Government Response to Industry Questions-28Sep21.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- W900KK-22-R-0003
About this file
This is a solicitation for Flight School Training Support Services (FSTSS). The U.S. Army requires contractor-provided training simulation services including high fidelity UH-72A, UH-60L, UH-60M, CH-47F, and AH-64E flight simulators. Additional medium fidelity collective training devices are required for UH-60M, CH-47F, and AH-64D/E capabilities. A training support/management oversight capability is also required. All simulators will be contractor owned, operated and maintained. Requirements are based on student throughput, training schedules, and programs of instruction from the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence. Questions are due by January 10, 2022 regarding solicitation W900KK-22-R-0003. Proposals must be received by February 2, 2022. The U.S. Army Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation and Product Lead TADSS Support Operations are listed as agencies.
View the file
Other files
Show all 14
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
GDIT
Relates To: (RFP or Attachment #/Section #/Page # Question/Comment Government Response
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Introduction/Page 5 | |||
| The award term provisions state that the Contractor investment should be fully amortized by year 7 and then stating that years 8-12 are for the Contractor to achieve profit on their fully amortized investment. Is the Government stating that we are to amortize the investment in 7 years and then earn the profit on that investment in years 8-12? | |||
| Included in error; PWS has been updated to remove language. | |||
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Introduction/Page 5 | |||
| The award term provisions state that the Contractor investment should be fully amortized by year 7 and then stating that years 8-12 are for the Contractor to achieve profit on their fully amortized investment. We were under the impression the Government wanted a level funding stream across the period of performance. Is that not the case? | |||
| Included in error; PWS has been updated to remove language. The Government anticipates a level funding stream across the period of performance. | |||
| Draft RFP | Will the Davis-Bacon Act be applicable to this contract? | Yes, the clause has been added. | |
| Draft RFP | Based on this solicitation being a competitive acquisition, could the Government please confirm that should only one offer be received, an award will be made to the one offeror? In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) rule agreed to by the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) in Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 2019–03, the expectation of competition has been deemed as an adequate exemption for DoD contracts to open negotiation, with the understanding that a certificate will be required. | Should only one offer be received, the Government MAY award to the one offeror provided the one offeror's proposal is compliant and eligible for award. As stated in section L.3.8.1 of the draft RFP, "If, after receipt of the proposals, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist in accordance with FAR 15.403-1, the Offeror shall provide certified cost/pricing data as requested by the PCO.". Therefore, additional supporting documentation may be required from the contractor to support proposed pricing and the Offeror will be required to certify to their data provided. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Section 3.6/Page 26 | What is meant by handling both automated and manual scheduling requests? Could you elaborate on the requirement for automated? | The term automated refers to the ability of a simulation services user to access the provided scheduling capability to view, schedule, or modify scheduled simulation periods via web based connection. Manual scheduling refers to the ability for simulation services users to make voice or in person contact with contractor provided scheduling personnel to schedule or modify previously scheduled simulation periods. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Sections 1.3 and 3.5 Table 5 and 3.8.3.3 and 8.1/Pages 7 and 23 and 29 and 49 | Is UH-60L a required AAVS configuration for FSTSS collective or individual training? | ||
| The requirement for UH-60L configuration applies only to the Collective training capability portion of this requirement. | |||
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Sections 1.3 and 3.8.3.3 and 8.1 and 8.8/Pages 7 and 29 and 49 and 81 -84 | Is AH-64D a required AAVS configuration for FSTSS collective training? | The AH-64D is a requirement for collective training support. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J2 Draft QASP/Pages 8 and 16 | A note about mislabeled references: Page 8 says Surveillance Matrix is attachment 4. Page 16 says Surveillance Matrix is attachment 3. | These mislabled attachment references will be corrected prior to the final RFP package. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Section 6.2/Page 43 | |||
