N6134019R0020_RFP_Question_Log_Rev_1.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 34 KB Posted
- Attached to
- STIGS Solicitation Amendment 0005
- Solicitation number
- N6134019R0020
About this file
This document is an amendment to a federal solicitation providing notice of a renumbered solicitation number and instructions for obtaining government furnished information. The renumbered solicitation, N6134019R0020, is for the Strategic Training Integration Group Systems (STIGS) program managed by the Department of the Navy Naval Air Systems Command Naval Air Warfare Center. Offerors are instructed to obtain STIGS government furnished information by following the procedures outlined in the solicitation and on the NECO/FBO posting platforms. The amendment provides the new solicitation number and details on accessing background materials but does not include information on required products or services.
N6134019R0020_RFP_Question_Log_Rev_1.xlsx
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| N6134019R0020_STIGS_Amendment_0004_documents.zip | ZIP file | |
| N6134019R0020_RFP_Question_Log_Rev_3.1.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N6134019R0020_N6134019R0020__0003_conformed.pdf | ||
| N6134019R0020_N6134019R0020__0003.pdf | ||
| N6134019R0020_RFP_Question_Log_Rev_3.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| N6134019R0020_N6134019R0020-0002_conformed.pdf | ||
| N6134019R0020_N6134019R0020_0002.pdf | ||
| N6134019R0020_STIGS_Amendment.zip | ZIP file | |
| N6134019R0020_N61340019R0020_STIGS_RFP.docx | DOCX document | |
| N6134019R0020_Final_RFP.zip | ZIP file | |
| N6134019R0020_STIGS_Docs_14Mar19.pdf | ||
| N6134019R0020_Extra_Assistance_IVSE_Installation.docx | DOCX document | |
| N6134019R0020_STIGS_Pre-Award_QuestionsandAnswers_18Dec18.pdf | ||
| N6134019R0020_STIGS_Question_Form.doc | DOC document | |
| N6134019R0020_SECNAV_5512_1_Pass_ID_Form.pdf | ||
| N6134019R0020_STIGS_Site_Visit.pdf | ||
| N6134019R0020_STIGS_Docs_30Oct18.docx | DOCX document | |
| N6134019R0020_STIGS_Drive.jpeg | JPEG file | |
| N6134019R0020_STIGS_GFI_Instructions.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 19
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
Sheet1
| LCS BPTT Contractor Pre RFP Question Log | ||||
| Number | Question Subject | Question | Contracts Short Response | Contracts Short Response |
| 1 | Does the Government intend for separate drawings, as stated in ITO 2.0, to count towards the Technical page count given the excerpt stating that they will count as 1 page? If so, we request the Government increase the page count to 40 and/or evaluate separate drawings outside of the 20-page limit to enable contractors to provide a sufficiently detailed technical solution and drawings IAW ITO and EFFA. | What types of drawing did we ask for? |
The government agrees to increase the page count to 30 and the total page count of 30 is including the drawings
What types of drawing did we ask for?
The government agrees to increase the page count to 30 and the total page count of 30 is including the drawings
2 Can tables, graphs, and diagrams be presented in no smaller than a 10 point font? Would it be difficult to read small tables and diagrams?
The government wants graphs shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 point font. Please refer to section 2.0 proposal format.
Would it be difficult to read small tables and diagrams?
The government wants graphs shall be presented in no smaller than a 10 point font. Please refer to section 2.0 proposal format.
