HT0011-24-R-0050_TST_RFP_Att4_QuestionsAndAnswers_08.21.2024_Final.docx

DHA - Training Support Team Services Solicitation Number: HT0011-24-R-0050 Attachment 4 - Questions and Answers

1. Reference: PWS para 5.0 Question: Approximately how many new courses were developed over the past 2 to 3 years, and is it estimated that a similar quantity would be likely?

Answer: There is an average of 60 new/major edits/courses per year. Please refer to updated PWS 5.1.

2. Reference: PWS para 5.0 Question: Approximately how many courses required edits/updates over the past 2 to 3 years, and is it estimated that a similar quantity would be likely?

Answer: There is an average of 10-15 edits and assistance items per month on existing courses. Please refer to updated PWS 5.1.

3. Reference: PWS para 5.5 Question: Is there any workload data for the Tier 2 Helpdesk support?

Answer: In a typical week, there can be 10-15, which may require 8–24 hours weekly. Please refer to PWS 5.5 and Part 7, Attachment 6.

4. Reference: PWS para 5.5 Question: How many hours a day, any how many days a week will Tier 2 Helpdesk support be required?

Answer: This varies week to week, but approximately 8-24 hours per week. Please refer to updated PWS 5.5.

5. Reference: PWS para 5.5 Question: Approximately how many Tier 2 calls occur in a typical week and what is the general nature of those calls?

Answer: In a typical week, there can be 10-15, which may require 8–24 hours weekly. The calls mostly pertain to user account issues, course access questions, and mass change requests (requires direct database load vice individual item adjustment – the team’s part is to help gather data and relay to the LMS Operations.). Please refer to updated PWS 5.5

6. Reference: PWS para 5.5 Question: Will the USG further define what support / Tickets are expected to be resolved by Tier 2 Helpdesk support?

Answer: Refer to the answer above and updated PWS 5.5.

7. Reference: PWS Part 7 Attachment 6 Question: Does this workload data include the required LMS Administrator / Tier 2 Helpdesk support described in para 5.5?

Answer: Yes. The LMS Administrator also performs the helpdesk tasks. Please refer to Workload Data Table in Part 7, Attachment 6.

8. Reference: PWS para 1.6.1.2 - Transition Out Plan due 60 prior to unexercised option; RFP 52.517-9 - preliminary written notice at least 60 days before contract expires.

Question: Will the USG consider revising its preliminary notice timeline to allow a Transition Out Plan to be developed in a reasonable amount of time?

Answer: A draft Transition Out plan will be due six (6) months and a final plan 60 days prior to contract expiration or option exercise. The preliminary notice timeline in FAR 52.517-9 remains unchanged. Please refer to updated PWS 1.6.1.2

9. Reference: PWS para 5.1 Question: What is the likelihood of Virtual Reality (VR), or Augmented Reality (AR) being required in Interactive Multi-Media Instruction (IMI)?

Answer: Low chance. We go as far as avatar type and knowledge-based instruction. VR and AR are typically handled via a different department for modeling and simulation training. Please refer to requirements as indicated in PWS.

10. Reference: General Question: Is it possible for the USG to disclose technical information on the LMS (OS, software, compatibility, storage, physical housing, etc.)?

Answer: Both the LMS’s operate with SCORM based courseware (2004 2nd and 3rd editions) with highly similar functions but different GUIs. The LMS Administration and the Design/Development teams work within the given GUI and will not have any direct access to the systems’ OS, storage, or hosting environment. Please refer to specific requirements as detailed in 5.1.

11. Reference: RFP Instructions & Evaluation Criteria Question: PWS 5.1 Basic Service is omitted from the instructions and the evaluation criteria, should bidders still write to 5.1 in our technical approach?

Answer: The Technical Approach must demonstrate Offeror’s clear understanding of the requirements and objectives of the PWS and describe a methodology to timely meet or exceed the minimum required results. The identified Technical Capability Evaluation Criteria will assist the Government in evaluating whether the Technical Approach will result in successful contract performance. While 5.1 Basic Services is not referenced specifically in the Evaluation Criteria, it outlines the predominant activities and requirements of the contract scope and objectives. The Offeror must determine how it can best demonstrate that it meets the Technical requirements of the proposal instructions and PWS and showcase the areas/activities at the foundation of each specific Evaluation Criteria. Please reference updated PWS 5.1.

12. Reference: RFP Instructions Question: RFP Instructions, can the offeror provide CPARS allowable in lieu of PPQs Answer: The Government outlines required proposal elements and volumes for submission in Addendum to FAR provision 52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors-Commercial Items (Oct 2018). For Past Performance, the Offeror shall facilitate submission of no more than three (3) Past Performance references (i.e., PPQs). At least one (1) of the three (3) references must be for the prime 8(a) Offeror. If the prime Offeror cannot submit at least one (1) reference, a detailed explanation must be provided as to why the Offeror cannot submit one (1). PPQs provided by Offeror’s references and Offeror’s Volume 2 submission provide opportunities for Offeror to present information not readily available to the Government; CPARs are readily available.