| Section 3.18.4 says Secret classification at AWSC. The Government's response to industry's questions on the May 2021 draft PWS, item 14, says Secret classification at AWSC. Section 6.2 of the draft PWS does not specify AWSC. Could you update section 6.2 to specify AWSC for clarification? Could you also confirm the requirement to operate in contractor owned and operated facilities is unclassified only and there is no requirement to operate at any higher level than unclassified? Finally, could you confirm the requirement to operate in all other government owned facilities is unclassified only? | The requirement is for the services to be capable of operating at a classification level up to Secret. The AAVS devices will be the only capabilities that potentially would require operations at a classification level above unclassified. All AAVS capabilities provided both for Individual/Crew and Collective training shall be capable of conducting training at a classification level of up to Secret classification. | ||
| Draft RFP Attachment J4 FSTSS ATP | Should UH-72 be added? | The Draft version will be updated to include UH-72 prior to the final RFP package. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Sections 3.11 and 3.17.8/ Pages 36 and 40 | There seems to be conflict between 3.11 and 3.17.8 "3.11 …The AAVSs shall be JTA, SE Core, OWT and HLA compliant with other JTA, Se Core, DIS and/or HLA compliant virtual simulators and constructive simulators via LAN and WAN". "3.17.8 Individual and crew trainer AAVSs are not expected to be interoperable with the Army’s systems at large (DIS, HLA, SeCORE, OWT, JTA), but are desired to be interoperable with each other to do multi-ship" Is it the Government's intent that only the collective training AAVSs be DIS, HLA, SeCORE, OWT, JTA compliant? | Simulator interoperability is required to be across Individual/Crew simulator platform specific, not across simulator platforms. IE..AH-64 Individual/Crew simulators are required to perform linked operations with other AH-64 individual/Crew simulators; AH-64 Individual/Crew simulators are not required to link with UH or CH Individual/Crew simulator platforms. However, the capability should be compliant with the standard simulation protocols that would allow for seamless integration of training environment products (terrain database, models, SAF,...etc.). The collective training capability should be capable of interoperating with other Army Training Simulations. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Section 3.8.2.5/ Page 25 | "IOS capabilities shall include...and at an external or central remote operator station (ROS) for contractor operation". Please clarify that the AATD, which will be co-located with the 23rd FTS on Cairns, does not require an ROS for contractor operation. | The Government will review the TH-1H AATD requirement and clarify prior to final solicitation release, however The instructor should have the ability to control the simulator from either the left pilot position or external from the cockpit similar to existing simulations IOS setup. Occasionally, an instructor will only have one student and will need to operate the sim from the cockpit. If the proposed solution includes the capability to allow IOS control via a remote tablet that the instructor can operate anywhere, the Government will evaluate to determine if that solution will satisfy the requirement. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Sections 3.8.2.2 and 8.1/Pages 27 and 52 | Regarding "shall have sufficient functionality and fidelity (including motion cues)", please clarify that the AATD does not require a motion platform. Also CMT deductions for motion apply to AATD as well. | The TH-1H AATD does not require full motion, only secondary motion/vibration cues are required. The Government will review the CMT deductions prior to the final solicitation release. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Sections 2.1.1/Page 11 | Regarding Cairns AAF BLDG 30133, could you provide facility specifications such as: floorplans, power availability, HVAC capacity and any drawings available? | The Government will make available electronic copies of the Ft. Rucker Facility Specifications for distribution by request during solicitation period through an NDA. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Sections 4.1.1 - 4.1.4/Page 41 | Regarding Braman and Yano Halls and Building 5440 (Aviation Warfighting Simulation Center (AWSC), could you provide facility specifications such as: floorplans, power availability, HVAC capacity and any drawings available? | The Government will make available electronic copies of the Ft. Rucker Facility Specifications for distribution by request during solicitation period through an NDA. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J3 Draft DD 254/Section 1.a/Page 1 | Draft DD 254 indicates level of Facility Security Clearance is "Secret" however, Item 13 continuation sheet, Item 11, Ref Item 11.c, indicates "The contractor requires access to classified source data up to and including (Top Secret-SCI) in support of the work effort." The draft PWS says the requirement is Secret. Can you confirm the requirement is up to Secret and update the Item 13 continuation sheet accordingly? | ||