| 3 | Does the Government intent to request for additional Past Performance information outside of what was submitted to qualify under the TSC IV IDIQ? | REMOVE LANGUAGE for final RFP | REMOVE LANGUAGE for final RFP |
| 4 | In the Draft RFP, Government has included contract Clauses for both Progress Payments and Performance Based Payments. We request PBPs only. | Required clause, no PBP | Required clause, no PBP |
| 5 | Clause 5252.215-9503 Anticipated Award Date states: “The anticipated award date for this requirement is 01 May 2018. This information is provided for use as a basis for schedules and burden (labor, overheads, G&A, etc.) mid-point calculations. Does the Government mean 01 May 2019 or is it the Government’s intention that all bidders will use their May 2018 rates in pricing this effort? | Update date in FINAL RFP page 52 to 01 May 2019 | Update date in FINAL RFP page 52 to 01 May 2019 |
| 6 | What is the NAICS code for this effort? | 33318 | 33318 |
| 7 | Does the Government intend for Offerors to submit an ISKL with the proposal or after contract award? Should there be an ISKL for each device or a combined one for all devices? | Please refer CDRL C Blk 12 and Blk 13 for detail description |
1) Blk12 states that the first submission shall be due 15 working days prior to PISC, and PISC is occurring after the contract award
2) Blk 13 states that the final submission of ISKL shall be due at each device acceptance Please refer CDRL C Blk 12 and Blk 13 for detail description
1) Blk12 states that the first submission shall be due 15 working days prior to PISC, and PISC is occurring after the contract award
2) Blk 13 states that the final submission of ISKL shall be due at each device acceptance
| 8 | What is required for Offerors to complete in Section K? | Remove Completed section K language since there are no fill in clauses | Remove Completed section K language since there are no fill in clauses | |
| 9 | Can the Government clarify which Attachment is correct? | Attachment 11 | Attachment 11 | |
| 10 | Can the Government confirm that foldout pages and drawings that exceed 8.5 x 11 inches will be counted as 1 page and not 2 pages? | Yes, foldout pages and drawings that exceed 8.5 x 11 inches will be counted as 1 page. Please refer to section 2.0 proposal format | Yes, foldout pages and drawings that exceed 8.5 x 11 inches will be counted as 1 page. Please refer to section 2.0 proposal format | |
| STIGS Contractor Question Log | ||||
| Number | Topic | Question | Government Response | RFP Change Required? |
| 1 | RFP Section L.A.4.0 Past Performance Volume Submission | Referenced RFP section and paragraph states “It is requested that Volume 2 Past Performance information be submitted not later than 14 days after the final RFP release date.” In consideration of not having the benefit of Draft RFP Sections L and M to assess past performance contract requirements and evaluation factors, as well as the requirement for a physical delivery, request the Government allow an additional two (2) weeks for offerors to deliver Volume 1 Past Performance e.g. a delivery date of May 17, 2019. | The Government will update the Past Performance Delivery date to four weeks after RFP release. | Yes, Section L.A.4.0 will be updated to reflect a Volume 2, Past Performance, submittal date of 28 days after final RFP release. |
| 2 | RFP Section L.A.4.0 Past Performance Volume Submission | “4.0 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION … The submission date for all Volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP. It is requested that Volume 2 Past Performance information be submitted not later than 14 days after the final RFP release date.” SPECIFIC QUESTION: Please verify that the reference to Past Performance information that is requested to be submitted not later than 14 days after the final RFP release date refers to the Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire, not to Volume 2: Past Performance. | The intent was for the entire Past Performance Volume to be delivered 14 days after RFP release; however, the Government is updating the submittal for Volume 2 to 28 days after RFP release via RFP amendment | Yes, Section L.A.4.0 will be updated to reflect a Volume 2, Past Performance, submittal date of 28 days after final RFP release. |
| 3 | IDIQ RFP Attachment L1, DO 0001, Att 3_LCS-5 EPT Course PRF190026 (17 Apr 2019) | The are embedded files in the associated with: | The Government will provide the files separately vice embedded | Yes, Section J of DO 0001 will be revised to reflect these four documents as appendices to Attachment 3 |
| · Appendix A. LCS-5 Engineering References | ||||
| · Appendix B. LCS-5 Spaces to Systems to Procedures | ||||
| · Appendix C. LCS-5 EPT Course Task List | ||||
| · Appendix D. LMS Requirements Specification |
