C-130J_MATS_RFP_Q-As.pdf

C-130J MATS O&S Draft RFP Industry Questions/Comments

FA8621-13-R-6305

RFP Reference Question/Comment Government Response

1. All CLINs

H001

CLIN structure includes pricing for Yokota AB for years 2015 – 2019; however PWS Paragraph

1.0 shows Yokota AB Aircrew training not occurring until FY 18. Would the Government please clarify which contract years should include pricing for Yokota AB?

Offerors are required to follow Section L for completing the pricing matrix. We do not have an exact date when Yokota will be up and running so we are requiring pricing for Yokota for the entire period of performance.

2. CLIN Structure CLIN structure does not show a base year; only option years. Should the structure show a base year for 1 Jan – 31 Dec 2015 followed by 4 option years for years 2016-2019?

At contract award, the Government will only be funding the transition period; therefore, the 1 st year of performance is considered an option year, which will be exercised appropriately before 1

January 2015.

3. Course Trade-off Matrix The Course Trade-off Matrix in the draft solicitation prints as 6 pages on 11x17 paper. Will each page

(11x17) count as 1 page? May need to look at re-formatting.

The Course Trade-off Matrix will no longer be a requirement for offerors to complete. The

Government will provide a completed matrix that offerors will be required to comply with.

4. General Are you requiring VA certification of SDVOSB status or is self-certification acceptable?

SDVOSB prime offerors must show evidence of their SDVOSB certification status.

5. General Is the Government trying to split the TSSC from this effort to avoid possible OCI (i.e., create a system of checks and balances)?

No, there are no OCI issues; however there are data rights issues under the current contract. The

O&S portion is being split out to allow for effective competition and to promote small business.

6. General What is the Government’s overall objective in splitting this out as a separate contract?

To allow for effective competition and to promote small business.

RFP Reference Question/Comment Government Response

7. Past Performance How will ID/IQ contracts be treated for past performance?

Will each delivery order/task order count as a single past performance?

On a multiple award ID/IQ contract where task orders/delivery orders are for separate and distinct projects/programs, each task order/delivery order will count as a separate contract.

For single award ID/IQ contracts for the same program, then the entire ID/IQ will be considered as a single contract.

8. Pricing Matrix The Pricing Matrix does not include the Program

Management CLINs. Will the final Pricing

Matrix include tabs for pricing the Program

Management CLINs so that they are reflected in the total evaluated price?

No, there is no requirement to price Program

Management. Offerors should include program management in their student throughput and CLS pricing.

The Program Management CLIN has been removed from Section B.

9. Section B CLIN 0008 and 0009 are identical

CLIN 1008 and 1009 are identical

CLIN 2008 and 2009 are identical

CLIN 3008 and 3009 are identical

CLIN 4008 and 4009 are identical

Is this intentional or duplicate

These CLINs are not identical. The X008 CLINs are for site activation not to exceed 50 miles and

CLINs X009 are for site activation in excess of 50 miles.

10. Section B CLIN 010 Site Activation-OCONUS (OY1)

It should be CONUS

Concur, change has been made to the CLIN title.

11. Section B Section B CLIN 0001 Transition Period lists the Start

Date as: 01 Sept 2014 and the Completion Date as:

31 Dec 2014. This is a period of 122 calendar days.

The descriptive paragraph states: The successor contractor shall work with the incumbent contractors to assume responsibility for the CLS and

Training/Instruction tasks for the C-130J MATS during the transition period. The successor contractor shall be postured to assume responsibility for these requirements at the end of the 105-day transition period. The transition period has been identified as four months as stated in SOW para 8.1. In this paragraph the time frame is stated as 105 days yet the

CLIN dates specified calculate to 122 days.

Please clarify what the Transition Period will be in calendar days.

The Transition period can be for up to 4 months, (i.e., 1 Sep 2014 through 31 Dec 2014).

PWS para 8.1 does not state calendar days for the transition only “for a period of up to four months”.

CLIN 0001 has been modified to remove the reference to calendar days.

The transition period will not be defined in terms of calendar days because we do not have a definite time period for the transition period.

Offerors are required to price the transition period monthly as depicted in the Pricing Matrix. This allows for flexibility in the start of the transition period.

12. Section B CLIN 0008 and 0009. Section 4.7.2 does not exist in the PWS.

These CLINs have been modified to indicate PWS para 9.2.

13. Section B CLIN XX02. Program Management CLIN for all

Option Years. During the Industry Day meeting at

WPAFB, bidders were told not to bid any of the

CLINs not currently found in Attachment 22. The

Program Management CLIN which states “The contractor shall develop and maintain a program management process to plan, direct, integrate, and control the O&S and aircrew instruction of the C-

130J MATS, as required in PWS paragraph 3.1” would not be priced. Currently Program management is not part of the TEP (IAW Section L).

Will the Government be issuing an ECP after contract award for all Program Management pricing?

No, there is no requirement to price Program

Management. Offerors should include program management in their student throughput and CLS pricing.

The Program Management CLIN has been removed from Section B.

14. Section B CLIN 0001. CLIN requests a 105-day transition to occur between 1 Sep and 31 Dec 2014; however

Section L Paragraph 4.3.1a requests a 90-day transition period. Would the Government please clarify the timing/duration of the transition period?

The Transition Period cane be up to 120 days;

hence the ordering period on the CLIN. However, depending on contract award date, the transition may actually be 30, 60, 90, or 120 days.

15. Section B B028. Contract clause is shown as applying to CLIN

0001 only; however Pricing Matrix shows FFP pricing for numerous CLINs. Would the

Government please clarify the applicability for

Clause B028?