| The DD254 will be revised to remove the continuation sheet prior to the final solicitation. | |||
| Draft RFP Attachment to J3- Collateral Item 13 Security Guidance/Section Ref Item 11.M/Page 5 | |||
| There are some contradictions within the Draft DD 254 as well as the attachment to Draft DD 254,Collateral Item 13 Security Guidance relating to dual citizens and foreign or US FOCI companies where we respectfully request clarification. Page 3, Section 8. b of the Draft DD 254 indicates USA-FOCI companies can work on this contract. Page 1 item 3 of the Collateral Item 13 Security Guidance indicates Foreign, US FOCI can work on the contract. Page 7 of the Draft DD 254, Ref Item 11.M., indicates the FSO should maintain a list of all dual citizens. The Collateral Item 13 Security Guidance document, Ref Item 11. M says, "No Foreign, dual citizenship or U.S.A. FOCI companies are allow to work on this contract". We assume Dual citizens and Foreign or US FOCI companies may work on this contract. Can you confirm and update the Collateral Item 13 Security Guidance, Ref Item 11m on page 5 accordingly? | The DD254 will be revised to remove the continuation sheet prior to the final solicitation. | ||
| PWS/Section 3/Page 28 | Could you clarify if 71 is total of all collective exercises (PME, AIT, ATX, etc.)? | The PWS will be updated prior to the final solicitation, the approximate number of collective training exercises should be 130 total. | |
| Attachment L3 Price Workbook/Section B CLIN Pricing | Award Ordering Period 3 (Year 8) doesn't include Simulator Training Support Packages or Constructive Battlemaster Gaming Support. Those CLINS are in all other years. Should they be included in Year 8? | Yes, they should be included. CLINs added for Award Ordering Period 3 (Year 8). | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Section 3.18.3/Page 40 | The FSTSS Simulation systems must be able to perform crash/power outage recovery and restore the simulation status without loss of data within 15 minutes. Is this referring to saving the recording session for debrief capability or restoring the simulation status to its pre-power outage stage? | Reference is to saving the session recording for debrief. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Sections 3.8.1.4, 3.8.2.5, 3.8.3.12/Page 26, 28, 30 | Regarding "The capability to play back the training session from within the manned module", please clarify if cockpit playback capabilities are required for UH-72A VS, TH-1H VS/AATD and individual/crew AAVSs. Also, if playback is a requirement, should the entire training session be available for in-cockpit playback? The contractor understands that the entire training session will be available at the external debrief station. | The Government will review the playback requirement for applicability, the final PWS will be updated for clarity. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/ 8.6 Appendix F/Pages 74-78 | This appendix includes UH-60A and UH-60V tasks. Are these configurations a program requirement? | 60A/60V configurations are not required for this effort. | |
| Draft RFP/Section L.1.3.b/Page 131 and Section L.3.5 /Page 137 | We identified some inconsistencies in labeling, which we respectfully submit for your consideration. Attachment L3 in the RFP attachments is the Price Workbook, whereas Attachment L2 is the Traceability Matrix. | Paragraph L.1.3.b corrected to read Traceability Matrix as Attachment L2. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Section 2.1.4/Page 13 | We noticed Juneteenth holiday is not listed in the draft PWS, but it is listed in the draft RFP. We respectfully submit this for your consideration. | PWS will be revised to state "all Federal Holidays". Section C.5 of RFP updated to remove specific holidays by name. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Section 3.8.2/Page 27 | We identified some inconsistencies in labeling, which we respectfully submit for your consideration. This section references the individual/crew tasks identified in the Appendix D, Comprehensive Maneuver Item File (MIF), whereas the MIF is in Appendix E. Will references to Appendix D be edited in future PWS versions to reflect Appendix E? | PWS will be corrected to reference appendix E for paragraph 3.8.2.2 | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Sections 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8/Pages 69-84 | We have identified tasks that cannot be trained in a simulator environment. Can the contractor propose the training tasks that will be supported? | The Government will review the requirement task lists and revise for clarity. The Government will define the training tasks that will be required from the services. There may be tasks that are evaluated in the simulator, while the tasks are not actually performed in the simulation. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Section 8.5/Page 73 | Is "Tail Rotor Fixed Pitch" and "Tail Rotor Fixed Pitch Failure" the same emergency procedure? | "Tail Rotor Fixed Pitch" and "Tail Rotor Fixed Pitch Failure" are the same however, there are two instances of the failure. There is a high power and a low power fixed pitch failure specified in the Air Force Technical Order (AFTO) 1H-1(T)H-1 Flight Manual USAF Series TH-1H Helicopter. | |