| Request the Government provide these as spate files and not embedded. | ||||
| 4 | IDIQ RFP Attachment L1, DO 0001, Att 3_LCS-5 EPT Course PRF190026 (17 Apr 2019) | For the N6134019R0020 STIGS Solicitation, Att_3a_LCS-5 EPT Course PRF190026 (17 Apr 2019).doc, appendices A-F, contain pictures instead of documents. Should these be documents? | Yes, they should be documents. The Government will provide the files separately vice embedded. To clarify, there are only Appendices A-D, not A-F. | Yes, Section J of DO 0001 will be revised to reflect these four documents as appendices to Attachment 3 |
| 5 | RFP Section L.A.4.0 Past Performance Volume Submission | “Clearly mark all packages with the solicitation number. The submission date for all Volumes shall be no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 of the SF 33 of the RFP. It is requested that Volume 2 Past Performance information be submitted not later than 14 days after the final RFP release date.” Is it the Governments intent to have Volume 2 submitted on Friday, 5/3/2019? If true, this seems to be a short time to compile all the documents requested in the instructions for Volume 2 and complete the Past Performance Information Forms. | The intent was for the entire Past Performance Volume to be delivered 14 days after RFP release; however, the Government is updating the submittal for Volume 2 to 28 days after RFP release via RFP amendment | Yes, Section L.A.4.0 will be updated to reflect a Volume 2, Past Performance, submittal date of 28 days after final RFP release. |
| 6 | RFP Section M.B.2(b) Past Performance | “The government will only consider past performance by entities with the same CAGE Code and DUNS as the Prime Contractor and principal subcontractor(s) or JV team members.” In the narrative provided, is it correct to provide a brief corporate change description to correlate CAGE Code and DUNS showing the performing entity for STIGS is the same performing entity for the referenced programs? | Yes, a narrative can be provided if a novation agreement has been processed or is in process. | No |
| 7 | RFP Section L.B.2.1.2, Past Performance | “Additionally, the Offeror shall provide one electronic copy of the contract, including the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement, for each past performance reference as Annex 1 to this Past Performance Volume” Base on the underlined above, is it correct the Government wants to receive a complete contract Section A through K of the reference program? It would not be acceptable to providing the Government with an electronic copy of the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement for the referenced program? | The Government requests an electronic copy of each contract reference submitted as part of the Past Performance Volume (Sections A-J), along with the applicable SOW/PWS. Hard copies of the contract and SOW/PWS shall not be provided, just electronic. | No |
| 8 | RFP Section L Past Performance | The Past Performance Information Form (PPIF) hast two text box (Contract Effort Description and Demonstrated Systemic Improvement Information) that have fixed size. When more information is inserted than can be displayed a scroll bar on the right side of the box appears. This allows the reader to access the additional data in the electronic form. However, when printing the form, only the information that appears in the fix text box is visible and the rest is truncated. How are the offerors to provide the paper copy of the Past Performance Volume so all information provide can be evaluated? Will the Government extend the due date for the Past Performance Volume by 7 days provide a solution to this issue? Will the Government allow the offerors to submit only an electronic version of the Past Performance Volume with final submission with the rest of the proposal in both paper and electronic version when the rest of the proposal is due? | The Past Performance Volume shall be delivered both in hard copy and electronically. However, the electronic copy will be the primary source for the Government's evaluation to ensure all information is properly evaluated. Attachment L3 will not change. The Government will extend the due date for the Past Performance volume to four weeks after RFP release. | Yes, Section L.A.4.0 will be updated to reflect a Volume 2, Past Performance, submittal date of 28 days after final RFP release. Also, Section L.A.2.0 will be amended to reflect the electronic version taking precedence over the paper version for Volume 2, Past Performance, only. |