The total price entered in B028 will be for the transition CLIN only at contract award. The remaining CLINs are included in option periods and will not be included as part of the total contract price at contract award.

16. Section H H – Special Contract Requirements, Subparagraph 39 et al, Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Do tax treaties/SOFA agreements exist in Germany & Japan that determine how payroll taxes & other associated costs will be handled?

Is there a SOFA agreement related to this contract currently in place?

There is not a current SOFA agreement in place as

Germany and Japan are new sites.

17. Section H H – Special Contract Requirements, Subparagraph B.

Other Contract Clauses in Full Text; C130J MATS-

H003 USE OF NON-GOVERNMENT ADVISORS

(JUN 2013). States: “The non-Government advisor support will be provided by: National Technologies

Associates, Inc. 22738 Maple Rd Lexington Park, Maryland 20653 Phil's company.”

Delete "Phil's company."

Change made.

18. Section H H013/014. We noted the Government included a

“disagreement resolution” process in clause

H014, but no similar process is included in clause

H013; however, in some cases a failure could be subjectively applied to the contractor; i.e., a student fails not due to a training issue, but to a personal issue arising during the evaluation.

Would the Government consider adding a

“disagreement resolution” process to clause H013 that is equal to the process described in clause

H014?

The availability clause has been modified to be for maintenance training devices only at Little Rock

AFB, so there would not be any disagreement process needed for this specific clause.

19. Section I Section I – DFAR 252.232-7999 Notification of payment in local currency (Afghanistan). There are several DFARs that relate to Iraq, Afghanistan, “a

Central Asian State” which is defined as Kyrgyz

Republic, Republic of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan, but not Japan or

Germany.

Is this intentional?

Yes, these clause are generated by our contract writing system based on the FAR and DFAR.

20. Section I State of New Mexico Gross Receipts &

Compensating Tax, FAR 52.229-10 and the applicable state law regarding Gross Receipts tax. It may be necessary to charge the government this tax

& pay it in to the State of New Mexico. While the

Gross Receipts tax mostly functions as a sales tax, it applies to non-sales revenue, ie: it is charged on rent.

Is the Government aware of this issue?

Yes.

21. Section I 52.219-14. This clause is not included on the listing of applicable clauses, nor is it reflected anywhere else in the RFP. Given that this effort is now a SDVOSB set aside, would the

\Government please clarify any limits on subcontracting applicable to this solicitation?

The clause has been added.

22. Section J Attachment 1 has date of 23 July 2013, while the

PWS cover page is dated 24 July 2013

The Government will ensure Attachment 1 dates reflect the actual date of the attachment.

23. Section L 4.3.3 Subfactor 3: Aircrew Instruction subparagraph

a. – typo in second sentence. Recommended wording: “Submit a Course Trade-off Matrix that allows for alternative course offerings in the event the Government cannot provide qualified student candidates to fill the scheduled courses.“

Typo fixed.

24. Section L 6.1 Price/General Instructions, paragraph 2b & 2c references SCA Wage Determinations are found in section J attachments 10 & 11 and CBA-based wage determinations are found in section J, attachments 12

& 15. These attachments were not included in the

Draft RFP package but are listed in 7.1.9 “Section J –

Attachments.”

Will the Government provide this prior to final RFP release?

No, the WDs and CBAs will be posted with the formal RFP release.

25. Section L 6.2.3 Section 3: GFP states a list of GFP is provided in Section J attachment 9. This attachment was not included in the Draft RFP package.

When will the government provide this information?

The LSP will be posted with the formal RFP release.

26. Section L Attachment 19 Sect L pg.4 the chart says that for each Volume “Original must be 2-Hole punched.

Also on pg. 4 2.2.1 Page limitation (line 5): “The pages within each original volume shall be 2-hole punched centered at the top of each page.”

Would it be possible to request deleting the 2-hole punch on top, like for TSAIII?

The requirement for the Original proposal to be submitted with 2-hole punched at the top of the page remains. The Government is required to keep the Original submission and this request helps with efficiency in creating the abundant contract files for each offeror.

Due to the large number of expected offerors on

TSA III, we have received a waiver for hard copies and the Original proposals will be maintained on CD.

27. Section L, 2.6, Proposal

Submission

On line 2 it says “Price (Volume III), Past

Performances (Volume IV)”; it should be changed since Price is Vol IV and PP is Vol III.

Concur, change made to Section L.

28. Section L, Volume I, Executive Summary

Do we need to have an Attachment 1 as a proof of

FCL Secret or higher, like in TSAIII instructions? Or where we need to put the FCL proof?

Section L has been modified to include the requirement to provide (within Volume I) evidence of a Secret FCL or approach for obtaining an FCL prior to contract award.

29. Section L, Volume III, Past Performance

Does the JMATS PPI tool generate the “Business

Relationship” page similar to TSAIII? If so, it will be the first page (of 5 pages max) of the PP Introduction

(like per TSAIII instructions);

Also the PPI tool, as per TSAIII, does not allow any graphic, except for the PP Introduction. Correct?

The PPI tool is a standard tool developed by the

Acquisition Center of Excellence (ACE) and works the same for all acquisitions.

30. Section M, 2.3.1 2.3.1 Completeness line 2 “Volume III”:

It should read Volume IV

Concur, change has been made to Section M.

31. Time Schedule Is still Final RFP projected date for mid-October

2013?

What about award date?

The current acquisition scheduled was briefed during the pre-solicitation conference.