13. Reference: PWS 1.6.1.1 page 3 states: “During the transition-in period, there will be ten (10) business days which overlap with the outgoing contractor and in which the incoming contractor shall prepare to meet all contract requirements and ensure incoming personnel are functionally trained and qualified on the full performance start date except cybersecurity requirements, which must be fully adhered during the transition and full performance periods. A Transition-In plan shall be included in the technical quote for evaluation and acceptance (CDRL A002).”

a) Question: Can the government elaborate on how the transition is envisioned?

b) Question: Will the ten business days be the first half of the transition or the last half?

c) Question: Is the offeror responsible for delivering services during the transition period?

d) Question: How should the offeror account for the transition in our price?

e) Question: Is transition part of CLIN 0001?

f) Question: During the ten days of overlap, is it the Government’s intent that both the incumbent and the successful offeror will be contracted to deliver services?"

Answer: Offerors are directed to PWS Section 1.6.1.1 Transition-In period, Section 1.11 Contractor personnel, and PART 7, Attachments/Technical Exhibit Listing for comprehensive information pertaining to Transition-In. As further clarification, the effective/start date of the new contract is anticipated to be 2/1/2025 and the current contract ends 2/14/2025. For two (2) calendar weeks, there will be an overlap in period of performance by the current contractor and the awardee. For these 2 weeks, it is anticipated that Transition and on-boarding activities will occur. Full awardee performance is expected to begin four (4) weeks after the contract effective date and will be the time the awardee should be fully staffed. The period of time from the effective date to the full performance date is the Transition-In period. During Transition-In, pricing would only be the same as at full performance if Contractor is fully staffed. Pricing for CLIN 0001 should reflect any ramp up in staffing.

14. Reference: PWS 1.12 Question: Will the government please provide education, certifications, and years of experience requirements for non-key personnel (Instructional Systems Designer, LMS Administrator, and eLearning Development Specialist)?

Answer: The Offeror is required to propose staffing it believes will fulfill the technical requirements of the PWS and must determine the education, certifications, experience, etc. required for non-key personnel to accomplish them. Please refer to updated PWS Part 5 for specific technical requirements.

15. Reference: Pricing Sheet, Reference file HT0011-24-R-0050_TST2_RFP_2024.07.31_ Final; Reference also page 19, “Detailed pricing information shall be submitted in tabular format in MS Excel.” Volume III Price, page 22 Question: Is the price volume to be just the “Detailed Breakout” spreadsheet meeting all requirements stipulated or is a Narrative required as well?

Answer: Yes. The price volume is an Excel workbook comprised of a Detailed Breakout including the requested back-up tabs. A Narrative is not required; however, Offerors are strongly encouraged to use "Assumptions" which explain the basis of a proposal element if clarification is useful or needed.

16. Reference: Reference file HT0011-24-R-0050_TST2_RFP_2024.07.31_Final Question: Please confirm that the “Schedule B summary” requested is the priced CLINS per the SF 1449 Continuation Sheet Schedule Answer: The Schedule B summary should include all priced CLINs (quantity, unit price, total price per PoP) in your proposal to include, at a minimum, the CLINs listed on pages 3 through 5 of the RFP.

17. Reference: Reference file HT0011-24-R-0050_TST2_RFP_Att1_PWS_06.14.2024_v2_ Final, Part 4 page 18 Question: Notes that the contractor will not provide services which seems incorrect due to the services nature of the work. Please clarify.

Answer: Please see updated PWS 4.1

18. Reference: RFP B. Offer Content and Format “Non-price proposals are limited to forty (40) single-sided pages.” (pg. 19 of 68)

a) Question: Can the government please confirm that the 40-page limit is for the technical volume and is not inclusive of the past performance volume?

Answer: Yes

b) Question: In order to ensure all offerors provide comparable information, will the government please provide an Excel price template with the data required?

Answer: No

c) Question: Due to the number of details required for the Price Volume, would the government allow a Price Narrative to be submitted in addition to the Excel document?

Answer: Yes, the Price Volume may include narrative to explain the proposed pricing and describe Assumptions made as the basis for the pricing.

d) Question: Would the government allow an introduction to be included in each volume that is not counted towards the page limit?

Answer: Offeror may use the maximum available pages for each volume to include introductions if it considers this best use of the allowable pages. As updated in Amendment 0001, the following sections are not subject to page limits: Contractor POC Cover Letter, Volume Title page, Table of Contents, signed SF1449 and SF30 Amendments, Representations and Certifications (if not completed in SAM.gov), Definitions (includes Glossaries, Acronyms, Abbreviations), Resumes, Past Performance Questionnaires, Assumptions and/or Exceptions (to requirements or terms and conditions), and Volume III – Price.

19. Reference: RFP Volume I – Technical Capability; Subfactors 2 and 3 “The Offeror shall provide as an attachment to the non-price proposal, an achievable draft Transition-In Plan which shall not exceed five (5) single-sided pages.”

“The Offeror shall provide as an attachment to the non-price proposal, a draft Quality Control Plan (QCP) which shall not exceed ten (10) single-sided pages.” (pg. 20 of 68) Question: Can the government please confirm that they would like Subfactors 2 and 3 to be submitted as separate attachments and not included within Volume I?

Answer: The draft Transition-In Plan and draft Quality Control Plan are to be provided as an attachment but will be included in the page limit of Technical Volume 1.

