IFIB-ACT-SACT-17-29_E-Learning_Q&A__5.pdf

Request for Proposal Number:

Reference:

Date of Issue:

The following questions were raised with respect to subject IFIB/RFP. Responses are to provide clarification.

Question Response

1. Can the Government please define what they mean by “Estimated Patronage” in regards to the Past Performance citation references

(Enclosure 4, pg. 12)?

1A. Estimated patronage refers to the estimated enrolment in the course developed.

2. Please confirm if the bidders are required to submit/post full sample courses for NATO’s review during the proposal evaluation. If we are, is it acceptable to post them to a website for NATO access (vs. submitting them on a

CD Rom)?

2A. An online link will be acceptable, where accounts are required please ensure they are included in the proposal.

IFIB 17-29

Q&A 5

1 Nov 2017

3. Page 14, Pricing sheet: The RFP mentions in several places that the winning vendor may undertake course maintenance projects, however the pricing sheet does not seem to require pricing for a maintenance project. Please clarify: does NATO require bidders to provide pricing for the development of new courses, the maintenance of existing courses, or both?

If NATO requires pricing for maintenance projects, please provide more information that defines the scope of such a project (how much content would be revised, file formats to be provided, etc.).

3A. Lessons which have been developed already in older formats (SCORM 1.2, 2004, HTML...) or authoring tools (Captivate, Ilias

SCORM Editor, Articulate or similar products) and require to be updated with new content and transitioned to a new format.

Storyboards and original content (assets) may be available. Based on level of effort involved and requirements this would be billed as online student hour times with credit given to required ISD/MMD and programmer work. Format/template and style (usability) still meet all NATO guidelines. (Old courses may be Level 2-4, and may require new animations or MMD work to bring them up to modern expectations and formats

(replacement of Flash for example). Where an old course does not have all assets available or requires extensive modifications it may be considered a new course. This would be decided at the scoping meeting with the contractor. See amendment #2

4. The SOW provides a typical development schedule. What level of courseware does this apply to (level 2, 3, or 4)?

4A. It follows a standard template based on our experience. Certainly achievable for level

2-3, additional time may be required for level

4. This would be discussed at the course planning meeting.

5. Section 3 of the SOW provides a minimum order per fiscal year. Can you confirm if this will be the quantity of work that is required to be performed in the base year of the contract?

5A. This will be the minimum quantity of work in the base year.

6. Please provide copies of the relevant NATO publications referenced in the RFP (Bi-SC

75-2 and 75-7).

6A. Release of these NATO Unclassified publications requires validation and approval.

HQ SACT anticipates releasing them as requested during the week of 6 November 17.

7. Can you please identify the contract number for the incumbent contract?

7A. Please refer to Q&A #1