Q&As Posted 9 October 2013

32. PWS 2. Applicable Documents. The first document listed, Community College of the Air Force Campus

Affiliations, Policies, Procedures and Guideline

(PPG), has no reference and the date is incomplete.

Reference updated. Date listed on document is

Jan 2011.

33. PWS 3.1.1.4, 3.1.1.3, 3.1.1.6, 3.1.1.7.2, and 3.1.2. The number, duration, location and time frame of the reference conferences and meetings are not specified.

Information not needed for proposal purposes as all travel will be un-programmed travel and a travel CLIN will be used for all travel.

34. PWS 3.3 DEFICIENCY REPORTS/DESIGN CHANGES.

Will these conferences/meetings be handled under the Un-programmed Travel requirements as listed in paragraph 3.1.1.6?

All travel will be un-programmed travel and a travel CLIN will be used for all travel.

35. PWS 3.4 INSTRUCTIONAL CHANGE REQUEST

(ICR). Is the TSSC contractor’s ICR proprietary?

If so, can the O&S contractor use their own ICR process?

Required to utilize the TSSC Processes. TSSC will be the only entity changing the courseware.

36. PWS 3.8 Configuration Management requires the O&S contractor to identify recommended changes to the

TSSC contractor. The deliverable referenced is

CDRL A004, DI-A-ADMN-81401B/T, Contract

Change Proposal. The CDRL is to be delivered to the government whereas the requirement is to deliver the change recommendation to the TSSC contractor.

Additionally, the O&S contractor recommendation may not be what the TSSC contractor would submit as a CCP.

Deliverable deleted.

37. PWS 3.8.1 System Verification Review (SVR)/Physical

Configuration Audit (PCA) has an undefined scope of work. How long does it take to execute each SVR and PCA?

Is an SVR and PCA held for each device?

How often is each event held?

Varies by number and complexity of modifications. Typically SVRs are accomplished during the test phase. PCAs must be accomplished on each device modified.

All travel will be un-programmed travel and a travel CLIN will be used for all travel.

38. PWS 4.12 (l) Types of Training - Simulator Proficiency

Sortie (SPS). How many SPS missions require an instructor each year, by site?

SPS requires an operator only – PWS updated.

39. PWS 4.12 (n) Types of Training - Transition-United States

Coast Guard (USCG): Is the Transition-United

States Coast Guard simulator training for pilots included in the program annual ranges for the MOBs or addition to?

USCG Transition is held at Keesler and there is an individual pricing line for that course. Will be added to other MOBs as well.

40. PWS 4.3 Guaranteed Student Requirement. What is the historical percentage of the number of students (by crew position) who failed to satisfactory complete an

AF Conducted evaluation at the FTU, under the current contract?

Less than 1% of total students trained.

41. PWS 4.6 Operational Evaluation. Is the TSSC contractor’s process for all C-130J MATS courseware proprietary?

Yes

42. PWS 4.6.1 Student Critiques requires the O&S contractor to provide courseware related critiques to the TSSC.

The deliverable referenced is CDRL A006, DI-

MGMT-81453A/T, Data Accession List. The CDRL is to be delivered to the government whereas the requirement is to deliver the change recommendation to the TSSC contractor.

Will the TSSC contractor be a recipient of this

CDRL?

TSSC contractor shall receive courseware related critiques; therefore, the O&S contractor is only required to deliver that portion.

43. PWS 5.8 TRAINING SYSTEM SUPPORT CENTER:

“The contractor shall support the C‑130J MATS

TSSC contractor.” How is the scope of the requirement to be measured?

It is part of the CLS portion of the bid.

44. PWS 5.8 TRAINING SYSTEM SUPPORT CENTER:

“The contractor shall support all modifications (i.e., Engineering Design Reviews, PCAs, etc.) to training equipment as tasked by the USAF Program Office.”

In the example tasks are not quantified in number, duration, or location precluding a firm fixed price bid for this task.

How is the scope of the requirement to be measured?

It is part of the CLS portion of the bid.

45. PWS 6.2.4 CCAI Continuation Training. There does not appear to be a definition of the IP/EP Calibration

Exercise in AFI11-2-130JV1.

Could you please explain what the intent is and provide a description?

Calibration Exercise no longer exists. Verbiage removed from the PWS.

46. PWS 6.2.6 CCAI Instructor Evaluators – In the first bulleted paragraph, the second sentence is confusing.

Recommended wording: “Pilot CCAI Evaluators will demonstrate a takeoff, approach, and landing and perform a sampling of emergency procedures in the

WST. Events observed during the evaluation will be graded IAW AFI 11-2MDS Volume 2. Pilot CCAI

Evaluators shall conduct pilot evaluations in the

WST on a non-interference basis (will not impact

ATS range/throughput or GUT requirements) annually.”

PWS will remain as originally written.

47. PWS 7.1.1.10 System Security Working Group has an undefined scope of work. The duration, location and time frame of the reference meetings are not specified.

All travel will be un-programmed travel and a travel CLIN will be used for all travel.

48. PWS From the PWS below do the hours and experience have to be Air Force or can they be Navy or Coast

Guard?

The contractor shall ensure all instructors are fully qualified aircraft C-130J instructors within five years of the date of assignment to the ATS. All prospective CCAI hires that do not meet the following criteria must require a Government approved waiver. Waiver authority is AMC/A3T.

Approval is not automatic.

ATS instructors shall have eight years flying experience, five years military flying experience with at least two years or 200 hours experience as an in flight instructor in the MDS and associated mission sets. All ATS instructors shall have completed a formal instructor training course and have the appropriate security clearances for the operations and maintenance of the system.