20. Reference: RFP Volume I – Technical Capability; Subfactor 4 “The Staffing/Key Personnel Plan shall provide resumes for all individuals identified and proposed to fill Key Personnel positions (reference PWS Section 1.12) which will not count against the page totals.” (pg. 20 of 68)

a) Question: Can the government please clarify the number of resumes that are required to be submitted as only one Key Personnel is referenced in the PWS?

Answer: The Government identified the “ISD Lead / Program Manager” as Key Personnel in the PWS. If Offeror does not propose additional Key Personnel, only one (1) resume is required.

b) Question: In what volume should the SF 1449 and Representations and Certifications be included?

Answer: Representations and Certifications requested by the solicitation should be included as part of Offeror’s Cover Letter. Reps and Certs included in Offeror’s System for Award Management (SAM) registration on the date of proposal submission are not required to be included with the proposal unless they have not been completed/addressed in SAM. Also reference the following Solicitation provisions for further guidance on Reps and Certs: FAR 52.204-7 System for Award Management (OCT 2018), FAR 52.204-19, Incorporation by Reference of Representations and Certifications, and 52.212-3 Offeror Representations and Certifications – Commercial Products and Commercial Services (MAY 2024).

21. Reference: PWS 1.7.1 “Work may be performed via telework or remotely with COR’s written approval.” (pg. 4 of 34)

a) Question: Can the government please confirm that all individuals on this contract have the ability to telework?

Answer: It is anticipated that developers can work entirely remotely and that the remaining team can be mostly remote unless there is travel required for meetings or in-person trainings. Please refer to PWS 1.7 and 1.8.

b) Question: Can the government please provide historical workload data for all positions?

Answer: PWS Part 7, Attachment 6, Estimated Workload Data provides the Government’s assessment or estimate, which is based in part on historical information, of the LCATs and approximate LCAT hours that could fulfill the requirement.

c) Question: Can the government please provide all updates in red or a highlighted font within the amended solicitation to clearly demonstrate the exact changes made?

Answer: The Government has made best efforts to clearly identify updates or changes made by this Q&A and Amendment 0001.

d) Question: Can the government please ensure that all questions provided to the government are responded to? We understand that some may appear to be duplicates between vendors, however this help ensures all questions are accounted for.

Answer: The Government has made best efforts to answer all questions.

e) Question: Can the proposal volumes be submitted in PDF format?

Answer: Reference Addendum to FAR provision 52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors-Commercial Items (Oct 2018) and 3) Volume 3 – Price for explicit instructions: Non-pricing volumes shall be submitted in MS Word or searchable PDF Format. Text shall be single-spaced in Times New Roman font of no less than 12-point font except tables, graphics, captions, and call-outs may use 10-point font. Detailed pricing information shall be submitted in tabular format in MS Excel. The price proposal shall use an Excel format and include a completed pricing sheet with CLIN Breakdown that contains formulas that can be manipulated and has been verified for correct mathematical computations.

f) Question: Per the formal recommendation through the “Guidance for CPARS” manual, in addition to lessen the burden on Offerors' clients, will the Government consider "not requiring" Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) for those contracts that have a recent Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)? In essence, will the Government accept a CPARs in lieu of a PPQ?

Answer: The Government outlines required proposal elements and volumes for submission in Addendum to FAR provision 52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors-Commercial Items (Oct 2018). For Past Performance, the Offeror shall facilitate submission of no more than three (3) Past Performance references (i.e., PPQs). At least one (1) of the three (3) references must be for the prime 8(a) Offeror. If the prime Offeror cannot submit at least one (1) reference, a detailed explanation must be provided as to why the Offeror cannot submit one (1). PPQs provided by Offeror’s references and Offeror’s Volume 2 submission provide opportunities for Offeror to present information not readily available to the Government; CPARs are readily available.

g) Question: What specific LMS platforms (e.g., Blackboard, Meridian, Open Source, etc.) do Joint Knowledge Online (primary) and Relias (secondary) reside on?

Answer: Both LMS’s operate with SCORM based courseware (2004 2nd and 3rd editions) with highly similar functions but different GUIs. The LMS Administration and the Design/Development teams work within the given GUI and will not have any direct access to the systems’ OS, storage, or hosting environment. Please refer to PWS 5.1 and 5.5. for requirements.

h) Question: Are these LMS’s purely Cloud-based, On Premise, or a Hybrid?

Answer: Cloud-based. Please refer to updated PWS 1.3.

i) Question: Are the Training responsibilities of the LMS Administrator limited to system administration-oriented training and to whom is this training provided (e.g., Government personnel, other support contractors, etc.)?

Answer: LMS Administrator is typically limited to system administration-oriented training. Instructional designers have facilitation and instructional delivery tasks in support of professional development training events. Please refer to PWS sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. The Government will review vendor’s proposal accordingly.

j) Question: There are no Training or Instructor labor categories in the PWS. Is that correct and, if so, can the government confirm that there will be no training responsibilities on this contract?

Answer: Please review response above and the entire PWS for requirements. The Government will review vendor’s proposal accordingly.

22. Reference: PWS 5.2 Instructional Systems Design Lead for Standardization and Quality Assurance “Leads training team in the development of qualitative and quantitative analysis of training products events and initiatives.” (pg. 20 of 34)

a) Question: In addition, can the Government explain who composes the “training team” that the ISD Lead will be “leading” as stated in the position description for the ISD Lead in the PWS statement referenced?