| 9 | PRF190026, page 12, paragraph 3.1.2.4.5 | The LCS-5 EPT courseware shall display an acronym’s definition at all times in the courseware when the user hovers the cursor over the acronym. Is it the government’s intent for this requirement to apply throughout the virtual environment including, e.g., every acronym listed on a Compartment Check Off List (CCOL) and on every label plate or placard? Request the government review this requirement and clarify the language, as appropriate. | The Government will revise this requirement and update PRF190026 as follows: “The LCS-5 EPT courseware shall define the first use of an acronym presented in the knowledge training content within a lesson. The LCS-5 EPT courseware shall define the first use of an acronym for each embedded knowledge check (Page number 3, Paragraph 3.1.1.1.1) even if the acronym was previously defined in the lesson. The LCS-5 EPT courseware shall provide an acronym list with associated definitions for all acronyms presented in a lesson. The LCS-5 EPT courseware acronym list shall be available at any time during the lesson.” | Yes, PRF 190026 will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 10 | PRF190026, page 18, paragraph 3.1.5.1 | The LCS-5 EPT courseware shall maintain an instantaneous Visual Frame Rate of 30 FPS at all times. Please clarify what is meant by “instantaneous Visual Frame Rate”. | Instantaneous frame rate is defined as the frame rate measured at any single point in time. The system cannot ever have a frame rate below 30 FPS and meet the specification. A definition for "instantaneous visual frame rate" will be added to PRF190026 for clarification. | Yes, PRF 190026 will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 11 | PRF190026, page 18, paragraph 3.1.6 | “The LCS-5 EPT courseware shall execute IAW this specification while the courseware is executed on a virtualized instance of Windows 10 Secure Host Baseline hosted on the following minimum hardware:” Please define the Virtual Machine configuration specification. Specifically, what hypervisor type is used, how many CPU cores and how much memory is allocated, and what kind of GPU pass through is used? | The Government is requiring the use of virtualization for the purpose of sandboxing the environment for the courseware. The Government expects that the contractor use its expertise and experience in this area to propose the best virtualization (hypervisors) environments for the performance of the courseware. The proposed environment must be hosted on the student stations, so the virtualized environment is constrained by the physical resources available at the student stations. The hardware configuration for which the courseware is to be installed is specified in PRF190026. | No |
| 12 | PRF190026, page 18, paragraph 3.1.5.3 | Ref: The LCS-5 EPT courseware shall support no less than 408 students concurrently. Request the Government clarify this requirement. Does this mean 408 students in a multiplayer session, or 408 students concurrently in the database? | The requirement for 408 students simultaneously is not in a multiplayer lesson but active in training at one time. This implies that the database must support 408 students interacting with it simultaneously as well as meeting the requirements of the system. | No |
| 13 | SOW190025, page 11, paragraph 3.1.4 | Is the level of visual and functional fidelity of the LCS-3 EPT Courseware (demonstrated at industry day and provided as GFI) the same as that required for LCS-5 EPT? | No. The PRF takes precedence over the fidelity provided at Industry Day. The GFI provided to all offerors does not establish the fidelity requirements, the PRF does. | No |
| 14 | SOW190025, page 11, paragraph 3.1.4.d | Ref: Procure, integrate, install, test, and deliver a COTS Learning Management System (LMS) in compliance with the performance requirements specified in Specification PRF 190026. Throughout the documents, the Gov't requires a COTS LMS. This requirement precludes any other potentially more cost-effective option that will meet or exceed PRF 190026. Is it the Gov't position that only a COTS LMS solution will be acceptable to satisfy the requirements of the performance specification? | The requirement for a COTS LMS will remain as is. A COTS LMS is required. | No |
| 15 | PRF190027, page 5, paragraph 3.1.3.1 | Ref: The FADC LOCOP enclosure shall be physically located on the SSGTG base assembly IAW Figure 1-1 of S9311-DK-MMA-010. Will technical manuals or fabrication/assembly drawings with parts list and procedures be made available as part of the final RFP? Are any special tools required? What Government support might be available to remove the LOCOP Enclosure? | No, due to distribution statement issues the Government does not have permission to release the requested technical manual at this time. The contractor will be able to tear down and remove the existing FADC LOCOP enclosure and procure a mock-up or perform modifications to the existing FADC LOCOP enclosure on site to implement the virtual FADC LOCOP. All parts removed will be required to be turned over to the Government for