Hours can be from any service as long as “mission set,” flight hours, and time requirements are met.

49. PWS Para 1.2.2 Cockpit Procedures Trainer (CPT).

Second sentence has an incorrect sentence. Proposed wording - “A CPT is a Part Task Trainer that does not have motion or visual systems. “

Concur, change made.

50. PWS 5.1.5. Is contractor to provide a solution for a logistics/maintenance management tool? Or is there an existing software tool provided as GFE? Is there is an existing tool is the contractor responsible for pricing annual updates to this tool (i.e. annual license costs and Maintenance Support Agreements)?

Not GFE. Current contractor uses INFO EAM.

51. PWS Is the O&S Contractor required to provide MHE drivers in support of Loadmaster Fuselage training?

Yes. Government training may be available, but must be able to self-provide.

52. PWS 3.1.1. Is the O&S contractor responsible for installation and maintenance of a Video

Teleconferencing system?

No, the requirement has been changed to “web-based meeting system”.

53. PWS 3.1.1.6. What does the acronym TRP stand for? Not listed in the acronym dictionary.

This was a type. It should be TRB, Training

Review Board. PWS has been changed.

54. PWS 3.1.2. It is our understanding that the O&S contractor is providing only instructor, site management and site CLS support. This paragraph on DMO seems to indicate some significant engineering, IA and C&A responsibilities for the

O&S contractor. Is the O&S contractor required to provide this additional work scope or is the intent for the O&S contractor to only provide support of these activities?

The O&S contractor is only required to attend meetings and provide support to these activities.

55. PWS 4.10. If the TSSC provides the TMS, should it be the

TSSC Contractor's requirement to provide access to the government? Not the O&S Contractor as the paragraph indicates?

Requirement reworded. O&S contractor must provide TMS reports to the Government upon request.

56. PWS 4.12.d. What courses are considered Upgrade

Training?

Changed to Certification Training. Any mission set that requires a specific certification.

57. PWS 5.4. Last sentence should be 3.2.3. Changed.

58. PWS 5.7. Is there a CDRL that goes with this section? Added.

59. PWS 6.2.3. Please provide which courses comprise upgrade training.

Changed to Certification Training.

60. PWS 7.1.1. Is IA O&S scope? Support of IA is within the scope of this effort.

61. PWS 7.1.1.2. Is C&A O&S scope? Support of C&A is within the scope of this effort.

62. PWS 7.1.1.6-7.1.1.9. Are these paragraphs O&S contractor scope?

O&S shall support and comply with these paragraphs.

63. PWS 9.1.2. Contractor is to provide what janitorial services and supplies? In order to adequately bid this requirement, bidders will need more specific information on the requirements for janitorial support. Additionally; without specific floor plans for future sites it is not plausible to bid this requirement.

Personal trash removal to a central location and general tidiness.

64. PWS 9.1.2. In what area of the pricing matrix does the

Government want bidders to capture the costs of janitorial support?

Include it in the proposed program management cost on the Program Management tab of the

Pricing Matrix.

65. PWS Is the O&S contractor responsible for the phone systems at LR and all sites?

The Government will provide to the contractor base phone service IAW base directives.

66. PWS 5.1.3. CDRL is listed as A008 for Data Accession

List. Should this be A006?

Corrected.

67. General The following question and Government response was listed in the Q and A’s that were posted on 24

September:

Are you requiring VA certification of SDVOSB status or is self-certification acceptable? SDVOSB prime offerors must show evidence of their SDVOSB certification status.

Since SDVOSB self-certification is typically acceptable for all Government solicitations except for

VA or FAA solicitations, we assume that our self-certification in SAM along with a letter from the

SBA stating that we satisfy the eligibility requirements for an SDVOSB and is eligible to submit offers on and receive awards of contracts set aside for competition among SDVOSB’s is sufficient evidence of our SDVOSB status. Please confirm that our assumption is correct.

After confirming with our local SB Office and the

SBA, all that is required as evidence of SDVOSB status is for the offeror to complete the required certifications & representations in the System for

Award Management (SAM) database. The applicable clauses will be included in the formal

RFP.

68. Section L In Section 7.1.9, the government states that the following Section J attachments are included as part of the C-130J MATS O&S contract:

“Attachment 11, Wage Determination – Keesler, AFB, MS” and “Attachment 15, Collective

Bargaining Agreement – Keesler AFB, MS.”

When pricing the Kessler workforce, should bidders use the WD rates or the CBA rates?

Section 7.1.9 has been modified for the formal

RFP and provides a larger list of attachments.

Offerors will be required to comply with six

CBAs (for Dyess AFB, Little Rock AFB, and

Keesler AFB) which will be included with the formal RFP as well as a WD for Dyess AFB.

69. Section L In Section 6.2.2, when calculating the price for

Instruction and Training activities defined in PWS paragraph 4.0 and its subparagraphs, should bidders account for instructor time spent outside of the class room for activities such as preparation, briefing, debriefing, documentation, annual testing requirements, instructor check rides, and other non-student contact efforts?

Offerors should price what they feel is necessary to comply with the student throughput for each course.

70. Attachment 22 On each “Student Throughput” tab for each site there is a course labeled “Crew Resource

Management (CRM).” Is this the CRM

Facilitator course or is this a different CRM course. If it is CRM Facilitator course, can the

Government verify they wish to teach this course at all the sites?

Yes, this is the CRM Facilitators course. We reserve the option to teach it all sites; however, Little Rock will be the primary site.

