FY19_CC_Questions_and_Answers_Rev_3_07Nov2018.xlsx

Q & As

Therefore, the answer the question is yes. The Government confirms the offeror should use the requirements identified in Appendix A for their BOE and pricing submittals.

Furthermore, when completing Attachment (L-8) the Government expects there to be differences between the offeror’s numbers and the Government. Section L.1.2 states, “The offeror’s discussions and rationales as to why the offeror’s proposed approach for each rating CLIN differs from the government’s WBS and TBOE baseline for each rating CLIN gives the government evaluators something more tangible to evaluate. The government’s use of its WBS and TBOE as a starting point for evaluation is in no way a direct or indirect inference that the government’s WBS and TBOE is a preferred approach.”

Additionally, Section M.1.2 states, “The government will assess the feasibility of the offeror’s proposed labor category roles, the number of labor hours, the breakdown of labor categories, planned travel and the offeror’s explanation of how its narrative rationale for the proposed labor differs from the government WBS, Attachment L-2, and the government’s TBOE, Attachment L-8, to assess the likelihood that the offeror’s approach will accomplish the requirements on schedule.”

Furthermore, Appendix F has been updated to reflect gap conferences for those ratings that only identify gaps in the training.

The RFP has been updated via Amendment 02.

o Compare the number of courseware hours developed as a Lead Systems Integrator under the past performance contract to the number of courseware hours estimated for this solicitation’s effort (3,234 hours).

o Compare the number of learning objectives developed for the courseware as a Lead Systems Integrator under the past performance contract to the number of learning objectives required for this solicitation’s effort (3,537 learning objectives).

On Chart 31 of the FY19 CC PreSolConf_20Aug2018_Revision24Aug2018, the requirements were planned to be changed (and reflected in the final RFP) as 1,293 minimum courseware hours and 1,429 minimum learning objectives.

The final RFP dated 24 September 2018 retained the original requirements of the Draft RFP of 3,234 CW hours and 3,537 learning objectives. Is this still the requirement?

The 3,234 CW hours and 3,537 learning objectives are still the Government estimates of the current or instant solicitation (i.e., N6134018R0027). Past Performance requires offerors to compare their proposed Past Performance contracts to this solicitation estimate as stated in sections L and M.

Concerning, Chart 31 of the pre-solicitation conference slides, the "minimum" wording was removed on the final RFP released on 24 September 2018.

A-4N-0200 Joint Diving Officer A-060-0011 Basic Enlisted Submarine School (BESS) However, in Appendix C – LSS Recommended Continuum, only the BESS course analysis is provided along with Logistics Fundamentals, which is not a course identified in Appendix O under LSS continuum. The Logistics Fundamentals course is identified as an LS course. Will the Government provide the analysis for Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) Surveying and Joint Diving Officer?

The answer to the question is no. The document referenced in this question, Appendix O, no longer exists in the final RFP as it was in the draft RFP. In the final RFP, Appendix O now contains data for potential training gaps.

Please only use the data provided in “Appendix C – LSS Recommended Continuum,” as that data will be required for determining the courses included in the LSS rating.

The RFP is not updated as a result of this question.

Therefore, the answer to the question is no. While the Government cannot provide an actual breakdown of existing ICW levels, an updated PR data sheet is provided via RFP Amendment.

Furthermore, the media model recommendations can be found in Column H with corresponding recommended ICW level of interactivity identified in Column I. Column S, which is titled IFIT, described the design characteristics of the current PowerPoint slides and other instructional aids.

Additionally, to identify the scope in the document, refer to Appendix P, Data Consolidation Instruction, which provides instructions on scoping for data with and without actual recommendations (Column J).

Finally, as part of RFP Amendment 01, the Government will be providing updated data for PR that will indicate only one recommended ICW level in Column I, correcting the media model error in the previously provided data sheet.

The RFP has been updated to provide the updated GFI data and it has been provided via RFP Amendment 01.

Will the government be providing additional PS/ICW information to assist offerors in development of their bid on the Interactive Courseware (ICW) solution? For example – under the FRD_Data_PR, Row 7, it indicates that ICW level 1, 2,3 is required to solve the PS development. The price difference between these levels of ICW would allow only the Knowledge Capture provider to understand the required solution. It would be difficult for anyone other than the Knowledge Capture provider to propose the correct level and duration of ICW.