disposition. The SOWs will be updated to allow for these approaches and it is up to the contractor to select which approach to use. Whatever tools are required to satisfy the contract requirements need to be determined by the contractor. There are no special tools required for the student. The Government will support coordination for access to allow removal if required. No Government support for removal of the equipment. | Yes, SOW 180005 and 190025 will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 16 | GTGSS-0273-031913.pdf | Steps contained in the ALIGN FUEL OIL SYSTEM procedure (example steps I.B thru I.D.9) require the verification and physical actions to check/open valves. What method would be used to perform these steps if all operation and basic troubleshooting is performed at the LOCOP? | These steps are performed external to the FADC LOCOP. The requirement is to virtually simulate the FADC LOCOP; the contractor is responsible for simulating the responses on the FADC LOCOP that would result from performing the ALIGN FUEL OIL SYSTEM procedure. | No |
| 17 | GTGSS-0273-031913.pdf | The procedures identify Valve numbers. It states to “refer to valves as numbered in diagram DGTP.” Is diagram DGTP available in the existing RFP GFI? | No, the requested diagram is not available at this time. | No |
| 18 | PRF190026, pages 32 - 35, Appendices | The are embedded files in the associated with: Appendix A. LCS-5 Engineering References, Appendix B. LCS-5 Spaces to Systems to Procedures, Appendix C. LCS-5 EPT Course Task List, and Appendix D. LMS Requirements Specification. Request the Government provide these as sperate files and not embedded. | The Government will provide the files separately vice embedded. | No |
| 22 | Att_3_LMS_STIGS_SPECS_03-12-2019.pdf, page 13, paragraph 3.2.2.21 | The STIGS LMS shall provide functionality for updating of progress reporting to the Electronic Training Jacket for offline delivered content. Request the Government provide any additional file/data formats other than NTPMS that are required for the Electronic Training Jacket and if there is an API available. If there is not an API, what are the means for sending data to the ETJ? | The External Interfaces specifications section of the PRF190026 Appendix D, LMS Requirements Specifications, will be updated to reflect current interface requirements. | Yes, updated version of Appendix D of PRF 190026 will be provided with Amendment 2. The revised PRF 190026, which includes Appendix D, will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 23 | Att_3_LMS_STIGS_SPECS_03-12-2019.pdf, page 16, paragraph 3.2.2.44 | The STIGS LMS shall update progress reporting to the Electronic Training Jacket by exporting information to a flat file in a NTMPS importable format. Please provide technical data and manuals describing the NTMPS data format. | The External Interfaces specifications section of the PRF190026 Appendix D, LMS Requirements Specifications, will be updated to reflect current interface requirements. | Yes, updated version of Appendix D of PRF 190026 will be provided with Amendment 2. The revised PRF 190026, which includes Appendix D, will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 24 | Att_3_LMS_STIGS_SPECS_03-12-2019.pdf, page 17, paragraph 3.2.3.6.2 | The STIGS LMS shall provide functionality to transfer the learning content location for Courseware (Game engine simulation-based) that is uploaded into the STIGS without losing the associations to the LMS database fields. It is not clear what is required here - request the Government clarify. | Rewriting the requirement to read: The STIGS LMS shall provide functionality to allow a student to move from one student station to another one while in the middle of a course without losing the associations to the LMS database fields or any associated data. | Yes, updated version of Appendix D of PRF 190026 will be provided with Amendment 2. The revised PRF 190026, which includes Appendix D, will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 25 | Att_3_LMS_STIGS_SPECS_03-12-2019.pdf, page 17, paragraph 3.2.3.6.3 | The STIGS LMS shall provide functionality to check in the status and tracking information of the courseware content. Please clarify what is meant by "status and tracking information". | This refers to the student's performance status and tracking information captured by the courseware. The requirement will be updated to reflect the clarification. | Yes, updated version of Appendix D of PRF 190026 will be provided with Amendment 2. The revised PRF 190026, which includes Appendix D, will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 26 | Att_3_LMS_STIGS_SPECS_03-12-2019.pdf, page 19, paragraph 3.2.6.1 | The STIGS LMS shall import and export data with three externally non-connected systems and services: CeTARS, NTMPS, and