71. Attachment 22 On each “Student Throughput” tab for each site

(under Pilot courses) there is a row labeled

“Simulator Proficiency Sortie (SPS).” There is a

4-hour and an 8-hour block to be priced. Can the

Government verify that the price for these SPS sorties should also include pre-brief time for the instructor?

SPS require a sim operator only and do not require pre-brief or debrief times.

72. Attachment 22 On each “Student Throughput” tab for each site

(under Pilot courses) there is a row labeled “Pilot

Generic WST 4-hour block.” Can the

Government verify that the price for these 4-hour blocks should also include pre-brief time for the instructor?

Yes, include a 1 hour pre-brief period and 30 minute debrief period for pricing.

73. Attachment 22 On each “Student Throughput” tab for Little Rock site (Under Pilot courses) there is a course labeled

“Pilot Instructor Basic Qualification (PIN1).”

This syllabus requires a class size of 2 pilots for each course. Can Government verify that for the simulator missions in PIN1 there are 2 contractor pilot instructors required in the simulator for each pilot student? This is not readily apparent in the syllabus but is implied in the actual instructor to student ratio required for PIN1 simulator events.

No, only one contract sim instructor is required.

74. Attachment 22 On each “Student Throughput” tab for Little Rock site (Under Pilot courses) there is a course labeled

“Pilot Instructor Basic and Tactical Airland

(PIN1A).” This syllabus requires a class size of 2 pilots for each course. Can Government verify that for the simulator missions in PIN1A there are actually 2 contractor pilot instructors required in the simulator for each pilot student? This is not readily apparent in the syllabus but is implied in the actual instructor to student ratio required for

PIN1A simulator events.

No, only one contract sim instructor is required.

75. Attachment 22 On each “Student Throughput” tab for Little Rock site (Under Pilot courses) there is a course labeled

“Pilot Instructor Single Ship Airdrop (PIN2).”

This syllabus requires a class size of 2 pilots for each course. Can Government verify that for the simulator missions in PIN2 there are actually 2 contractor pilot instructors required in the simulator for each pilot student? This is not readily apparent in the syllabus but is implied in the actual instructor to student ratio required for

PIN2 simulator events.

No, only one contract sim instructor is required.

76. Attachment 22 On each “Student Throughput” tab for each site

(Under Pilot courses) there is a course labeled

“Pilot Instructor Formation Airdrop (PIN3).”

This syllabus requires a class size of 2 pilots for each course. Can Government verify that for the simulator missions in PIN3 there are actually 2 contractor pilot instructors required in the simulator for each pilot student? This is not readily apparent in the syllabus but is implied in the actual instructor to student ratio required for

PIN3 simulator events.

No, only one contract sim instructor is required.

77. Attachment 22 On each “Student Throughput” tab for each site

(under Loadmaster courses) there is a row labeled

“Loadmaster Part Task Trainer (LMPTT).” There is a 2-hour block to be priced. Can the

Government verify that the price for these

LMPTT sorties should also include pre-brief time for the instructor?

Yes, include a 30 minute pre-brief period and 30 minute debrief period for pricing.

78. Attachment 22 On each “Student Throughput” tab for each site

(under Loadmaster courses) there is a row labeled

“Weapon System Trainer (WST) Generic

Course.” There is a 2-hour block to be priced.

Can the Government verify that the price for these

Loadmaster WST sorties should also include pre-brief time for the instructor?

Yes, include a 30 minute pre-brief period and 30 minute debrief period for pricing.

79. Attachment 22 On each “Student Throughput” tab for each site

(under Pilot courses) there is a course labeled

“Pilot Quarterly Training (PQT).” Can the

Government provide a syllabus for this course so it can be priced accordingly?

The PQT course syllabus dated January 2010 is a

3-day course, but for this contract the course will be 2 days, delete the third day. The PQT Syllabus is provided with the posting of these Q&As.

80. Attachment 22 On each “Student Throughput” tab for each site

(under loadmaster courses) there is a course labeled Loadmaster Semi-Annual Refresher

(LST).” Can the Government provide a syllabus for this course so it can be priced accordingly?

The LST course syllabus dated January 2010 is a

3-day course, but for this contract the course will be 2 days, one class will be day 1 and day 2 while the second option will be day 2 and day 3. The

LST Syllabus is provided with the posting of these

Q&As.

81. Section L and

Attachment 22

In Section L in the paragraph that discusses the

Student Throughput Worksheets, it describes how the bidders are to build the individual ranges for each course.

Attachment 22, Student Instruction Tabs contain some confusing mid-range values in accordance with

Section L instructions.

For example, under the “Student Throughput Little

Rock” Tab row for PIQ3 the following information is provided: The minimum number of students is 40 and the maximum number of students is 180 – this would be a total range of 180-40 or 140 students.

The math would reflect that the “mid-range” value should be 110 students (140/2 =70 then add 40+70) – not the 130 students currently reflected in the tab.

There are numerous other courses that reflect this same type of mathematical disconnect for the mid-range. Does the government want the bidders to develop their own logical mid-range value for each of the courses or strictly use the mid-ranges shown currently on the spreadsheets?

Range 6 is not a mid-range; it reflects the most probable quantity of students. Offerors are required to complete the ranges of students with a price for that range of students.

There are no mathematical disconnects. The

Government is using the range table to allow for flexibility in course student throughput.

Regarding the PIQ3 course, offerors shall not start with any number of students lower than 40 (Range

1) and shall not exceed 180 students (Range 11).

Offerors shall not alter the student numbers provided in Range 1, Rang 6, and Range 11 but shall complete the matrix with student throughput ranges and prices.