Will the Government provide all analysis documentation regarding recommended solutions for all ratings, such that all offerors are operating with the same level of detail? The data provided in the RFP and subsequent amendments is the data that is required in the development of proposals by offerors. Specifically, Appendix A has been updated to reflect number of Learning Objectives (LO) to develop and total hours of content to develop. The offeror should use the requirements in Appendix A for their BOE and pricing submittals.

Furthermore, the reference in the question stating, "the price difference between these levels of ICW would allow only the Knowledge Capture provider to understand the required solution. It would be difficult for anyone other than the Knowledge Capture provider to propose the correct level and duration of ICW, " is incorrect. This assertion is not true, and the Government has not conducted any Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) investigation.

Furthermore, the example provided of PR that shows multiple levels of interactivity was due to an error in this spreadsheet that has since been corrected and an updated version has been supplied in Amendment 1 via AMRDEC.

Additionally, any Knowledge Capture data is not analysis data and is not used to determine requirements. Knowledge Capture is an effort that collects data specific to existing training. Knowledge Capture data was provided as GFI with the RFP to show the depth and breadth of data the Government has collected and which is available to the offeror when content conversion is started. Knowledge Capture data/documentation is not the same thing as analysis documentation. Analysis documentation and requirements documentation are the same thing. The answer to the last question is that the Government has provided all pertinent analysis documentation necessary for proposal preparation through the final RFP and its Amendments.

Finally, Appendix P: Data Consolidation Instruction provides directions on how to determine scope for those data sheets that do and do not have an actual recommendation identified and was how the Government determined data in Appendix A.

2 Note that the CAGE and DUNS shall be the same as the company performing the solicitation as stated in section 2.0.b above.

Draft RFP Note:

2 Provide the CAGE Code and DUNS Number of the company performing the work. If the CAGE Code or DUNS Number is different than the past performance entity proposed to perform the solicitation’s effort, please explain the reason.

The Government did not change the requirement from the draft RFP, but clarified it on the final RFP and removed the second note as it was an error or conflicting. It has always been the intention and the Government communicated (i.e., pre solicitation conference) that the Governement will be reviewing past performance information only from the cage codes performing the solicitation/receiving an award (i.e., those TDPC contract holders). The final RFP was revised to make this requirement clear. Furthermore, reviewing other cage codes [whether predecessor companies, key personnel, joint venture owners (joint venturers), partnership owners (partners), corporate parents, other corporate divisions, corporate subsidiaries, or corporate affiliates] is irrelevant because other cages codes will not be awarded a DO.

Section L 2.1.b and d states that, "the government is not evaluating the past performance of proposed subcontractors, predecessor companies, key personnel, joint venture owners (joint venturers), partnership owners (partners), corporate parents, other corporate divisions, corporate subsidiaries, or corporate affiliates."

The Government will not change the language on the RFP to the same used in the Draft RFP and shown in the question. The second portion of the note was an error in the draft RFP and it was inconsistant with the requirements stated in the section for Past Performance. The Government is confident it will have adequate competition.

Therefore, the answer to the first question is yes. The Government will refine the requirement by providing notional/estimated frequency of the train the trainer requirement. The Government has updated Appendix F Conference Schedule, via RFP Amendment 02, to include a column that identifies Frequency (estimated) and for each Train the Trainer conference “1 per course” has been added.

Furthermore, the offeror is referred to Appendix A which identifies the numbers of courses identified for each rating (both base and options). This will assist in scoping Train the Trainer.

To answer to the second question is no. The Train the Trainer event for each course within a rating does not need to be provided at each training location. The Train the Trainer will take place in a Government-determined location. Appendix F does identify training locations and should be used to anticipate Train the Trainer events taking place in those locations. Contractors will be required to schedule and conduct T3 events at each rating’s current training location.

The answer to the final question is a range. The Contractor shall anticipate 10 to 20 (maximum) participants to attend T3 events. The length of Train the Trainer is based on a portion of the time required to conduct a full course. Appendix F also includes an estimated time for length of the Train the Trainer event per rating. This number is based on the total courseware hours planned for an entire rating and is not based on individual courses.

