Cost Plus contracts. In the long run no money is saved.

Lt Col James “Holy” Schmidt james.schmidt.2@us.af.mil

Lt Col Ryan “Rhino” Oneil ryan.oneil@us.af.mil

Mr. William "Will" Ford william.ford.25@us.af.mil

Mr. Barton "Bart" Randolph barton.randolph.1@us.af.mil

Lt Col Meridith Young meredith.young@us.af.mil

Lt Col Matthew Mumm matthew.mumm@us.af.mil

Mr. Johnathan Powell johnathan.powell@us.af.mil

16 Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulator Program Office (AFLCMC/WNS) Ms. Susan Schemmel susan.schemmel@us.af.mil AFLCMC/WNS Modeling and Simulation Subject Matter Expertise we would lose quality engineering and test expertise to support our program. This would impact concurrency of our F16 simulators and many of our simulator updates.

Ms. Laura Stookey laura.stookey.1@us.af.mil

Ms. Lindsay Babish lindsay.babish@us.af.mil

17 Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulator Program Office (AFLCMC/WNS) Mr. Gary Coe gary.coe.1@us.af.mil AFLCMC/WNS Cybersecurity Support After the first year AFMS3 v1 management was taken away from AFAMS and given to AFLCMC/WNS. If AFMS3 v3 were given to a different organization to manage I don’t see an impact.

If AFMS3 v3 were not awarded at all I would move my contractors to the AFLCMC/WNS managed contract that is in place to support ACC and the JITTC and DTTRs. HII is the prime for that contract. I already have people being hired on that contract in support of our JITTC and JTE cybersecurity work.

Ms. Jacquata Long jacquata.long@us.af.mil

Dr. Karl Wiers karl.wiers.2@us.af.mil

29 Headquarters Air Force, Weather Operations (HAF/A3W) Mr. Frederick Fahlbusch (GS-15) frederick.fahlbusch.1@us.af.mil HAF/A3W Provide Cybersecurity, Data and Cloud Migration Support to A3W

Mr. Robert “Taz” Kraetsch robert.kraetsch.1@us.af.mil

Lt Col Douglas Oltmer douglas.oltmer@us.af.mil

Mr. Frank Leute frank.leute@us.af.mil

Ms. Gina Barbaro gina.barbaro@us.af.mil

Ms. Gloria Zhang gloria.zhang@us.af.mil

32 Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulator Program Office (AFLCMC/WNS) Mr. James White james.white.141@us.af.mil AFLCMC/WNS DMO Scheduling System DMO and JSE use DMOSS (RFS-032) for scheduling of all events and a repository for online training. DMOSS is available 24/7 with everyone talking on the same system for 5 Distributed training centers and 120 DMO sites. If RFS-032 goes away, then DMO and JSE are crippled for 12-36 months while we figure out some other scheduling and training capability inferior to DMOSS.

VR

-INDY

RFS032 is for the DMOSS effort. The DMOSS is the Distributed Mission Operations Scheduling System. It is the platform that CAF, MAF, ANG and AFSOC use on a daily bases to schedule training on our multiple training networks. Currently, DMOSS is transitioning over to Cloud One and will further increase its usefulness as it will be able to store CUI information while scheduling training. Between CAF DMO, MAF DMO and ANG OTS, 872 training events were scheduled and executed leading to 2,258 training hours being completed in the month of April alone. The Joint Simulation Environment (JSE) in the newest program that the Simulator division is undertaking, and it will be using DMOSS as its means of scheduling training.

We cannot move these efforts in house without a significant cost to the warfighter and a huge sunk cost to the government as we would need to recreate a capability that we already are using that works well. I hope this helps and best of luck with your briefing.