| A007 - Device Availability, Maintenance, and Utilization Reports (Remarks BLK 14) | Does the Government intend to use electronic logbooks to record flight time (-12) and annotate deficiencies (-13)? | The Government does not require electronic logbooks for devices provided within the simulation services, however the utilization of a standard formatted report for simulator usage and faults will be required. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/ | |||
| Sections 3.13.1 and 3.8.3.3/Pages 29 and 37 | There are references to SEDRIS and JTA in the PWS. Would the government consider removing these as they are obsolete? | The Government will review the PWS references and revise prior to the final solicitation. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J2 Draft QASP/Section 2.1.1/paragraph 1 | The document doesn't list AATD with TH-1H. Should it be included in this context? | Draft QASP will be updated prior to final RFP package | |
| Draft RFP/Section L5/Page 146 | Large Business Contractors who hold an approved Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan as defined in DFARS clause 252.219-7004 are not permitted to change or adjust their DCMA approved plan. Will the customer please confirm understanding that Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan holders meet all requirements at RFP section L.5 “Small Business Subcontracting Plan” by submitting the plan as approved by DCMA? | Yes, Offerors who have a DoD Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan, already approved under the Test Program described in DFARS 219.702-70 and DFARS clause 252.219-7004, shall submit the current approved version of the DoD Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan to meet the RFP section L.5 requirements. | |
| Draft RFP/Section L5/Page 146 | Will the Government please confirm understanding that contractors who hold a DCMA approved Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan have negotiated the subcontracting plan goals, which may not be changed. For contractors holding a Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan, the goals will not reflect nor be consistent with the goal commitments within the “Small Business Participation Commitment Document”. | In accordance with DFARS 219.702-70(c)(2), a test program participant is allowed to submit and utilized their approved DoD Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan, in lieu of an Individual Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when performing any DoD contract or subcontract that requires a Small Business Subcontracting Plan; the goals within the approved DoD Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan cover all DoD contracts and subcontracts awarded to the test program participant, and cannot be altered to reflect the subcontracting requirements of an individual DoD contract. The Offeror's Small Business Participation Commitment Document, and the small business participation requirement percentage proposed within it, is only applicable to this particular solicitation and resulting contract award. Therefore, the Government acknowledges that the small business participation requirement percentage proposed within the Offeror's Small Business Participation Commitment Document, may not be consistent with the overall small business goal percentage listed within an Offeror's approved DoD Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plan. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/ Section 3.8.3.5 Page 29 | Is the government requesting the contractor propose a UAS system for both individual/crew and collective training in order to provide the Manned-Unmanned Teaming LOI 1-4? | The contractor should propose a simulation system capability that supports the requirement of training the manned-unmanned teaming LOI's 1-4. | |
| "Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS | |||
| Sections 3.8.3.10 and 3.17.8 Pages 30 and 40 | Are AH-64E individual/crew AAVSs required to be interoperable with CH-47F and UH-60M individual/crew AAVSs? | Simulator interoperability is required to be across Individual/Crew simulator platform specific, not across simulator platforms. IE..AH-64 Individual/Crew simulators are required to perform linked operations with other AH-64 individual/Crew simulators; AH-64 Individual/Crew simulators are not required to link with UH or CH Individual/Crew simulator platforms. | |
| Draft RFP Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Section 6.2/Page 43 | |||