82. Attachment 22 On the “Student Throughput Little Rock” Tab, the

Loadmaster Semi-Annual Training (LST) is listed to be priced in rows 114-116. However, the title suggests a semi-annual requirement but the description states that students will be taught annually. Is this a semi-annual or annual requirement for Loadmaster students?

Semi-Annual. The description is in reference to the number in your range. For example, if there were 100 loadmasters, we would order the range that had 200 students in it.

83. Section L Section 6.2.2 states that “The offeror is instructed to complete the matrix with the firm-fixed price per range for Instruction and Training activities defined in PWS paragraph 4.0 and its subparagraphs.”

Support staff such as registrars, student librarians, and schedulers are not mentioned in PWS paragraph

4.0 but yet are needed to support student throughput.

Should offerors include support staff in this pricing table? If so, which positions and what quantity?

Offerors should price what they feel is necessary to comply with the student throughput for each course.

84. Section L Sections 6.2.2 states that “The offeror is instructed to complete the worksheets with prices for CLS activities as defined in Section J, Attachment 1, PWS paragraph 5.0 and its subparagraphs.” CLS Support staff such as property managers and material coordinators are not mentioned in PWS paragraph

5.0 but yet are needed to support CLS requirements.

Should offerors include CLS support staff in this pricing table? If so, which positions and what quantity?

Offerors should price what they feel is necessary to provide appropriate CLS activities to support the student throughput ranges for each location for each year.

85. Section L Section 5.1 requires a Consent Letter (RFP Section

L, Attachment L-2) for each subcontractor. Is this included in the Volume page count? If so, in the

Introduction or with the subcontractors’ PPI?

Section L, 5.1 last paragraph, last sentence states, “These letters are excluded from the volume page count.”

86. General The Instructors Utilization Handbook was not included on the Bidders Library CD. Please provide a copy.

The Instructors Utilization Handbook is on the updated Bidders Library CD available for pickup.

See What’s New – 9 Oct 13 for details.

87. General The Base Host Agreements for each location were not included on the Bidders Library CD. Please provide these.

All applicable Base Support Agreements will be posted with the formal RFP.

88. General Please confirm that the Snap-On account for tools that support the MTDs will transfer to the new contractor.

CAE has a Snap-On account that is used to support the tools at sites. Whoever wins would have to establish (if not already established) an account with Snap-On directly. All the items currently being maintained/warrantied by Snap-

On would then be transferred to that account and honored.

89. PWS 7.1.1.2, C&A These Information Assurance (IA) requirements are not a CLS function, and fall under the TSSC.

Further, PWS 5.8 states “…The on-site TSSC contractor at each MOB will be responsible for on-site IT/IA…” and all other PWS requirements are for the CLS contractor supporting the TSSC.

Recommend replacing the text with: "The contractor shall provide qualified personnel IAW AFI 33 200 and AFI 33 210, to serve as site Information

Assurance Officers (IAOs).

The IAOs shall ensure that C-130J MATS site implementation meets established IA security requirements."

PWS text will remain unchanged. Each contractor should bid as they feel necessary to meet the requirements set forth.

90. PWS 7.1.1.2,

Architecture Analysis

These Information Assurance (IA) requirements are not a CLS function, and fall under the TSSC.

Recommend deleting the paragraph in its entirety.

PWS text will remain unchanged. IA requirements are included so bidders know what areas they need to provide support to the TSSC.

91. PWS 7.1.1.6, IA Risk

Assessment

These Information Assurance (IA) requirements are not a CLS function, and fall under the TSSC.

Recommend deleting the paragraph in its entirety.

PWS text will remain unchanged. IA requirements are included so bidders know what areas they need to provide support to the TSSC.

92. Post Site Visit In order for the gaining contractor to fully understand the interaction with the TSSC contractor and to identify any potential gaps for the Govt, can the

Govt. please provide a redacted copy of the new

SOW for the TSSC?

The TSSC SOW is not releasable and has no impact on proposal submission. Offerors are required to propose based on the requirements stated in the O&S PWS.

93. Post Site Visit Is the contractor responsible for all shipping, receiving, packing, materials and transportation costs as cost reimbursable or does the USG maintain these supplies and accounts?

PWS 5.1.6 states The contractor shall be responsible for the preservation, packaging and packing of all items to be delivered under the terms of this contract. Not reimbursable. Costs should be built into the basic cost. The only items the PS&H contractor is not responsible for are items coming from the ICP.

94. Post Site Visit Is the contractor responsible for the maintenance of the Oxygen Generator?

Yes.

95. Post Site Visit Please confirm that the USG will maintain janitorial responsibility for all provided facilities, or if the contractor must assume those duties.

No. Services provided will be dependent on the base services agreement. Any gaps will need to be covered by the contractor. PWS 9.1.2 states, The contractor shall provide janitorial services

(personal trash to centralized location, etc.) and supplies (trash bags, etc.) IAW the Section J, Attachments 4 - 8, Base Support Agreement for each site.

96. Post Site Visit Please provide a list, by device of any known or planned modifications and upgrades for the duration of the period of performance.

The following are the known mods/upgrades at this time:

Visual Systems Mod, and JPADS Mod on

WSTs J1-J5 (FY14-15)

Aero data mod on all WSTs (FY14-16)

Block 7.0/8.1 mod FY17-26 all ATDs

97. Post Site Visit Please confirm that all tools currently on site are owned by the Government and will novate with the contract.

All items on the current JMATS Contract #6300

Logistics Support Package (LSP) will transfer.