Answer: The ISD Lead will lead the other ISDs and Developers on this contract for project and task management through the ADDIE process. ISD Lead will be leading the other ISDs and Developers for project and task management through the ADDIE process. Please review PWS Part 5 and, specifically, 5.2 for requirements. The Government will review vendor’s proposal accordingly.

b) Question: Since there are no Training position descriptions in the PWS or Estimated Level of Effort estimate, are these Government personnel, other support contractors, etc. are there any other Training responsibilities for this contract other than what appear to be associated with the System Administration training and, if so, will the Government add additional labor categories and expand the Estimated Level of Effort to address this need?

Answer: Please refer to PWS sections 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. The Government has provided Attachment 6 Estimated Workload Data which reflects what it estimates will fulfill the requirements of the PWS. Offeror may propose a different labor-hours mix.

c) Question: Can the government please explain the difference in functionality/course offering/subject matter/area of focus in Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) and Relias?

Answer: JKO is the enterprise LMS and holds all types/subjects of courseware as required by the Military Health System. Relias, although we rarely develop for this LMS, holds primarily locally-developed and Relias-developed regulatory training that DHA does not have SME or bandwidth to host on JKO. Please review updated PWS 1.3

d) Question: In order to effectively respond to the solicitation, can the government please provide a one-week extension once the Q/As are posted?

Answer: The due date for proposals is being extended in Amendment 0001 to the Solicitation.

23. Reference: PWS para 7.2, Attachment 2, Deliverable Schedule Table. The embedded Word document [Attachment 2, Deliverable Schedule Table] includes reference to paragraphs (6.5.2.1.1 and 6.5.4) within section 6.5 in the parent document that is described as “Reserved” in the parent document. They also refer to CMMC. Care should be taken in requiring CMMC given DoD guidance on the new process: The publication of materials relating to CMMC 2.0 reflect the Department’s strategic intent with respect to the CMMC program; however, CMMC 2.0 will not be a contractual requirement until the Department completes rulemaking to implement the program. The rulemaking process and timelines can take 9-24 months. CMMC 2.0 will become a contract requirement once rulemaking is completed About CMMC (defense.gov).

Question: Can you please clarify or refute the application of this attachment for this proposal?

Answer: CMMC certification is not applicable at this time. Please review updated PWS 7.2, Attachment 2, Deliverable Schedule Table as it has been removed. Please refer to PWS Section 7, Technical Exhibit 1, for Deliverables Schedule.

24. Reference: RFP para 3(a) Detailed Breakout (p. 22 of 70) and PWS para 1.7.1 Place of Performance (p. 3 of 34). In the RFP (p. 22) para 3(a) the government states that industry should “Provide the actual or anticipated place of performance for Staff and Key Personnel positions and indicate which positions are anticipated to be remote or telework, if applicable.” But in the PWS (p. 3) the Government states in para 1.7.1 that “The work shall be performed at 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Falls Church, Virginia 22042. Work may be performed via telework or remotely with COR’s written approval.”

a) Question: Can you advise if the government will accept a remote workforce for all positions (staff and key personnel) on this contract?

Answer: It is anticipated that developers can work entirely remotely and that the remaining team can be mostly remote unless there is travel required for meetings or in-person trainings. Please refer to updated PWS 1.7 and 1.8.

b) Question: If not, which positions need to be onsite at the government’s location?

Answer: Please refer to above and updated PWS 1.7 and 1.8.

25. Reference: PWS para 1.12 Key Personnel (p. 6 of 34). The opening paragraph indicates that the contractor shall provide a contract manager responsible for making contractual decisions. The last paragraph indicates that key qualifications are listed below of which the only position listed is the ISD/Program Manager.

a) Question: Can you advise if the contract manager is a separate key position?

Answer: This paragraph of the PWS has been revised. This is not a separate key position. The individual identified as the contract manager has the authority to act on behalf of the contractor, is responsible for the daily operation under the contract, and can be an LCAT already on the contract staff including a Key Personnel position. Please see updated PWS 1.12.

b) Question: If yes, what are the key qualifications for this position? If no, can contracts manager be dual-roled?

Answer: There are no separate qualifications. The contract manager can have dual roles. Please see updated PWS 1.12.

26. Reference: RFP Subfactor 4 Key Personnel/ Staffing Plan and Organization Experience (p. 26 of 70). It is noted by the government (p. 26), “Evaluation Criteria: The Staffing/Key Personnel Plan shall provide sufficient detail to evaluate a reasonable, well-thought-out approach and methodology to provide for the acquisition and maintenance of the proposed mix and balance of educated/trained essential personnel (i.e., recruitment, training, and retention of qualified, experienced staffing) throughout the contract period, beginning when the government issues an award and leading to successful completion of the contract.” It is understood that there is a single key position but need insight into the expectation of labor categories for this effort.

Question: Can the government provide the minimum education and experience requirements for each/all of the labor categories required in the evaluation of Sub Factor 4?

Answer: The Offeror is required to propose staffing appropriate for its organization which it believes will fulfill the technical requirements of the PWS. PWS Part 7, Attachment 6, Estimated Workload Data provides the Government’s assessment or estimate, which is based in part on historical information, of the LCATs and approximate LCAT hours that could fulfill the requirement. Offeror’s proposed labor-hours mix may vary from Attachment 6 and therefore the education and experience of non-key personnel will not be prescribed. The Offeror is required to propose staffing it believes will fulfill the technical requirements and must determine the education, certifications, experience, etc. required for non-key personnel to accomplish them.