| Once the facility goes classified, is there a requirement to switch back to unclassified, and if so, how quickly and how frequently will the Government switch back and forth between unclassified and classified? | The requirement to operate at a classified level of Secret will require the capability to revert from Secret back to unclassified. The frequency of the escalation of the classification level will be driven by the operational environment and threat level response. The respondent should be prepared to present the Government with their processes and procedures to support increasing or decreasing security classification levels and the impacts on their training capabilities. | ||
| Draft RFP Attachment to J3- DEW SCG | Is this document applicable to FSTSS; do FSTSS simulators qualify as DOD Directed Energy Weapons? | The DD254 will be revised to remove the referenced document prior to the final solicitation. | |
| Draft RFP/ Section M/Page 156 of 157 | There is no M.4. The outline structure goes from M.3.6.8 to M.5. Question: Should numbering be adjusted to include M.4? | Yes, Section M.5 corrected to read Section M.4. | |
| Attachment J1 Draft PWS/section 3.9.1/Page 31 | Please provide details of the MOS 15Q ATC course, such as course duration, students per course, course training requirements. | The ATC course duration is 86 training days, with a max student load of 12. There are currently 31 class starts annually for these courses. The Government will make available electronic copies of the Program of Instruction for distribution by request during solicitation period through NDA. | |
| Attachment J1 Draft PWS/section 3.8.3.6/Page 29 | This sentence seems to have an error…… "The AAVSs shall be of voice"… We assume this should read: "AAVSs shall include voice and data communications. We respectfully request clarification to ensure we understand the requirement. | PWS language will be revised to reflect "The AAVSs shall be capable of voice…" | |
| Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Section 3.13/Page 26 | Regarding Terrain/Visual Data Base, what is the requirement for the ATC Simulator? Is it Ft Rucker only or does the Government want multiple Airports/Towers for ATC Training? | The ATC simulations requires only the Ft. Rucker Cairns AAF. | |
| Attachment J1 Draft PWS/Section 3.13/Page 37 | Regarding ATC Simulator, Digital Aeronautical Flight Information File (DAFIF), is there a requirement to update the DAFIF file to maintain concurrency with Approach Charts/Airfield Diagrams? | No DAFIF updates are required for the ATC simulations. | |
| RFP Attachment L3 - Price Workbook | Please confirm that the Labor Description & Rates and Indirect Rates by Year Worksheets are only for pricing T&M Over and Above Work (OWAR) requests in execution as the base/core work is a monthly fixed price. Is the labor rates and descriptions worksheet included in the pricing workbook for pricing potential additional work in the future? If so, is the indirect rate buildup worksheet intended to be the detail buildup used to validate the values in the labor rates and descriptions worksheet? | All additional in-scope efforts incorporated during the duration of the contract will be FFP; there will be no T&M efforts. The Price Workbook has been revised to remove the 'Labor Description & Rates' and 'Indirect Rates by Year' tabs. | |
| RFP Section L | We recommend the Government consider a phased approach to the acquisition. Specifically, we recommend a first phase of corporate experience that demonstrates the offerors have experience delivering on a program of similar scope and complexity demonstrating their ability to execute the FSTSS program. The Government can then down select those viable offerors for the second phase, which would consist of the proposal factors included in Section L of the Draft RFP. A phased approach maximizes the Government's time by only having to review the full technical and price proposals of viable offerors. This approach has been used successfully on other recent Army acquisitions such as Worldwide Field Support. | A phased approach was considered in developing the aqcuisition strategy; however, the Government determined the current, approved acquisition strategy to be the best course of action. | |
| RFP/L.2.6/Page 135 | Would the Government accept a font size of no smaller than 9 pt for tables, graphics, and header/footers? | Font size shall remain as stated in the Solicitation; however, the Government will be increasing the page count for the Technical and Program Management Volumes by 25 pages, each. | |
| RFP/L.2.6/Page 135 | Can the font be the Arial family (e.g., Arial Narrow)? | Font shall remain as Arial Standard, as stated in the Solicitation; however, the Government will be increasing the page count for the Technical and Program Management Volumes by 25 pages, each. | |
| RFP/L.3.1/Pages 135-136 | Can a logo be used to identify the company name in the header/footer in all volumes except Volumes I & II? | Yes |
W900KK-21-R-0048 Attachment L1
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .