Responses last set of questions.docx

Q1- SOW Section 2.1, SOW Section 3.1.11: Will linguists/analysts be deployed to locations other than their initially assigned locations?

Response: They may go TDY to other locations, but will not deploy.

Q2- SOW Section 3.2.7 - Indicates "Contractor shall provide language instructors to instruct in languages identified in attachment 1." In attachment 1, Language Instructors are identified for Arabic, Persian/Farsi, and Hebrew. Does the Government require the contractor to provide Language Instructors for the remaining languages listed in attachment 1 as well?

Response: Please bid based on the SOW and attachment 1 Q3- SOW Section 5.1: States "Contractor personnel shall have a final U.S. Government issued TOP SECRET security clearance…", and also states, "In some cases and mission scenarios Contract linguist may only require SECRET clearance." This seems to be contradictory as the first sentence seems to be all-encompassing.

Response: Ultimately all personnel assigned to the contract will require a TS/SCI clearance; please refer to 5.2 Q4- SOW Section 3.2.6: Training Manager COMPASS CALL – will the linguists be required to deploy?

Response: No Q5- Section 3.3.1 CAT III linguists shall have minimum proficiency in the target language Interagency Language Round Table (ILRT) level 3 in listening and reading and an advanced working proficiency in English, ILRT level 2+, based on the current DLPT version for the specific language or comparable standard measurement. Exceptions will be considered on a case by case basis. Would the Government please clarify which other comparable standard measurement would be acceptable?

Response: All languages needed on this contract have current DLPT versions; if other languages are needed as the contract progresses and don't have DLPTs then other measurements will be considered.

Q6- SOW Section 3.1.5: "The Contractor shall provide training using existing global and cryptologic language training curriculum and materials (A010, A011).” Which languages in Attachment 1 already have existing global and/or cryptologic language training curriculum and materials?

Response: Information will be provided after contract award. Please bid based on the SOW.

((If you decide to ask the above question, the answer will help us scope our proposal response to 3.1.6 which asks us to develop new global and cryptologic training materials and curriculum where none exist.)) Q7- SOW Section 3.1.7: "The Contractor shall deliver consistent, repeatable access to approved training using Advanced Distributed Language technologies and emerging language acquisition technologies and post approved training materials to provide consistent, repeatable remote access to these materials.” Does the AF ISR Agency or the U.S. Air Force Training Command currently use Advanced Distributed Language technologies and are they the preferred method for enterprise remote access? Do these technologies currently provide tracking and report features based on student use of the technologies?

Response: Currently AF ISR does not track on ADLS. Other information will be provided after contract award.

Q8-SOW Section 2, General Requirements, 3rd Sentence: “The Contractor shall furnish the necessary management, technology, and personnel required to provide the requested linguist support as specified in this SOW (refer to section 3.0).

It is unclear what technology is to be provided in section 3.0. In Section 3, the following paragraphs might have technology deliverables – although not specifically stated in 3.1.3 – machine translation?

Response: The contractor will not develop or provide technology as specified in 3.1. Machine translation does not refer to technology.

Q9- SOW Section 3.2.2 Language Content Manager - second sentence: "The Contractor shall oversee the language training and technology integration and how the Contractor Team is applying technology, methodologies, and training materials to this program. The Content manager shall work closely with the IWs and the 55th Recon Wing to implement the best of breed Proposal to Provide Linguist Services and Training Support practices." Later in the same 3.2.2 paragraph.“Working closely with the Government, the (Language) Content Manager shall concentrate on the efforts associated with this contract and collaborate with the training and technology requirements which are currently filled by other contract requirements.”

Q10- Does this ‘Proposal’ implementation refer to implementation of the winning proposal in response to the Linguist and Analyst Services Support to AF ISR Agency? Is there another contractor, under a different contract vehicle, responsible for other training and technology requirements? )) Response: No, it is not who wins this contract for linguist/analyst. Yes, there is another contractor working technology and training requirements.

Q11 - Page 49 of the RFP breaks out the relevancy evaluation criteria for Past Performance examples. To receive a “Highly Relevant” rating, each past performance example submitted must demonstrate execution of each of the following tasks:

· 1. Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) processing;

· 2. Translation services from the Specified Contract Required Language (SCRL) into English or from English into the SCRL;

· 3. Production of written documents such as transcripts and reports;

· 4. Conduction of global and cryptologic language training;

· 5. Development of global and cryptologic language training materials;

· 6. Integration of current and developed training into a technology-enhanced environment; and,

· 7. Tracking student training, knowledge and implementation of training requirements for Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS), Direct Support Operator (DSO), COMPASS CALL, Airborne linguists (1A8) and ground linguists (1N3).

· If submitting an offer under a teaming arrangement, will the Government evaluate the team’s past performance as a ‘unified’ (of both the Prime and sub-contractors) sum total of all experiences combined (one single entity), or is the government’s intent to evaluate each past performance from each team member and rate each one against the criteria Highly Relevant, Relevant, or Not Relevant .

Response: The evaluation criteria carefully outlines how the past performance will be evaluated, I will refer you back to the solicitation instead of regurgitating the information. Each past performance is evaluated individually then an overall rating will be assessed.

Q12 - Will the Government please provide an example of a current or recent contract which entails all of the tasks listed under Performance Confidence Assessment, ‘Highly Relevant’ ((2) c. (2) (1), pg 49): Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) processing; Translation services from the Specified Contract Required Language (SCRL) into English or from English into the SCRL; Production of written documents such as transcripts and reports; Conduction of global and cryptologic language training; Development of global and cryptologic language training materials; Integration of current and developed training into a technology-enhanced environment; and, Tracking student training, knowledge and implementation of training requirements for Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS), Direct Support Operator (DSO), COMPASS CALL, Airborne linguists (1A8) and ground linguists (1N3). It seems it is very rare that an 8(a) contract (current or past) would be able to meet all or most of all the tasks in a single contract past performance.

Response: This organization currently has two contracts FA7037-08-C-8013 and 07-C-8011, both to Nangwik Services. Both requirements are for linguist/analyst but work different missions. The new contract will bring all missions together. Based on market research, the Gov’t has determined that there are several companies that can provide the work listed and will have the appropriate past performance to meet the requirements of the established evaluation criteria.

Q13; RFP p. 43 of 49 states that “Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch.” So that the Air Force can best evaluate industry responses, we ask that consideration be given to establishing guidelines of 12 point New Times Roman font for text, and 9 point Arial Narrow font for tables, figures, exhibits, and graphics. Please clarify your intentions as to font size.

Gov’t initial response*** The pitch is no more than 12, will not specify the font for text. As for the tables, the font size can be reduced as long as it’s readable.

*** Correction to last Gov’t response…. Typing shall not be less than 12 pitch, the Gov’t will not specify the font for text. As for the tables, the font size can be reduced as long as it’s readable.

Q14. Will the government please confirm that under CLIN 3 in the pricing workbook, a Tausug Mgr/DSO is the correct job description?

Response: Should be Training Manager/DSO experience. A corrected spreadsheet will be posted.

Q13. There is an inconsistency between the total FTE indicated in the Staffing Table found in the SOW (100 FTE) and the total FTE indicated for the base year in the pricing workbook provided with the RFP (103 FTE). Will the government please confirm that the pricing workbook will be the document used for price evaluation purposes?

Response: A corrected spreadsheet will be posted. The pricing spreadsheet will be used but as specified in the RFP, the contractor should input totals on the SF1449.