27. Reference: PWS para 1.6.1 Transition (p. 3 of 34) Question: Is the current incumbent work force on site?

Answer: The current contract staff is primarily working remotely.

28. Reference: PWS para 1.6.1 Transition (p. 3 of 34) Question: What is the contractual Period of Performance start date?

Answer: The contract start date is estimated to be 1 February 2025.

29. Reference: PWS para 1.6.1 Transition (p. 3 of 34) Question: Are there on going, current or anticipated program execution milestones that need to be included and or mitigated in the in-coming Transition-In plan?

Answer: Offerors are directed to PWS Section 1.6.1.1 Transition-In period, Section 1.11 Contractor personnel, and PART 7, Attachments/Technical Exhibit Listing for comprehensive information pertaining to Transition-In. Additionally, refer to responses in this Q&A for additional information. Program milestone execution is not anticipated during the Transition-In period.

30. Reference: RFP Subfactor 1: Technical Approach Narrative (p. 20 of 70)

a) Question: Is the training curriculum that is developed on this contract oriented toward DHA annual training requirements or is it targeted toward more specialized training?

Answer: The training curriculum is targeted toward any target audience in the DHA; supervisory, safety, clinical, clinical IT, Electronic Health Record, regulatory, executive skills, human resources, etc. It is based on the training requirement vetted by senior leadership. Please refer to updated PWS sections 1.5 and 5.1.

b) Question: Can you provide specifics on the target training audience?

Answer: Please refer to response above and updated PWS sections 1.5 and 5.1.

31. Reference: PWS para 5.2 ISD for Standardization and QA (p. 20 of 34) AND PWS para 1.5 Scope (p. 2 of 34). First bullet of para 5.2 (p. 20) states that the lead ISD, “Oversees all aspects of training design and development projects within the scope of this contract. Serves as the technical reference source for subordinate designers and developers, and reviews jobs for overall effectiveness, and gives instructions on alternatives in order to increase productivity.” It is also noted, (p. 2) that “Technical assistance to DHA and its various program office stakeholders eLearning development teams (only for known development tools)” Question: Can you clarify if the ‘subordinate designers and developers’ is in reference to our personnel or the governments personnel?

Answer: Please refer to PWS 5.2 and 5.3.

32. Reference: PWS para 1.5 Scope (p. 2 of 34). It is stated, (p. 2), 3rd bullet, “Ability to conduct individual and group training and provide appropriate remediation and reinforcement solutions.” Can you clarify the following questions:

a) Question: Is the contractor conducting this training?

Answer: Yes. Please refer to PWS 1.5 and 5.1.

b) Question: If this does apply, who is the intended audience to be trained?

Answer: For the LMS Administrators: new and existing elevated role users needing assistance with managing their area of responsibility within the LMS. For the facilitation and instructional delivery (ISD task): management level branch and/or department chiefs and action officers. Please refer to PWS sections 1.5 and 5.1.

c) Question: How many classes a year are anticipated to be trained?

Answer: Please see updated PWS 5.2 and 5.5.

33. Reference: General (SOP) Question: Do you have clear guidelines, such as SOPs for revising and updating courses?

Answer: Vendor will be provided all materials for SOPs, etc. upon contract award.

34. Reference: PWS para 5.1, Basic Services (p. 19 of 34). Based on the statement of prioritization, the government states that “The Government has established a process for prioritizing the maintenance and development of the web-based courses. The Government intends for the developers to work on projects across MHS with DHA Education and Training providing work prioritization.” To provide the proper labor categories and hours, can you provide answers to the following:

a) Question: Can you share the revision and maintenance schedule for 2024 or for 2025?

Answer: Government determines the priority.

b) Question: Can you share the prioritization process for contractors to review?

Answer: The government lead provides priority of work in the pipeline to meet agency needs and is communicated via a task-management cloud-based system with weekly ADDIE project update meeting. Please review PWS 5.1.

c) Question: Based on your review schedule of the 400+ courses, what is the anticipated volume and complexity of courses to be updated monthly?

Answer: Please review updated PWS 5.1

d) Question: Based on your review schedule of the 400+ courses, what is the anticipated volume and complexity of new course development per year?

Answer: Please review updated PWS 5.1

35. Reference: PWS para 5.5, LMS Administrator (p. 23 of 34).

Question: Can you advise as to the student throughput per month?

Answer: Please review updated PWS 5.3 and 5.5.

36. Reference: General Question: Is this a new contract? If not, who is the incumbent and what's the total contract value?

Answer: No, not a new contract. The current contract number is HT0011-22-C-0010 and current contractor is A1FedImpact, Inc. Given minor changes to the requirements and presence of proprietary proposal information, total contract value is not considered to be relevant information.

37. Reference: "PWS Section 1.4" The Government states that it requires personnel support for LMS administration.

Question: Which LMS is the Government currently using?

Answer: Please review updated PWS 1.3.

38. Reference: "PWS Section 1.1" Question: Could the Government define what J7 stands for/means?

Answer: Please review updated PWS 1.1 and 2.2.