Offerors are only reminded that if an offeror is awarded the resulting DO, the required subcontracting plan must be ready at time of award. The Government will not be reviewing subcontracting plans as part of its evaluations.

Section H.12 is updated via RFP Ammendment 02 to state, "Contractor shall submit its subcontracting plan according to Section H.12 of the Basic TDPC MAC and in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-9 at the time of award. (This is not a requirement for Section L and M proposal submission.)" and a note is added to Section L stating, "Note: Offerors are NOT required to submit its Small Business Subcontracting Plan with its proposal. Section H.12 requirement is applicable at time of award."

• Sailor 2025 RRL Content Conversion Process Flows

• Sailor 2025 RRL Media Map

• Sailor 2025 RRL Business Rules Will the Government provide these documents to the offerors or identify where these documents can be found?

The references documented in SOW, Section 2.4 are internal S2025 RRL documents that help conduct the analysis effort. The documents do not have document numbers but are available to the offeror.

Therefore, the answer to the question is yes. The Government will provide these documents to the offeror.

First, the Government has already provided the first document identified (the SOP). This document was provided on the hard drives requested by offerors. Additionally, the document title changed from Sailor 2025 RRL Content Conversion Process SOP to Ready Relevant Learning (RRL) Analysis Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Sailor 2025.

Furthermore, the second bullet, process flows are contained within the RRL Analysis SOP The Government has updated the SOW to delineate the SOP from the Process Flows.

Finally, the Government will provide the S2025 RRL Media Map and S2025 RRL Business Rules to industry contractors for review and make them appendices to the SOW.

Section L Part A 2.0 is updated to include, "Drawings may be provided separately and may be any size, with font of any size, but should be folded to approximately 8.5 x 11 inch standard size and will count as 1 page. Graphs, drawings, graphics, tables and figures shall be presented in no smaller than a 10-point font."

1. Will the Government permit the separate CD-ROM copy of the Technical Volume and the separate CD-ROM copy of the Past Performance Volume to instead be compatible with Adobe Acrobat (portable document format – PDF)?

2. Will the Government permit offerors to instead provide a link to the most recent Adobe Acrobat Reader version on each CD-ROM, as there may be proprietary- and security-related obstacles to provisioning third-party executable software?

1. No, the proposal volumes shall be submitted utilizing Microsoft Office products where requested.

2.The intention is that the information is submitted in portable document format (.pdf) not that the offeror submits the Adobe Reader software or a link.

As a result, RFP Section L Part A 3.2 is updated as follows, "3.2 The separate CD-ROM copy of the Technical Volume and the separate CD-ROM copy of the Past Performance Volume must be fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2016. Do not submit in .pdf format. For information not supported by Microsoft Office products (e.g., drawings), the offeror must provide the information in portable document format (.pdf) using the latest Adobe Acrobat reader on each CD-ROM. The separate CD-ROM copy of the Price Volume must be provided in or be fully compatible with Microsoft Office 2016 Word and Excel format, with spreadsheets unprotected and showing all computations and formulas. Each separate CD-ROM is to be labeled for content and the offeror’s name. If a discrepancy exists between the original paper version of the proposal and a CD-ROM “copy,” the paper original will take precedence."

Additionally, Appendix P, Data Consolidation Instruction, identifies how the Government identified data in Appendix A. No common Learning Objectives (LOs) were accounted for within Appendix A.

Appendix A has been updated based on this question and provided via RFP Amendment 01.

• STG SDIT ICW3

• ABH IFIT ICW1,2,3,4, Act Equip; PS Paper & Elect, SOJT Act Equip

• ABE IFIT ICW 1,2,3 & Act Equip; PS Paper & Elect, SOJT Act Equip

• ABF IFIT ICW 1,2,4 & Act Equip; SDIT ICW 1,2,3

• PR IFIT ICW1, VS, Act Equip; SDIT ICW1,2, Act Equip (Please reference the attached spreadsheet, where red cells indicate the discrepancy.)

Will the Government clarify these discrepancies? Appendix A has been updated to reflect correct totals for Table 5 and Table 6. Table 5 identifies total Learning Objectives (LOs) to be developed for option ratings/course by media recommendations. Table 6 identifies total content hours to be developed for the option ratings/course by media recommendation. The new totals in the table identify the total hours of content to be developed for the base ratings.