Capt Kevin LeCours kevin.lecours.1@us.af.mil

Mr. Michael Lowery michael.lowery.19@us.af.mil

33 Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulator Program Office (AFLCMC/WNS) Ms. Megan Cornett megan.cornett.1@us.af.mil AFLCMC/WNS Simulator Division (AFLCMC/WNS) Support

Mr. Scott Poznanski scott.poznanski.2@us.af.mil

Ms. Jacquata Long jacquata.long@us.af.mil

36 Air Force Agency for Modeling and Simulation (AFAMS) Mr. Brett Telford brett.telford.1@us.af.mil AFAMS AFAMS M&S Support

41 611th Air Communications Squadron (611 ACOMS) MSgt. Brian Sweeney brian.sweeney.3@us.af.mil PACAF 611ACOMS Cyber Operations Support for 11th Air Force I am MSgt Sweeney, the government lead for RFS014 under the AFMS3 contract. TSgt Ryals is the alternate, he is cc’d on this message traffic. I spoke to the unit stakeholders about this situation, please see below for answers to your questions. Unfortunately, with such short notice the information I can provide is not very expansive. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Thank you, and have a great day!

Q1: Would you invest individually?

A1: Unknown at this time.

Q2: Would one of your orgs take on the full effort?

A2: Unknown at this time.

Q3: What capabilities are lost if it goes away completely?

A3: There would be a loss of two capability sets as this contract provides the 11th Air Force with Cyber Defense and Cybersecurity support. These Teams stand as crucial assets in fortifying the local NORAD-NORTHCOM-SIPRNet Enclave supporting the Homeland Defense, INDOPACOM, and NORAD-NORTHCOM missions.

- Our Cybersecurity contractors currently provide compliance with DISA governance, vulnerability management, end point security monitoring and incident response. Both positions have years of continuity and familiarity with JBER and its networks to include NORAD-NORTHCOM. Losing these positions would cause the Alaska NORAD Region’s security posture to degrade considerably, opening ourselves up to threats and possible exploitation.

- Our Cyber Defense contractor is critical to out Cyber Defense Team. Without the skills, knowledge, and experience of the contractor there would be a significant loss of strategic technical guidance, advanced incident response capabilities, and expertise in policy development. The team would struggle to respond effectively to sophisticated cyber threats, leading to potential security breaches, and compromised strategic initiatives. The absence of mentorship and guidance would also hinder the development of junior team members.

TSgt Joshua Ryals joshua.ryals@us.af.mil

We cannot move these efforts in house without a significant cost to the warfighter and a huge sunk cost to the government as we would need to recreate a capability that we already are using that works well. I hope this helps and best of luck with your briefing.

Capt Kevin LeCours kevin.lecours.1@us.af.mil

Jimmy Dennis jimmy.dennis.2@us.af.mil

This Task Order is critical to the Air Combat Command’s Future Operations Division (A35) focused on solving ACC/A3 operations issues within a future timeframe of three months through the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). HQ ACC/A35 is not sourced with sufficient active duty and civilian manpower to perform all tasked required programs. Without AFMS3 support there is no way HQ ACC/A35 will be able to solve Combat Air Forces operational issues, integrate across multiple organizations and apply appropriate problem solving methodologies. Nor would the division be able to focus on developing concepts of operations (CONOPS) documents, understand risks and assumptions associated with resourcing operational plans (OPLANS), update ACC unit Designed Operational Capability (DOC) statements or integrate special access information (SAP/SAR) across HQ ACC Staff and down to Wing-level units.

Thanks, V/R, Ozzie

ERIC S. NELSON, CIV DAF

Deputy Chief, Future Operations Division

Mr. David A. Hagginbothom david.hagginbothom.1@us.af.mil

Mr. Eric "Ozzie" Nelson eric.nelson.42@us.af.mil

49 National Guard Bureau A2/3/6/10T Mr. Robert Seaton robert.seaton.2@us.af.mil NGB A2/3/6/10T F-16 Simulator Instructor or Operations Subject Matter Expert (SME) at Buckley AFB, CO, Tulsa, OK, Toledo, OH, Duluth, MN, Andrews AFB, DC, and Atlantic City, NJ NGB is strongly opposed to divesting the AFMS3 contract. This contract vessel provides numerous capabilities for our simulator training efforts and plugs holes across the entire ANG training enterprise. We can’t afford to lose this contract on the stated timeline. Please see our impact statements below and I’d like to be a part of any conversation where leadership is making a decision on this effort. Feel free to call if you need more details.