39. Reference: "PWS Section 1.7.1" The solicitation state that the place of performance will be at 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, VA 22042.

Question: As a company, our model is to have a local Program and Project manager. The rest of our team works remotely. Will this model be acceptable to DHA? If there is an encombant contractor, is all the work done on-site? Or is a hybrid model similar to what we proposed in use on the current contract?

Answer: It is anticipated that developers can work entirely remotely and that the remaining team can be mostly remote unless there is travel required for meetings or in-person trainings. Please refer to updated PWS 1.7 and 1.8.

40. Reference: "PWS Section 1.12" Question: Are contractors permitted to map our labor categories to the labor categories listed in the solicitation, if we use slightly different terminology (e.g., instructional systems designer (ISD) vs. instructional designer/curriculum developer)?

Answer: Yes. Reference RFP “Subfactor 4: Staffing/Key Personnel Plan and Organization Experience” page 20 of 68: “If Offeror intends to use any labor categories that are consistent in duties with the level of effort labor categories, but are titled differently, Offeror must cross map those labor categories to the Government’s PWS and Offeror’s Technical and Price volumes to ensure the proposal receives a proper evaluation.”

41. Reference: "PWS Section 5.1” The solicitation states that contractors are to develop courseware using development authoring tools, such as Avatar, Putty, and WinSCP.

Question: Are contractors required to have experience working with these tools or will comparable tools be permitted?"

Answer: Please refer to updated PWS 1.9 and 5.1 for software and courseware development requirements.

42. Reference: "PWS Section 5.1” The Government states that the contractor should have the capability to convert training courseware, videos, and other training materials. Could the Government provide more detail into the scope of the contract. For instance, Question: What and how many courses have already been developed?

Answer: The average is approximately 60 new/major edits/courses per year. Please refer to updated PWS 5.1.

43. Question: How many courses does the Government anticipate being developed/created during each performance period?

Answer: Please see answer above and refer to updated PWS 5.1.

44. Question: Could the Government define what they expect for each level of interactivity (e.g., Level I, II, III and IV interactive)? Can the Government also define what is meant by "light weight" simulations? Can the Government explain what is meant by "Intelligent Tutors"?

Answer: The team lives in Level 2 but will develop level 1 for quick-turn or basic knowledge courses, and few level 3 if processing skills are needed by the learner. Level 2 and 3 may include light-simulation or interaction with the courseware to successfully complete the training. Lightweight simulations are simple point-and-clicks that will drive the simulation to react with minimal data reporting capabilities - primarily to aid in muscle memory of a task the learner needs to accomplish. These are typically a GO / NO-GO without VR/AR verses a coded simulation that will adapt to learner responses that will provide comprehensive analytical data. Intelligent Tutors imitates human with pre-programed responses based on learner selections. We are not currently reacting outside the LMS for AI driven interactions; development is still primarily at a knowledge level and fully contained with the developed SCO, so an in-depth tutors is not required. Please refer to updated PWS 5.1

45. Question: If there is to be instructional development of 400+ courses, does the Government anticipate the contractor not be able to develop all the required courses during the life of the contract?

Answer: Old or non-relevant courses are archived and new courseware is built for hosting. Not all 400+ courses will be developed by this team as some are developed by outside agencies. Please see updated PWS 5.1.

46. Question: Does the Government anticipate a period during the contract where there will be only course maintenance?

Answer: Not at this time.

47. Reference: N/A Question: We would request extending the deadline by one additional week.

Answer: The due date for proposals is being extended in an Amendment to the RFP.

48. Reference: PWS 1.5 Scope Question: What LMS is the health group currently using since one task is to assume system administration of that system?

Answer: Refer to PWS 1.3 and 5.1.

49. Reference: PWS 1.4 Objectives Question: Are we capable of serving as the liaison between customers and the DHA LMS Management Team?

Answer: Yes, the LMS Administrators liaise between the LMS owners and the LMS management team government lead. The development team (ISDs and Developers) liaise between the courses’ points of contact and subject matter experts, and the LMS management team government lead and the LMS Administrators. Please refer to PWS Part 5.

50. Reference: PWS 1.4 Objectives Question: Do we have the capability to perform technically detailed LMS administrative tasks?

Answer: Yes, but this is limited to what is available in the GUI. Anything that requires direct server access cannot be performed at our level. Please see 6.6 and 5.1.

51. Reference: RFP Question: Does the Government require that offerors include a completed, signed acknowledgement of any proposal amendments with our submissions and if so, in what volume and location within the volume should offerors include it?

Answer: Yes. To provide acknowledgement, the SF1449 and any Amendments need only be signed in block 30 and block 15, respectively, and be provided as separate documents/ attachments to Offeror’s Cover Letter. This will be clarified in Amendment 0001 to the Solicitation.

52. Reference: RFP, Representations and Certifications Question: Does the Government require that offerors include a completed copy of Representations and Certifications contained within the RFP with proposal submissions and If so, in what volume and location within the volume should offerors include it?

Answer: Yes. Representations and Certifications that are required by the Solicitation but are not completed in SAM.gov by the Offeror must be provided as a separate document/ attachment to Offeror’s Cover Letter. This will be clarified in Amendment 0001 to the Solicitation.

53. Reference: RFP, page 1, SF 1449 Question: Does the Government require that offerors include a completed, signed copy of Standard Form 1449 with our submissions and if so, in what volume and location within the volume should offerors include it?