CAE-owned equipment and Contract #6288 LSP items will stay with respective contractors.

98. Post Site Visit Please clarify if the contractor will be permitted to use Government supply chains for replenishment of stock and new purchases under the contract.

The only Government supply chain is the ICP used for C-130J peculiar items. The contractor will be responsible for all other items/consumables for training and maintenance.

99. Post Site Visit For the calibration list provided, please provide details as to whether the equipment is calibrated by current staff or through a separate calibration contract.

The contractor can use the base back shop services on a cost reimbursable basis (BSA item). If back shop services not available, the contractor must find other means to calibrate equipment.

100. Post Site Visit Please clarify if the contractor will also be included in the Modification Working Group.

PWS 3.1.1.7.2 states, The contractor shall support all WGs conducted by the TSSC contractor to include the Modification WG.

101. Post Site Visit Please clarify if USMC use of the trainers is considered GUT or if the contractor is responsible for scheduling.

AMC does not schedule USMC training time unless it is within the PFT. Maintenance training for USMC is scheduled through “blue suiter” Air

Force.

102. Post Site Visit Please clarify if the contractor is responsible for scheduling the International Students.

The contractor shall schedule international students just like any USG student. The POC for scheduling refresher training quotas is

AFSAT/DOR.

103. Post Site Visit It was mentioned that the current QC function is performed by Instructor Pilots rotating through the

QC position in 6 month increments. Please clarify if the Government plans to keep the QC of POI with the TSSC contractor or if the gaining contractor will be providing independent QC review functions.

Not really sure what this question is asking.

Instructional System development is done by the

TSSC. Semi-annual lesson reviews will be done by O&S instructors.

104. Post Site Visit It was mentioned that the lower level devices, such as the MFTA, are available for student use after hours. Please clarify the requirement for contractor presence during the after hours use.

The contractor has to be available to set up and reboot the MFTA any time a student is using it for self-study.

105. Post Site Visit Request a copy of the System Security Authorization

Agreement (SSAA) from the Government for the systems covered under this contract.

No system wide SSAA exists

106. Post Site Visit Request the system Information Assurance

Vulnerability (IAVM) Plan.

No IAVM currently exists. It will be a future task for the TSSC.

107. Post Site Visit Please provide a copy of any relevant site security measures that are relevant to the training devices and

TSSC.

Security procedures are already addressed in the

PWS. No additional site security measures are required.

108. Post Site Visit Please provide details on the certification and testing requirements associated with the Hoffman NVG tester in the NVG training room and what contractor is responsible.

The contractor is responsible for the Hoffman

NVG Tester. The contractor shall maintain the tester in a serviceable condition as part of the

LSP.

Q&As Posted 29 October 2013

109.

Student Throughput

Worksheets

The range tables above the mid-range exceed current throughput, based on the provided data. In multiple cases, they exceed the capacity of the WSTs

(operating at 20 hrs/dy, 355 dy/yr). Flat-line pricing

(i.e., holding the same price across ranges) beyond the most likely throughput range for each course would reduce the average that feeds into the TEP.

Will the Government consider such an approach as reasonable and balanced pricing?

No. Fill in the pricing matrix using the assumption that device/aid resources will be available for all ranges.

110.

CLS Worksheets

The Government has stated in response to our question that it will order the level of CLS support based on the highest range of all the student throughput ranges contracted. This could result in the contracted device usage hours exceeding the maximum possible device operating hours, thereby purchasing excessive CLS effort. Would the

Government reconsider how CLS support should be aligned with the student throughput ranges contracted?

Fill in the CLS tables using the assumption that device/aid resources will be available for all ranges. Bid CLS to maintain corresponding

Student throughput ranges.

Fill in the CLS tables using the assumption that device/aid resources will be available for all ranges. Bid CLS to maintain corresponding

Student throughput ranges. Ranges were built with the expectation of future program growth.

111. Syllabus

None of the syllabi provide instructor to student ratios for academics. There are annotations on some of the syllabi identifying additional academic instruction hours for each additional student. This causes one to assume that academic hours are per student. Please provide either instructor to student ratios for academics, an average class size, or normal range (i.e. 6-12) of students per class so offerors can accurately price academic instruction hours and cost per student.

There is no instructor to student ratio required for classroom academics. WB and CBT lesson require at least one instructor on hand to answer any questions students might have. Device lessons specify instructor to student ratios.

112. Loadmaster Combined

Syllabus, Section D

Aircraft Equipment-

Flying (ACE-F), page 35.

ACE-F Lesson Table does not provide an instructor to student ratio. Please provide.

Ratio given in definition of ACE-F, Chapter 5, Section C.

113. Loadmaster Instructor

Syllabus, Course

Training Summary

Tables, page 2.

For both LIN1 and LIN3, the statement, “Left column applies when the evaluation is administered in a WST. Right column applies when evaluation is administered in a FuT.” Is included. We note that there is an inverse of instructional hours between the use of the two devices. To accurate price instructional hours, offerors need to know if this inverse correlation counters the instructional hours. If not, please provide the annually percentage of use for each training device (WST / FuT) in support of this curriculum.

Evaluation is done in the FuT or WST based on device availability and preference of the examiner.

The statement is only applies to the evaluation.

114. Syllabus

The following courses that require pricing on the C-

130J MATS OS Pricing Matrix have not had syllabi provided. Please provide a syllabus for each of these courses so Offerors may compute instructional hour requirements.

All courses are defined in syllabi provided on bidders library.

VTRAT Initial - not a separate syllabi. Part of formal school syllabi.

VTRAT Continuation - not a separate syllabi.

