Questions_and_Answers_2.pdf

Questions for the Government #2 Solicitation: FA7037-13-R-0002; Linguist and Analyst Support Services to AF ISR Agency

June 11, 2013

ActiveUS 108406691v.1

Question

Number

Solicitation Reference

(section # and title;

subsection # and title;

paragraph # and title)

Page # Requirement Text/Question/Answer

1. 1.0 GENERAL

INFORMATION TO

OFFERORS; 5.2.4

Provide five (5) samples of current complete curriculum to include lesson plans, quizzes/progress checks and tests for courses. Include at least one sample each for refresher (4-6 weeks), intermediate (7-12 weeks), and acquisition (13-20 weeks) type courses. The remaining two (2) samples may be the offeror’s choice.

Provide documentation of how many iterations of each type course have been conducted, the number of students in each course and student results

(increase/decrease in DLPT scores). The curriculum samples will be considered as an indicator of technical capability. The DLPT student results will be considered as a measure of training effectiveness. The curriculum samples and

DLPT student results will not be considered in Present and Past Performance.

Question: None asked.

Answer: N/A

2. PWS 5.6.3 4 The samples shall include at least one sample each for refresher (4-6 weeks), intermediate (7-12 weeks), and acquisition (13-20 week) type courses.

Question: Would the government consider revising this requirement to exclude specific numbers of weeks for each course as some courses developed under these three categories can be shorter/longer depending on the customer?

Answer: See answer to 34Q from the initial Questions and Answers on this requirement.

Number

Solicitation Reference

(section # and title;

subsection # and title;

paragraph # and title)

Page # Requirement Text/Question/Answer

3. 1QA Answer (from first round of questions)

1 1QA ANSWER to solicitor questions states: The contractor may use existing global and cryptologic training curriculum and materials in the Government’s possession on Day 1 of the contract. Refer to section L paragraph 5.2.4 for the government’s requirement for samples of current curriculum for evaluation purposes.

Question: This answer implies the Offeror will not have to develop training.

Additionally, none of the FTEs listed in Table B-2 (page 30) appear to include language curriculum development. Please clarify what the Government expects in terms of language curriculum development as part of this contract.

Answer: No, the answer does not make that implication. See PWS para 5.6.5

Number

Solicitation Reference

(section # and title;

subsection # and title;

paragraph # and title)

Page # Requirement Text/Question/Answer

4. 1.0 GENERAL

INFORMATION TO

OFFERORS; 5.2.4

28 Provide documentation of how many iterations of each type course have been conducted, the number of students in each course and student results

(increase/decrease in DLPT scores). The curriculum samples will be considered as an indicator of technical capability. The DLPT student results will be considered as a measure of training effectiveness. The curriculum samples and

DLPT student results will not be considered in Present and Past Performance.

Question: From our experience, we know that the Local Training Department does not get the same report as the CLPM with privacy information. They get a general report, without names and SSNs, stating how many people were tested, in what languages, and how many people and/or what percentage of tester’s scores increased, decreased or stayed the same. This type of report gives a general idea of the effectiveness of the whole program at a site, but not the impact of specific courses. Results are not tied to a specific course completion. We believe it is extremely difficult to tie test scores to the effectiveness of a specific course, unless the training team is already working in close collaboration and coordination with CLPMs at AFISRA sites.

Please provide guidance on how best to obtain the DLPT test scores

Answer: Your instructors, on behalf of the company, should keep records of the number of students and their test results as a measure of course effectiveness. No further guidance will be provided.

Number

Solicitation Reference

(section # and title;

subsection # and title;

paragraph # and title)

Page # Requirement Text/Question/Answer

5. 53Q QUESTION:

PWS SECT 5.2.4 and

5.6.4 – 5.2.4

14 Mandates 5 samples of current curriculum; can these samples be existing USG-owned material that is administered by a contactor in support of a previous or ongoing contract?

53A- ANSWER: Yes, as long as it is developed by the offeror.

Question: If the offeror developed courseware for the government in the past and can submit government property as samples, does this not give such an offeror an unfair advantage over any competitor who was not previously engaged in a government contract to develop or deliver language training? Would the government consider making this requirement more general so that Offerors may provide relevant and similar curriculum samples?

Answer: Prior courseware development does not give an offeror an unfair advantage. The curriculum samples are considered as an indicator of technical capability. The requirement will not be revised.

6. Question: Reference Solicitation Attachment 7. There is a difference in the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) when comparing the cost model and solicitation Table B-2 Evaluation FTEs (172.5 FTEs) to the Sample Task Order provided as Attachment 7 (163.5 FTEs). Please confirm that respondents are to propose pricing based on 172.5 FTEs as provided in the cost model and Table B-

2.

Answer: The offerors are to complete the cost model attached to the solicitation, not Attachment 7, Initial Task Order 0001 Requirements. The detail on the initial task order was to provide an indication of the 85% personnel required at the beginning of the contract. A price is not required for the initial task order.