Answer: Yes. To provide acknowledgement, the SF1449 and any Amendments need only be signed in block 30 and block 15, respectively, and be provided as separate documents/ attachments to Offeror’s Cover Letter. This will be clarified in Amendment 0001 to the Solicitation.

54. Reference: RFP, page 19, Addendum To FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors-Commercial Items (Oct 2018): B. Offer Content and Format on page 19 states that “an offer shall consist of a cover letter and three (3) Volumes; however, page 20, D. 1) states Volume I – Technical Capability is “limited to no more than forty (40) pages (not including POC Cover Letter, Title Page, Table of Contents, Definitions, or Resumes.

Question: Will the Government please confirm whether the Cover Letter is to be separate from the other Volumes or included with the Technical Volume?

Answer: The Cover Letter is to be separate from the other Volumes.

55. Reference: RFP, page 21, Addendum To FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors-Commercial Items (Oct 2018): a) on page 21 states “The Offeror shall facilitate submission of no more than three (3) Past Performance references or PPQs”.

Question: Will the Government please confirm a written past performance reference and a PPQ are required?

Answer: “Past performance reference” and “PPQ” refer to the same thing; therefore, Offeror shall facilitate submission of no more than three (3) PPQs. The PPQ template is provided as Attachment 3 to the Solicitation.

56. Reference: RFP, page 26, and PWS, page 6; Addendum To FAR Provision 52.212-1, Instructions To Offerors-Commercial Items (Oct 2018): Subfactor 4: Key Personnel/ Staffing Plan and Organization Experience on RFP page 26 allows for Evaluation of an ISD Lead/Program Manager only; however, PWS 1.12 on page 6 describes a Contract Manager as Key Personnel as well.

Question: Will the Government please confirm how this position will be evaluated?

Answer: The contract manager is not a separate key position. The Government identifies only the ISD Lead/Program Manager as a Key Personnel position. The individual identified as the contract manager has the authority to act on behalf of the contractor, is responsible for the daily operation under the contract, and can be an LCAT already on the contract staff including a Key Personnel position.

57. Reference: PWS, page 2, Section 1.4 (Objectives) and Section 1.5 (Scope): Section 1.4 (Objectives) of the PWS has a requirement to “…plan, guide, and manage a group training event…,” and Section 1.5 (Scope) of the PWS has a requirement to “…conduct individual and group training and provide appropriate remediation and reinforcement solutions…” These tasks are traditionally performed by a certified instructor staff vice the Instructional Systems Design (ISD), LMS Administration, and eLearning Development staff identified in the PWS.

Question: If the Government’s intent is for offerors to also propose instructors for this effort, would the Government please identify the planned number of courses to be taught per year, the length of each course, the programmed number of students per course, and the desired instructor to student ratio? This information will permit each offeror to bid the optimal number of instructors to meet the Government’s requirements.

Answer: Please refer to updated PWS Part 5. The Government will review vendor’s proposal accordingly.

58. Reference: PWS, page 3, PWS 1.6.1.1.

Question: Our assumption is that data is currently housed on J7 Shared Drive or within the LMS systems that will be supported. Will the Government clarify what is meant by “new Contractor system”?

Answer: The source file is maintained on a shared drive and the LMS. The “new Contractor system” would be a system that would allow the development team to effectively collaborate on projects; final products will then be updated on the governments shared drive. Please see updated PWS 1.6.1.1.

59. Reference: PWS, page 4, PWS 1.8.

Question: Will consideration be given for a small travel CLIN? Potential examples would be to support DHITS or to collaborate with the LMS team in San Antonio.

Answer: A cost CLIN for Travel is added to the Solicitation. Travel to DHA HQ Falls Church and DHA San Antonio may be required for meetings and/or in-person training. A Cost CLIN for Travel is added in Amendment 0001 for one (1) meeting/training to DHA HQ and two (2) meetings/trainings to DHA San Antonio per year. Offeror will estimate the cost of the ISD Lead/PM traveling to DHA HQ for 3 days and 2 nights and two (2) travelers to San Antonio for 3 days and 2 nights. The Government would not expect the annual cost to exceed $12,500 if priced iaw Joint Travel Regulations. Travel is estimated and updated in PWS 1.8 and ODCs in 1.9.

60. Reference: PWS, page 8, PWS 1.15.1.

Question: Should the reference in this paragraph be to DAD E&T (J-7) vs DAD-A?

Answer: Please refer to PWS 1.15.

61. Reference: PWS, page 23, PWS 5.5. 5.5 LMS Administration states “The Contractor shall provide system administration for the LMS including deliver training in a variety of settings, including classrooms, web, and on-site production facilities for the DHA LMS.”

Question: Will the Government please elaborate on whether this is strictly LMS training or does this entail other training as well?

Answer: Please review updated PWS Part 5 and all sub-parts.

62. Question: Will the Government please elaborate on whether any travel will be required and if so, will a travel CLIN be added?

Answer: Please review updated PWS 1.8.

63. Question: What’s the current Government process for assigning courseware development and training work to contractors?

Answer: Please refer to PWS 5.2.

64. Question: Who from the Government is designated as the lead to coordinate with the contractor, particularly for instructional system design (ISD), eLearning development, and learning management system (LMS) administrative support?