Additionally, Appendix P Data Consolidation Instruction identifies how the Government identified data in Appendix A. No common LOs were accounted for within Appendix A.

Appendix A has been updated based on this question and provided via RFP Amendment 01.

Additionally, Appendix P, Data Consolidation Instruction, identifies how the Government identified data in Appendix A. No common Learning Objectives (LOs) were accounted for within Appendix A.

Appendix A has been updated based on this question and provided via RFP Amendment 01.

Additionally, Appendix P, Data Consolidation Instruction, identifies how the Government identified data in Appendix A. No common LOs were accounted for within Appendix A.

Appendix A has been updated based on this question via RFP Amendment 01.

Furthermore, Attachment (L-3) TBOE requires the offeror, on the Labor Categories Roles & Responsibilities tab, to identify, as part of their proposal, labor category roles and responsibilities which may include the qualifications and experience needed for each proposed labor category.

Additionally, Section L.1.5 states, “provide roles and responsibilities for each labor category (Columns J-Y and AA-AP) on the Labor Categories R&R tab.”

Finally, Section M.1.3 currently states, “using the offeror’s CWBS, TBOE, and narrative rationales for its proposed approaches, the government will assess the likelihood that the offeror’s instructional systems and systems engineering technical approaches, labor categories, labor hours, processes, steps, and activities the offeror proposes to use will deliver the multiple products within schedule.”

Will the Government identify whether the figures in the labor category table are Government-provided labor rates through fee? The answer to the question is yes. The Government will identify whether the figures in the labor category are Government provided labor rates through fee. The burden labor rates utilized in the government estimate are exclusive of fee.

Furthermore, Attachment (L-7) is updated to reflect this information and RFP Section M is updated via Amendment 02 to state, "The estimated burdened rates are exclusive of fee."

Will the Government confirm that this additional courseware development/conversion will result in a modification to the current CLIN governing the development scope of that courseware? As is stated in SOW Section 3.3.1.1, Work Element Verification, the Contractor will only be required to conduct analysis IAW CDRL F001 and CDRL F002. The reports generated as a result of the previously mentioned CDRLs will serve as recommendations work which may be used to develop requirements for future efforts and may not necessarily be implemented through a modification of the delivery order.

Therefore, the answer to the question is no, the Government does not confirm that additional courseware development/conversion will result in a modification to the current CLIN. The delivery of the CDRL report may result in future a modification to the current delivery order CLIN or may be implemented through a new contractual effort(s) separte from the effort of the subject delivery order and as such time the contractor will be notified.

The RFP is not updated as a result of this question.

Therefore, the answer to the question is yes. The Government will update the workbook so that it can function as stand-alone. This is preferred vice the offeror modifying the workbook to correct the errors.

Specifically, Attachment L-3 TBOE_09 11 18 Labor Categories Rationale tab, Column A and Column C is updated to allow the offeror to select from specific data lists related to both columns. Column A provides a listing of the tabs (CLIN 0005, CLIN 0006, CLIN 0007, CLIN 0026, CLIN 0027, CLIN 0028, and CLIN 1026). Column C provides a list of the original labor categories on each tab located in Columns J-Y. The list of original labor categories is below.

• Program Manager

• Senior Instructional Systems Developer

• Instructional Systems Developer

• Senior Psychologist

• Psychologist

• Senior Graphics Specialist

• Graphic Specialist

• Multimedia Programming Specialist

• Database Administrator

• Configuration Management Specialist

• Subject Matter Expert

• Network Administrator

• Quality Assurance Management Specialist

• Administrative

CLIN 0011 new last date for delivery is 03 Jan 2022 (vice 01 May 2021) CLIN 0014 new last date for delivery is 03 Jan 2022 (vice 01 May 2021) CLIN 0017 new last date for delivery is 03 Jan 2022 (vice 01 May 2021) CLIN 0020 new last date for delivery is 03 Jan 2022 (vice 01 May 2021).