Mr. Mike Hanke michael.hanke.3@us.af.mil

57 Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulator Program Office (AFLCMC/WNS) Mr. Dustin Serres dustin.serres@us.af.mil AFLCMC/WNS AETC Cybersecurity Support.

Lt Corey Tanis corey.tanis.1@us.af.mil

Ms. Lindsey Kathmann lindsey.kathmann@us.af.mil

Mr. Donald Anstaett donald.anstaett@us.af.mil

70 National Guard Bureau A3/10T Mr. Stephen Butler stephen.butler.3@us.af.mil NGB A3/10T ANG Modeling & Simulation (M&S) Simulator and Training Support

Mr. Mike Hanke michael.hanke.3@us.af.mil

72 Air Force Special Operations Command, Operations Training Division, Distributed Training Branch (AFSOC/A3TD) Maj. Aaron Chamberlain aaron.chamberlain.3@us.af.mil AFSOC/A3TD Joint Training Event Planners While we are a very small RFS, the AFMS3 contract has provided us with great capabilities—truly we wouldn’t be able to do DMO in AFSOC without their support, we just don’t have the govt/mil manning at the moment.

If this went away, we would likely turn to existing AFSOC owned contracts to meet the requirements. This is not a desired solution for us and would likely result in significant gaps in our DMO capabilities, while we rebuilt and/or tried to find the right folks.

The enterprise solution has benefitted us several times already. We’ve brought in several folks in a part-time fashion who were already on the AFMS3 contract on a different RFS. This helped cover down in gaps in manpower, or bring in SMEs in areas where we need it (JTAC SME, for example). When we had one of our full-time folks leave, we were able to bring on someone else quickly and seamlessly.

Countless times we’ve been able to reach out to the AFMS network for various questions/SMEs for different efforts…. VR Goggles, Cross Domain solutions, to name a few. Having this network of people and knowledge is maybe hard to quantify, but it makes us all more connected and benefits all, I believe.

Hope this helps and you’re able to pick up some useful bits—let me know if you have any follow-up questions!

V/R, Aaron Chamberlain, Maj, USAF Chief, Distributed Training Branch

HQ AFSOC/A3TD

Comm: 850-884-6081

DSN: 312-579-6081

Cell: 937-935-8166 NIPR: aaron.chamberlain.3@us.af.mil

Clayton Engle clayton.engle@us.af.mil

73 Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Fighters and Advanced Aircraft Directorate (AFLCMC/WA) Mr. Aaron Hart aaron.hart.6@us.af.mil AFLCMC/WA Training System Requirements Analysis (TSRA)

Maj Raymond Mims raymond.mims@us.af.mil

Mr. Blake Wilson blake.wilson.4@us.af.mil

74 Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulator Program Office (AFLCMC/WNS) Lt. Col. Robert Knapp robert.knapp.1@us.af.mil AFLCMC/WNS Aircrew Training System Requirements Analysis (TSRA)

Mr. Rex Easley rex.easley@us.af.mil

Ms. Brook Gibson brooke.gibson.1@us.af.mil

75 Detachment 24, 19th Air Force, Air Education Training Command (AETC/19AF/DET24) Lt. Col. Steve Briones steve.briones@us.af.mil AETC/19AF/DET24 USAF Aviation Training Innovation Support 19AF has three active task orders on the AFMS vehicle. 19AF/A5 and Detachment 24 benefit greatly from the broad scope of the PWS and responsiveness of the AAS team. As pathfinders with the modeling and simulation and innovation communities, we appreciate having the AFMS contract as a rapid acquisition option when tasked by leadership to integrate new technologies and methodologies from prototype to scale on short timelines. Without this contract we would be hard-pressed to find another contract that provides task order owners with the same flexibility to grow/shrink/re-vector the team, ability to award and/or mod task orders quickly, and has broad scope related to modeling and simulation technologies in the training realm. Our contracting team is limited in bandwidth to support rapid innovation efforts in addition to their existing workload, and the amount of pre-requirement documentation and coordination on our part to go that route would be detrimental to achieving the timelines we have been directed to achieve. Finally, from an AFAMS perspective, we believe this contract provides your office with visibility on the various efforts that would be lost if this contract goes away. You lose the ability to identify duplicative efforts or technology advances in one task order that could be used to leapfrog another’s.

RFS-075: Supports the Pilot Training Next innovation efforts at Detachment 24. Flexibility, responsiveness, and rapid contracting have been crucial to getting after the hi-vis directives levied on this organization. Air Mobility Fundamentals-Simulator, the first ever simulator-only flying program, was developed at the Det and scaled by 19AF/A5 (see RFS-080). For the past almost two years this team has been performing the Instructional Systems Design, Courseware, Curriculum, and technology integration for the CSAF-directed Fighter-Bomber Fundamentals (FBF) course. Since the RFS (now TDL) can be broadly written, Det 24 was able to keep the team that performed these functions for AMF-S and roll directly to FBF without having to compete a new contract. The continuity and ability to leverage lessons-learned aided in reducing the timeline to first Small Group Tryout (SGTO) of the new syllabus.

RFS-080: Supports scaling and sustainment of the AMF-S course. The T-1 aircraft was slated for divestment with no replacement. Detachment 24 leveraged the AFMS vehicle to create a new course and develop a new low-cost Mixed-Reality device with motion, which 19AF/A5 then scaled across three Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) bases. Through the AFMS vehicle we were able to achieve all of this in under three years.

RFS-086: Supports the Instructional Systems Design evaluation of the Combat Systems Officer (CSO) course. With the divestment of the T-1, the CSO course at Pensacola also needs a complete analysis to determine how the overall competencies, learning objectives, and KSAs can be achieved with existing resources or potential new solutions. This divestment decision occurred much earlier than originally anticipated, and 19AF/A5 was able to get the RFS awarded in about a month with UFR funding during the end of year chaos. A traditional contracting organization, and most GWACS/IDIQs/etc., would not have been able to achieve this and the replacement program would have delayed.

Mr. Andrew Jett andrew.jett.4.ctr@us.af.mil

Mr. Brent Jarrett brent.jarrett.2.ctr@us.af.mil

Ms. Sandy Montez sandy.montez@us.af.mil

Col Jerry Bennett jerry.bennett@us.af.mil

Capt Joseph "Joe" Dooley joseph.dooley.1@us.af.mil

Maj Brack Nall brack.nall@us.af.mil

77 Secretary of the Air Force, Director for Air Force Studies and Analysis, Chief Modeling and Simulation Office (SAF/SAA CMSO) Lt. Col. Jason Sutherlin jason.sutherlin@us.af.mil SAF/SAA CMSO Chief Modeling and Simulation Officer (CMSO) Program Support Today, CMSO does not have the bandwidth to take on this workload. It’s a fair question to ask if CMSO would take this on in the future but buy-in with CMSO Executive and SAF/SA leadership, additional civilian billets, and time (suspect 2+ years) would be required.

CMSO established RFS-077 which provides access to a wide range and depth of M&S SMEs directly supporting the SecAF’s DAF M&S Strategy, the CMSO office, and the DAF M&S governance structure delivering synchronizing DAF M&S activities and providing enterprise level access to tools, data/models, and compute resources across classified networks for ~20,000 Joint users. The other contracts CMSO use are “niche” SBIR contracts which are not capable of providing the same breadth/depth of M&S services compared to an enterprise contract.

If AFMS3 went away, the CMSO would lose 50% of its office SME / staff and 6-12 months to find and get onto multiple other contracts (assuming they exist).

Vr -Lt Col Sutherlin

Jason "Humpy" Sutherlin, Lt Col, USAF Acting Director, Chief Modeling & Simulation Office

SAF/SAM

571-256-2020

Mr. John Dickinson (GS-15) john.dickinson.9@us.af.mil

Ms. Vicki White vicki.white@us.af.mil

78 555th Software Engineering Squadron (555 SWES) Mr. Fouad Bennani (NH-03) fouad.bennani@us.af.mil AFMC 555SWES 555 SWES Information Systems Security Support

Ms. Katrina "Kati" Ockman katrina.ockman@us.af.mil

79 559th Software Engineering Squadron (559 SWES) Mr. David Gilbert (GS-12) david.gilbert.28@us.af.mil AFMC 559 SWES/MXDPFD 559th Software Engineering Squadron Support RFS079 currently utilizes the AFMS contract to support/augment staffing for Cyber Security Engineering Efforts across the 76th SWEG. Due to the unique/highly specialized skillset and required certifications, internal staffing efforts have failed to produce the candidates needed to fill these roles.

The divestation of this contract/loss of these personnel would result in immediate work stoppage until other external staffing efforts could replicate this process. An internal replacement contract, based on contract PALT, would not be awarded until CY 2025 then an additional 6 months to vet/on-board certified candidates. The customers that we support cannot risk an 18-month lapse in coverage and would opt for less-efficient and non-cost effective methods through other agencies.

Mr. Jason Gravette jason.gravette.1@us.af.mil

Mr. Charles Dunn charles.dunn.11@us.af.mil

Mr. Jon Burkhart jon.burkhart.1@us.af.mil

80 19th Air Force, Air Education Training Command (AETC) Mr. Frank Yannuzzi; Mr. Leroy Mink frank.yannuzzi.1@us.af.mil; leroy.mink@us.af.mil AETC 19 AF/A5/8 USAF Aviation Training Scaling, Development, and Sustainment Support 19AF has three active task orders on the AFMS vehicle. 19AF/A5 and Detachment 24 benefit greatly from the broad scope of the PWS and responsiveness of the AAS team. As pathfinders with the modeling and simulation and innovation communities, we appreciate having the AFMS contract as a rapid acquisition option when tasked by leadership to integrate new technologies and methodologies from prototype to scale on short timelines. Without this contract we would be hard-pressed to find another contract that provides task order owners with the same flexibility to grow/shrink/re-vector the team, ability to award and/or mod task orders quickly, and has broad scope related to modeling and simulation technologies in the training realm. Our contracting team is limited in bandwidth to support rapid innovation efforts in addition to their existing workload, and the amount of pre-requirement documentation and coordination on our part to go that route would be detrimental to achieving the timelines we have been directed to achieve. Finally, from an AFAMS perspective, we believe this contract provides your office with visibility on the various efforts that would be lost if this contract goes away. You lose the ability to identify duplicative efforts or technology advances in one task order that could be used to leapfrog another’s.

RFS-080: Supports scaling and sustainment of the AMF-S course. The T-1 aircraft was slated for divestment with no replacement. Detachment 24 leveraged the AFMS vehicle to create a new course and develop a new low-cost Mixed-Reality device with motion, which 19AF/A5 then scaled across three Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) bases. Through the AFMS vehicle we were able to achieve all of this in under three years.

Col Jerry Bennett jerry.bennett@us.af.mil

Mr. Brent Jarrett brent.jarrett.2.ctr@us.af.mil

Lt Col Rob Knapp robert.knapp.1@us.af.mil

Mr. Fredrick Moulton frederick.moulton.3@us.af.mil

Mr. Brian Kirk brian.kirk.2@us.af.mil

Capt Joseph "Joe" Dooley joseph.dooley.1@us.af.mil

Lt Col Tracy Schmidt tracy.schmidt@us.af.mil

81 Headquarters, Air Education and Training Command, Operations Directorate (AETC/A3) Mr. Floyd Mckinney floyd.mckinney.1@us.af.mil AETC/A3 Distributed Learning Services Architecture (DLSA)

AETC Cybersecurity Support+E26:E36+C93

v/r CAPT McNally

CDR Lisa Rodman Lisa.M.Rodman@uscg.mil

LT Krystal Wolfe Krystal.L.Wolfe@uscg.mil

LCDR Ian Culver Ian.A.Culver@uscg.mil

Jeffery Cavallo Jeffery.R.Cavallo@uscg.mil

83 USAF Weapons School Mr. Mauricio Simancas mauricio.simancas@us.af.mil ACC USAFWS Operational Training and Test Infrastructure (OTTI) Support to the USAF Weapons School

Vianca Hernandez Aviles

84 Air Force Lifecycle Management Center Architecture and Integration Directorate (AFLCMC/XA) Mr. Dean Peters dean.peters.1@us.af.mil AFLCMC/XA AFLCMC/XA Joint Simulation Environment (JSE) Multi-Level Security (MLS) Application AFLCMC/XA is undergoing reorganization as part of the Great Power Completion. XA has been working MLS as part of its JSE program, but we learned a couple of weeks ago that our JSE efforts are being realigned under AFLCMC/WNS by 1 Oct 2024. Where MLS is going has not been shared with me yet and I can’t say at this time what impact the divestment of AFAMS would have on us. - Dean

Steven Gagliardi steven.gagliardi@us.af.mil

Jacob Miracle jacob.miracle@us.af.mil

85 705th Combat Training Squadron (705 CTS) Lt. Col. Michael Butler michael.butler.6@us.af.mil ACC 705 CTS/TA 705 CTS Distributed Mission Operations Center Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation Support Purpose: This effort will develop, test, and develop integration plans for an MLS support exercise architecture at the DMOC.

One capability/technology of interest is the inclusion of Multi-Level Security (MLS) applications to support the following use cases:

• Operate at higher classification levels and parse data at lower levels.

• All users cleared to highest level; some users cleared to all compartments.

• Operate a mission at common high.

• Store data in a common high, single-level, multi-Protocol Identifier Data (PID) database.

• Pull post-mission data for analysis/review based on single PID or subset of PIDS.

• Operate simulations with true MLS – “see only what you are supposed to see.”

• System operating SECRET & Top-Secret managing data across multiple compartments.

• simultaneously. Users only see data and information for which they are cleared.

• Pull post-mission data for analysis/review based on single PID or subset of PIDS.

If AFAMS divests ownership of the contract leading to the end of the current AFMS3 structure DMOC would be required to pursue a standalone contract with an estimated loss of 6 to 9 months of development effort. More importantly, the current AFMS3 contract structure allows for sharing of effort, collaboration, and crosstalk that is extremely valuable and would be difficult to impossible (IMO) with standalone contracts. DMOC shares 1 FTE between RF085 and RFS 084 (parallel MLS effort) plus benefits from information sharing from a number of other RFSs. The value of the ‘intangibles” that constitute the sharing of effort, collaboration, and crosstalk is the principle reason DMOC went with the AFMS3 contract vehicle (and associate GSA overhead costs) verses a standalone contract.

Unfortunately, DMOC is not resourced to take on contract management of the AFMS3 effort. That said, DMOC is strongly in favor of continuance of the AFMS3 contract and is happy to assist in any way it can (given a under resourced budget and staff) to further the objectives and tasks/subtasks of the AFMS3 contract. Finally, DMOC would be highly interested in adding additional tasks to our RFS if AFAMS could find a way forward to eliminate or significantly reduce the overhead fees.

Michael Graebel michael.graebel@us.af.mil

James Perifanos james.perifanos.3@us.af.mil

Lt Peyton Kling peyton.kling.1@us.af.mil

Maj Ida Burkey ida.burkey@us.af.mil

86 19th Air Force Plans, Programs and Requirements (19AF A5/8) Lt. Col. Robert Buckley robert.buckley@us.af.mil AETC 19 AF/A5/8 Combat Systems Officer (CSO) Instructional System Design (ISD) and Courseware 19AF has three active task orders on the AFMS vehicle. 19AF/A5 and Detachment 24 benefit greatly from the broad scope of the PWS and responsiveness of the AAS team. As pathfinders with the modeling and simulation and innovation communities, we appreciate having the AFMS contract as a rapid acquisition option when tasked by leadership to integrate new technologies and methodologies from prototype to scale on short timelines. Without this contract we would be hard-pressed to find another contract that provides task order owners with the same flexibility to grow/shrink/re-vector the team, ability to award and/or mod task orders quickly, and has broad scope related to modeling and simulation technologies in the training realm. Our contracting team is limited in bandwidth to support rapid innovation efforts in addition to their existing workload, and the amount of pre-requirement documentation and coordination on our part to go that route would be detrimental to achieving the timelines we have been directed to achieve. Finally, from an AFAMS perspective, we believe this contract provides your office with visibility on the various efforts that would be lost if this contract goes away. You lose the ability to identify duplicative efforts or technology advances in one task order that could be used to leapfrog another’s.

RFS-086: Supports the Instructional Systems Design evaluation of the Combat Systems Officer (CSO) course. With the divestment of the T-1, the CSO course at Pensacola also needs a complete analysis to determine how the overall competencies, learning objectives, and KSAs can be achieved with existing resources or potential new solutions. This divestment decision occurred much earlier than originally anticipated, and 19AF/A5 was able to get the RFS awarded in about a month with UFR funding during the end of year chaos. A traditional contracting organization, and most GWACS/IDIQs/etc., would not have been able to achieve this and the replacement program would have delayed.

Brent Jarrett brent.jarrett.2.ctr@us.af.mil

Maj William "Hunter" Cox william.cox.31@us.af.mil

Capt Joseph "Joe" Dooley joseph.dooley.1@us.af.mil

* Top 5 - 9, 81,80,33, 13

TDL Category List

895856.0 476.4

RFS Location Title Clearance Hours FTE

RFS036 Orlando, FL PM Secret 960 0.5 122

RFS036 Orlando, FL Internal KM Secret 960 0.5

RFS036 Orlando, FL Cybersecurity Analyst TS/SCI 5760 3.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL Cybersecurity Analyst TS/SCI 11100 5.8

RFS036 Orlando, FL Big Data Engineer Secret 1920 1.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL Data Scientist Secret 1920 1.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL M&S Engineer Secret 0 0.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL Instructional Systems Designer Secret 0 0.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL Training Analyst Secret 0 0.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL M&S Engineer Secret 0 0.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL Vacant Secret 0 0.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL External Knowledge Manager Secret 0 0.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL Requirements Manager, Lead TS/SCI 0 0.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL Requirements Manager TS/SCI 0 0.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL Requirements Manager TS/SCI 0 0.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL Security Specialist Secret 1920 1.0

RFS036 Orlando, FL M&S Analyst N/A 0 0.0

RFS001 NCR or mutually agreed site Policy Analyst TS/SCI 1920 1.0 112

RFS001 NCR or mutually agreed site Financial Mgmt. ProgramIntegration Support Analyst Secret 5760 3.0

RFS001 NCR or mutually agreed site Enterprise Scheduling and Reporting SME Secret 1920 1.0

RFS001 NCR or mutually agreed site Exercise Support SME Secret 1920 1.0

RFS001 AMC, Scott AFB, IL AMC OTTI Liaison Secret 1920 1.0

RFS001 JB Pearl Harbor Hickam, HI PACAF OTTI Liaison TS/SCI 1920 1.0

RFS001 NCR or mutually agreed site OTTI Integration Support SME Secret 1920 1.0

RFS001 NCR or mutually agreed site Geographic Information Systems Cartographer Secret with ability to obtain TS/SCI 1920 1.0

RFS001 NCR or mutually agreed site VTTC JSE Integration SME TS/SCI and SAP 1920 1.0

RFS005 WPAFB, OH, USA Cybersecurity Engineer LII TS 13320 6.9 113

RFS005 O’Fallon, IL USA Cybersecurity Engineer LIII TS 9520 5.0

RFS005 WPAFB, OH, USA Cybersecurity Engineer LIII TS 1900 1.0

RFS009 Osan AB, Republic of Korea ASCCE Model Controller Secret 1936 1.0 114

RFS009 Osan AB, Republic of Korea AFSERS Model Controller Secret 1936 1.0

RFS009 Osan AB, Republic of Korea ACE-IOS Model Controller Secret 1936 1.0

RFS009 Osan AB, Republic of Korea Linux Systems Administrator and CSI Model Controller Secret 1848 1.0