Answer: The COR will provide oversight; all other partners will be introduced/identified after contract award.

65. Question: What methodologies or tools does DHA use to track and evaluate the effectiveness of eLearning course development efforts, especially in relation to ensuring compliance with DoDI 1322.26 Distributed Learning and the Content Design and Development Guidelines for NIPRnet and Mobile platforms as stated in the PWS?

Answer: Both LMSs have course evaluation tools to determine learner feedback to the quality of the training. Tracking course metadata is recorded in a task-management cloud-based system.

66. Question: Can the Government provide more details on the typical size and complexity of the 400+ web-based courses mentioned?

Answer: See updated PWS Part 5.

67. Question: How does DHA manage updates and revisions to courseware content to ensure alignment with evolving medical practices and policies?

Answer: They will be brought into the pipeline and prioritized by the government lead to be worked with the existing workload.

68. Question: What Learning Management System (LMS) tools are currently utilized by DHA?

Answer: Please refer to PWS 1.3.

69. Question: How does the contractor’s role in LMS administration integrate with courseware development and maintenance activities?

Answer: LMS Administration assists in the intake of a project during the initial meeting with the office of primary responsibility and starting the tracking of the project. The project is passed to the Lead ISD for development once approved by the government lead. Once final approval is received for the developed course, the Lead ISD will pass the course to the LMS Administrators to ensure the course meets the minimum criteria for publication and if so, officially requests publication. Please review PWS 5.

70. Question: What are the responsibilities for managing and tracking courseware in the LMS, and how do these tasks align with the instructional design processes described in the PWS?

Answer: Tracking courseware is performed using an online cloud-based task management tool. All team members can update tasks. The LMS Administrators update the task once published. The task management tool can be filtered to show the next courses for periodic review. The Government will review vendor’s proposal accordingly.

71. Question: Could the Government elaborate on how DHA assesses the effectiveness of instructional design strategies in achieving learning outcomes, particularly in complex medical training contexts?

Answer: The Government uses survey results, assessment results, and any voluntarily received field feedback. These results are passed to the office of primary responsibility for adjudication. The office of primary responsibility is ultimately responsible for the content of their course and must drive the changes. It is not this team’s responsibility to obtain the subject matter expertise to update the content; we bring the ISD and technical development of the eLearning courseware using supplied content. Please review updated PWS Part 5. The Government will review vendor’s proposal accordingly.

72. Question: In the context of the ADDIE model, which communication platforms and collaboration tools does DHA use to facilitate ongoing engagement between contractors and DHA stakeholders?

Answer: Outlook and MS Teams. See updated PWS Part 5.3.

73. Question: In the context of the ADDIE model and ISD, is the contractor responsible for analysis and what mechanisms does DHA use to solicit and incorporate feedback from end-users and stakeholders on completed courseware and training materials?

Answer: No. The office of primary responsibility is responsible for analysis and solidifying the requirement with leadership. We assist with the design, development, implementation, internal evaluation, and somewhat in the external evaluation.

74. Question: How does DHA gauge the impact of training programs on performance outcomes and healthcare delivery metrics following implementation?

Answer: The office of primary responsibility is ultimately responsible.

75. Question: Could the Government clarify the role of the contractor in integrating emerging technologies such as AI-driven adaptive learning or AR/VR simulations into courseware development?

Answer: If the concept is conducive to the learning, there is flexibility to implement innovations as long as the LMS can handle the coding and timelines can be maintained. The Government will review vendor’s proposal accordingly.

76. Reference: RFP Instructions to Offerors, Offer Content and Format Question: Can the Government please confirm that Executive Summaries are also excluded from page count?

Answer: “Executive Summaries” are not required or requested as part of the proposal or any proposal Volume. The following sections (as updated in this Amendment) are not subject to page limits: Contractor POC Cover Letter, Volume Title page, Table of Contents, signed SF1449 and SF30 Amendments, Representations and Certifications (if not completed in SAM.gov), Definitions (includes Glossaries, Acronyms, Abbreviations), Resumes, Past Performance Questionnaires, Assumptions and/or Exceptions (to requirements or terms and conditions), and Volume III – Price.

77. Reference: RFP Instructions to Offerors, Proposal Preparation Instructions, Volume II Past Performance. We request the Government’s consideration for the recent rulemaking established under the 2024 NDAA, section 865 which states: “Not later than July 1, 2024, the Secretary of Defense shall amend section 215.305 of the Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (or any successor regulation) to require that when small business concerns bid on Department of Defense contracts, the past performance evaluation and source selection processes shall consider, if relevant, the past performance information of affiliate companies of the small business concerns.” Since the 2024 NDAA was signed into law in late December 2023, once the DFARS is updated in line with the NDAA (anticipated in July of this year), Department of Defense acquisitions will take into account any relevant past performance information of affiliates of a small business offeror.

Question: With this, will the Government please confirm that affiliate past performance will be considered (as prime past performance) when submitted by the Offeror?

Answer: Section 865 of the NDAA for 2024 (Pub. L. 118-31), directs DoD to amend DFARS 215.305. The proposed DFARS rule is due to be drafted by 4 September 2024. Until Section 865 of the NDAA for 2024 is implemented, an agency may consider affiliate past performance in the source selection process and it will for this acquisition.