CRM - facilitator and flt surg initial CRM syllabi in bidders library.

115. Transition Course –

USCG (TX)

The following courses that require pricing on the

C-130J MATS OS Pricing Matrix have not had syllabi provided. Please provide a syllabus for each of these courses so Offerors may compute instructional hour requirements.

For Transition Course – USCG, contractor must provide a sim operator for ten 4-hour sessions over 10 training days. USCG provide their own instructors/syllabi.

116. Pilot Simulator

Refresher (PSR) – 4-

Day Course Students

Trained Annually

The following course is listed on the C-130J

MATS OS Pricing Matrix for Little Rock. Is this course PSR1 or PSR2 per the syllabus?

PSR1 and PSR2 have the same amount of device/flying time. Both courses will be ordered under this line.

117. Loadmaster Annual

Refresher

(LRT)

The following course is listed on the C-130J MATS

OS Pricing Matrix for Little Rock. Is this course

LRT1 or LRT3 per the syllabus?

LRT1 and LRT2 have the same amount of device/flying time. Both courses will be ordered under this line.

118. Instrument Refresher

Course

(IRC) (# of Hot Topic

Sessions)

No syllabus has been provided for the following C-

130J MATS OS Pricing Matrix course at Little Rock.

Please advise.

Hot Topic Session is a 1 hour, instructor led, classroom session with no student limit governed by AFMAN 11-210.

119. PWS Paragraph 5.6, Operational

Requirements, states

“The contractor shall operate and maintain the

C-130J MATS to meet the following operational support requirements.”

The associated table states operational requirements may be up to 20 hours per day and up to 355 days per year.

Note #1 states, “Hours of operation may be adjusted to meet training throughput requirements.”

Question 1: Are the operational requirements provided in the table in PWS Paragraph 5.6 representative of maximum student throughput

(Pricing O&S sheet, range 11) for all devices on site.

Question 2: Assuming the answer to Question 1 is

“yes”, this requirement is too ambiguous to allow contractors to develop realistic CLS staffing levels.

At a minimum, please provide the hours per day and days per year for median (range 6) and lowest utilization (range 1) assuming all devices on site are operating at those range levels.

1. No, the two are not related.

2. No, the hours per day and days per year should be able to be calculated using the pricing matrix and the provided syllabi.

Q&As Posted 13 November 2013

120. Section L 1.1 The new Draft RFP dated October 10 deleted the words “single award” as the resulting contract.

Will the Government please clarify if this opportunity is a single or multiple award opportunity?

Single award.

121. General Should bidders assume that the annual license costs for the contractor-provided Maintenance

Management System will be reimbursable annually under the CRNF CLIN for CLS Support

Materials for Little Rock (CLIN XX20)?

No. License costs should be part of your firm fixed price bid.

122. General Understand there is a requirement for the winning contractor to provide MHE drivers in support of

Loadmaster Fuselage training at Little Rock. Are the MHE drivers to be bid as part of the CLS effort or student instruction ranges?

It would be appropriate to capture costs associated with HME drivers under student instruction, however, each bidder should include the cost where it best aligns with the company’s training strategy/philosophy.

123. Labor Cost Support staff such as registrars, student librarians, and schedulers are required at Little Rock Formal

Training Unit. Should bidders capture the labor costs for these personnel under the "Program

Management" tab in Attachment 23? Or should these positions be captured under the "Student

Throughput Little Rock" tab in Attachment 23?

It would be appropriate to capture support staff costs under Program Management”, however, each bidder should include the cost where it best aligns with the company’s training strategy/philosophy. Student throughput prices should include all costs necessary to train/instruct the required number of students for a given course.

124. Labor Cost The CLS Manager (defined in PWS paragraph

5.1.1.2) is a required position for the JMATS

O&S. Should bidders capture the labor costs for this position under the "Program Management" tab in Attachment 23? Or should this position be captured under the "CLS Little Rock" tab in

Attachment 23?

It would be appropriate to capture costs associated with CLS Manager under Program Management or

CLS Little Rock, however, each bidder should include the cost where it best aligns with the company’s training strategy/philosophy.

125. Follow on question for

Government for

Question 111 previously submitted.

It is our understanding that the classroom sizes at the JMATS Formal Training Unit (FTU) facility only allow for class sizes of 2 students (in most cases). All but 2 of the current classrooms and briefing/debriefing rooms can only handle 2

(maybe 4 students). There are 2 larger classrooms for teaching courses like IRC, VTRAT and tactics but not enough “large” classrooms to handle multiple “large” classes for academics. Also, the smaller class sizes of 2 students (as currently defined in the PFT) streamlines the student flow to the flight line unit.

Can the Government provide clarification on how the bidders should plan for student class sizes associated with academics?

The class size for all C-130J courses is two (2) students, Exception: VTRAT, CRM Facilitator & IRC. It is critical that all contractors bid to support a class size of two (2) for every class except VTRAT, CRM Facilitator, and

IRC. The limiting factors are classroom size and flow to the flightline.

History: The C-130J training facility Bldg 1232 does not have large classrooms to conduct classes larger than 2 students and two CCAIs. To implement the two students per class concept, we converted all the ATD briefing rooms into classrooms and we also permanently divided office space and large classrooms into smaller classrooms.

If all contractors do not know this and bid to conduct classes of 4/6/8/10/12 students, they may under bid on CCAI manning, in addition, the facility will not be able to support more than one large class at a time. VTRAT, CRM Facilitator and IRC class size can be as high as 10 students.

126.

Section I FAR 52.203-

REQUEST…