RFS009 Osan AB, Republic of Korea ISSO Secret 1976 1.0

RFS009 Osan AB, Republic of Korea M&S analyst and ASCCE Gamer Secret 1864 1.0

RFS009 Osan AB, Republic of Korea M&S Analyst and ASCCE Gamer Secret 1896 1.0

RFS009 Osan AB, Republic of Korea ASCCE Model Controller Secret with ability to obtain TS/SCI 2000 1.0

RFS009 Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam ASCCE Gamer/IT Asset Manager Secret 1944 1.0

RFS009 Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam ISR and AATK Manager Secret with ability to obtain TS/SCI 2560 1.3

RFS009 Various Senior Air Controller Secret 1188 0.6

RFS009 Various Senior Air Controller Secret 656 0.3

RFS009 Various PACAF Part-Time On-Call [PTOC] Exercise Gamer Secret 2493 1.3

RFS009 Various Cross contract support Exercise Gamer Secret 4739 2.5

RFS009 Osan AB, Republic of Korea AWSIM Instructor Controller Secret 0 0.0

RFS009 Osan AB, Republic of Korea Network Engineer Secret 1936 1.0

RFS009 Osan AB, Republic of Korea ASCCE Model Controller Secret 0 0.0

RFS011 Hurlburt Field, FL Space & Cyber Senior Technical Engineer TS/SCI 1920 1.0 115

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Project Manager TS/SCI 1850 1.0 116

RFS013 Remote Deputy Project Manager Secret 1730 0.9

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Fighter Pilot (Air-to-Air) Simulator Instructor‑Operator TS/SCI 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Fighter Pilot (Air-to-Air) Simulator Instructor‑Operator Secret 500 0.3

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Fighter Pilot (Air-to-Ground) Simulator Instructor‑Operator TS/SCI 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Fighter Pilot (Air-to-Ground) Simulator Instructor‑Operator TS/SCI 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Pilot/Sensor Simulator Instructor‑Operator S 3700 1.9

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Air Operations Center (AOC) Command and Control (C2) Simulator Instructor‑Operator S 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Command and Control, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C2ISR) Simulator Instructor‑Operator S 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Airborne Command and Control (C2) Simulator Instructor‑Operator S 1040 0.5

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Electronic Attack Simulator Instructor‑Operator S 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Maritime Surface Warfare Simulator Instructor‑Operator S 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Non-Kinetic Warfare Simulator Instructor‑Operator S 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Fifth Generation Fighter Platform and Tactics Simulator Instructor‑Operator TS/SCI 3546 1.8

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Pilot – (General) Simulator Instructor‑Operator S 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Control and Reporting Center (CRC) Simulator Instructor‑Operator S 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany CAS Fighter/Attack Pilot Simulator Instructor‑Operator S 1056 0.6

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) Simulator Instructor‑Operator S 5550 2.9

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany LVC Capabilities Development and Integration Support TS/SCI 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany LVC Capabilities Development and Integration Support S 5550 2.9

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Operations and Scheduling Support S 3700 1.9

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Academics Instruction Support TS/SCI 1770 0.9

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Academics Instruction Support S 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Systems Administrator S 24050 12.5

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Network Engineer S 20350 10.6

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Configuration Management TS/SCI 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Configuration Management S 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Modeling and Simulation Support TS/SCI 11100 5.8

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Modeling and Simulation Support S 24050 12.5

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Cybersecurity Support S 11100 5.8

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Client Systems Engineering Support S 5550 2.9

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Intelligence Operations Support TS/SCI 5550 2.9

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Operations Support to Air Defense Simulation Systems S 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Datalink Operations Support TS/SCI 3700 1.9

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Operations Support for Fires and ASOC/JAGIC Simulation Systems S 3700 1.9

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Exercise Planner S 1850 1.0

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Security Support TS/SCI 3700 1.9

RFS013 Einsiedlerhof AS, Germany Operations Research Support S 1850 1.0

RFS013…