In addition, the following CLINs last date for delivery have been updated:

CLIN 0006 new last date for delivery is 03 Jan 2033 (vice 01 Jan 2022 given the 1st is a holiday) CLIN 0018 new last date for delivery is 02 May 2022 (vice 01 Sep 2022 as this date was in error) CLIN 0019 new last date for delivery is 01 Sep 2022 (vice 01 May 2021 as this date was in errror) CLIN 0025 new last date for delivery is 03 Mar 2023 (vice 01 Feb 2023 as this date was in error)

Would you please extend the current proposal due date by 14 Calendar Days from 02 November to 16 November 2018?

Would you please add additional time (beyond the requested 16 November 2018) if the answers to questions are not published prior to 15 October 2018? The answer to the first question is yes. The RFP respose date is extended. However, not for 14 calendar days as requested. The RFP proposal due date has been extended via RFP Amendment 01 from 02-Nov-2018 02:00 PM to 09-Nov-2018 02:00 PM.

The answer the second question is that the Government is still making that determination and considering it.

However, to provide an estimate only, the Government has added a Frequency (estimated) column in Attachment 1 Appendix F via RFP Amendement 01. The Frequency (estimated) column identifies, for Gap, CC, T3, and PILOT, the estimated number of conferences with clarification regarding occurrence (i.e., for each training path or course developed).

Furthermore, the offeror is encouraged to only use this as an estimate and to provide innovative and/or efficiencies methods for collecting the data required for each effort separate from the Government provided Frequency (estimated) numbers which would go towards the understanding of the offeror in the scope of the effort being conducted and their understanding of the practices and processes needed to complete the requirements.

Script Storyboards are not required for PS. However, a model product is a requirement for PS, as stated in Appendix N.

Therefore, the answer to the question is yes. The Government confirms that submitting a single CWBS file containing separate tabs for each individual CLIN; and a single TBOE file containing separate tabs for each individual CLIN is acceptable. Note each CLIN shall be an individual worksheet within the file.

Furthermore, the Government emphasizes that the CWBS and the TBOE processes and steps identified for completing tasking shall mirror each other. The TBOE identifies additional information in terms of labor categories, hours, travel proposed, etc.

Can the Government provide the intended dictionary narrative for the element or confirm that this element is not to be addresses in the Offeror’s CWBS? The answer to the question is yes. The Government can provide the intended dictionary narrative for the element. The definition for element x.1.11 is:

The deliverable data required for delivery to the Government will be listed on a Contract Data Requirements List, DD Form 1423.

Includes, but is not limited to:

a. Only such effort that can be reduced or avoided if the data item is eliminated.

b. Government-peculiar data; acquiring, writing, assembling, reproducing, packaging and shipping the data.

c. Transforming into Government format, reproducing and shipping data identical to that used by the contractor but in a different format.

d. This does not include the management, engineering, or logistics labor that is a normal function of program research, design, development, or manufacturing of a training system. Those labor hours are considered as necessary and normal efforts required to delivering the training product.

10.1.5.8.1 & 10.1.5.8.2

10.1.5.9.1 & 10.1.5.9.2

10.1.5.10.1 & 10.1.5.10.2 All of the noted WBS elements contain an element name that does not align to the task identified in the dictionary field as illustrated below.

WBS Element Element Name Rollup/Dictionary

10.1.5.7.1 ICW 3 – Electronic ICW 1/Level 1

10.1.5.7.2 ICW 3 – Electronic ICW 1/Level 1

10.1.5.8.1 ICW 3 – Mobile ICW 1/Level 1

10.1.5.8.2 ICW 3 – Mobile ICW 1/Level 1

10.1.5.9.1 ICW 4 – Electronic ICW 1/Level 2

10.1.5.9.2 ICW 4 – Electronic ICW 1/Level 2

10.1.5.10.1 ICW 4 – Mobile ICW 1/Level 2

10.1.5.10.2 ICW 4 – Mobile ICW 1/Level 2

Can the Government confirm that the intended WBS Element Name for these elements should [be] ICW1 and ICW2 as indicated by the rollup WBS and the associated dictionaries? The answer to the question is yes. These elements should all be ICW1 and ICW2, respectively.

Atch (L-8 _TBOEGovtEstimate_12Sep2018.xlsx Page - Instruction Tab, Para Cell A11 On the LSS Rating and STG Rating tabs, some cells under Description, CWBS reference, and CLIN are shaded with the color in Instructions tab cell A11, which is described as “No input required. This cell provides descriptions or header information.” Will the Government confirm that while no input is required in these cells, offerors may overwrite the contents of cells shaded with this color as part of developing our own CWBS, for example to replace a description or CWBS reference? In Attachment L-3, the CWBS Reference (Column C) and CLIN (Column D) cells for the LSS and STG ratings correlates to the numbering scheme for Attachment L-2 CWBS and the RFP CLIN structure and are unchangeable.

Therefore, the answer to the question is yes. The Government confirms that no input is required in these cells. The cells that should have text/data added are those highlighted in yellow and should include/continue Attachment L-2 CWBS numbering scheme and tie back to the applicable CLIN.

Furthermore, because these are pre-set and tied to multiple documents those cells colored in the shade described as, “No input required. This cell provides descriptions or header information,” the offeror may NOT overwrite the contents of the cells shaded with this color. The development of the offeror CWBS should use the numbering scheme provided in Attachment L-2 CWBS. For example, under CLIN 0026, STG Design Phase Products (Cell B9), Cell B10 would have the title of the process/step, Cell C10 would have 10.1.1.1, and Cell D10 would have 0026.

FRD_Data_STG_0525.xlsx Atch (1)_APPENDIX J Sailor 2025 RRL Content Conversion Media Type Characteristics.docx PAGE NUMBER: FRD / Course&Mod Tab PARAGRAPH: Row 11 – A-100-0107C, Column L – Create PS, Column N – Is PS Sufficient as a Strategy? Appendix J Para ICW2 Row Will the Government confirm that when evaluating and FRD, if the direction is “Create PS” = “No” and “Is PS Sufficient as a Strategy” = “No”, the intended outcome is to carry over the existing PS and to additionally create a new training module in MRTS, VDI, Mobile, etc.? If yes, please indicate the desired type of media content. For example, if the above scenario is for ICW2 content, then Appendix J gives two options for the type of media content to create. For an example, please see Row 11 of the Course&Mod tab of the STG 0525 FRD. The answer to the question is yes. In the spreadsheet, the actual recommendation is found in Column J “Actual Recommendation.” In the example provided, i.e., Row 11 of the Course&Mod tab of the STG 0525 FRD, the actual recommendation identified in Column J is to use the existing performance support, in conjunction with ICW2 and an instructor.

Furthermore, the questions about sufficiency (Column Q) refers to "whether or not" PS alone is capable for support performance of the Learning Objective (LO) and lead analysts to nesting proposed strategies, as in this case. Hence, The Create PS (Column O) states that no new PS is required and the “No” in Column Q means that performance support alone is not sufficient, and answers to other media model questions indicated that performance support is paired with ICW2 and an instructor.

Furthermore, APPENDIX J: Sailor 2025 RRL FY19 Content Conversion Media Type Characteristics and APPENDIX K: Sailor 2025 RRL FY 19 Content Conversion Media Definitions provide characteristics associated with the different ICW interactivity levels. Using these references, MRTS would not be a considered delivery modality for this example of ICW2 but VDI and Mobile are valid delivery methods.

CLIN 0011 new last date for delivery is 03 Jan 2022 (vice 01 May 2021) CLIN 0014 new last date for delivery is 03 Jan 2022 (vice 01 May 2021) CLIN 0017 new last date for delivery is 03 Jan 2022 (vice 01 May 2021) CLIN 0020 new last date for delivery is 03 Jan 2022 (vice 01 May 2021).

In addition, the following CLINs last date for delivery have been updated:

CLIN 0006 new last date for delivery is 03 Jan 2033 (vice 01 Jan 2022 given the 1st is a holiday) CLIN 0018 new last date for delivery is 02 May 2022 (vice 01 Sep 2022 as this date was in error) CLIN 0019 new last date for delivery is 01 Sep 2022 (vice 01 May 2021 as this date was in errror) CLIN 0025 new last date for delivery is 03 Mar 2023 (vice 01 Feb 2023 as this date was in error)

Furthermore, the Government will ensure the CLINs are exercised when appropriate and not before the CC CLIN(s) is/are delivered or close to delivery. The Government will also ensure to exercise all Option CLINs before they expired according to Ssection F.3. The timeframes specified in Section F.3 contain a time frame in which the Government may commence exercising the Option CLINs.

The RFP is updated as a result of this question via RFP Amendment 02.