Classified to Unclassified STIGS LMS. Please provide technical data and manuals describing CeTARS and relevant data format. | The External Interfaces specifications section of the PRF190026 Appendix D, LMS Requirements Specifications, will be updated to reflect current interface requirements. | Yes, updated version of Appendix D of PRF 190026 will be provided with Amendment 2. The revised PRF 190026, which includes Appendix D, will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 27 | Att_3_LMS_STIGS_SPECS_03-12-2019.pdf, page 19, paragraph 3.2.6.2 | The STIGS LMS interfaces shall comply with DODI 5200.28 Security Requirements for Automated Information Systems and other appropriate regulations, which deal with Privacy Act and information security. The import and export files listed above contain PII data, which shall be encrypted. The following is a list of interfaces that are in this category: NTMPS - ntmpsTranscripts.zip file, NTMPS - afloatLmsStudentsExtTable.txt file, NTMPS - afloatLmsStudentsTable.txt file, and Unclassified to Classified LMS. Please provide appropriate technical data and/or manuals on these interfaces and the contents of these files. | The External Interfaces specifications section of the PRF190026 Appendix D, LMS Requirements Specifications, will be updated to reflect current interface requirements. | Yes, updated version of Appendix D of PRF 190026 will be provided with Amendment 2. The revised PRF 190026, which includes Appendix D, will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 28 | Att_3_LMS_STIGS_SPECS_03-12-2019.pdf, page 14, paragraph 3.2.2.33 | The STIGS LMS shall provide a mechanism for conducting item analysis of previously used assessment elements through the an Intelligent Tutor System. Request the Government provide the performance specification for the referenced Intelligent Tutor System? | This requirement was removed from Appendix D of PRF 190026. | Yes, updated version of Appendix D of PRF 190026 will be provided with Amendment 2. The revised PRF 190026, which includes Appendix D, will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 29 | PRF190026, page 20, paragraph 3.1.9.1.5 | Ref: “The LCS-5 EPT courseware shall incorporate a centralized backup and restore capability”. Request the Government define “centralized backup and restore capability”. | This requirement will be removed from PRF190026. | Yes, PRF 190026 will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 30 | Global | The solicitation is very specific in its requirement for a COTS LMS (to the exclusion of any other solution). Request the Government provide industry its list of COTS LMSs that meet the performance requirements outlined in Appendix D. Doing so will facilitate industry meeting the proposal due date. Otherwise, trade studies must be conducted during the proposal phase to identify those LMSs that do meet these requirements. | The Government expects the contractor to use its expertise and experience in this area to propose the best COTS LMS for the performance requirements of the courseware. | No |
| 31 | SOW 180005, pages 21 and 23, paragraphs 3.2.3.2.3.c and 3.2.3.1.3 | Does the government intend to use any other tools other than SCAP or ACAS for cybersecurity scans? | In addition to using SCAP Compliance Checker and ACAS, the government will use the DISA STIG Viewer tool to conduct a manual review of applicable Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) (i.e. Application Security and Development STIG). | No |
| 32 | SOW 180005, page 21, paragraph 3.2.3.2.4 | At what point does the contractor responsibility end for updating IAVMP and implementing IAVAs/IAVBs/IAVTAs? TRR-1? TRR-2? TRR-3? | The Freeze Date will be at the beginning of TRR-1. | No |
| 33 | SOW 180005, page 21, paragraph 3.2.3.2.5 | What documented security certifications/qualifications (per DFARS 252.239-7001, DOD 8140.01, and SECNAV M-5239.2) must the contractor produce for personnel performing Enhanced User/Privilege User level functions? | DFARS 252.239-7001 points to DoD 8570.01M. A list of DoD Approved 8570 Baseline Certifications for IAT Level I is available at https://iase.disa.mil/iawip/Pages/iabaseline.aspx. | No |
| 34 | CDRL A00C, page 12 of 16 | Per A00C CDRL, Final POAM is due 45 days prior to TRR-2. This seems early considering that there is an ensuing TRR-3 event required in the SOW. Would the Government consider changing this to 45 days after JFI? | Both CDRL A00B and A00C will be updated to reflect that the initial POA&M results will be due 45 days prior to TRR-2. The final POA&M submission will be changed to 30 days after GFI (or JFI, when applicable). | Yes, the revised CDRLs A00B an A00C will be provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 35 | PRF190027, page 5, paragraph 3.1.3.2.1 | Redacted document, S9311-DK-MMA-010, has numerous Figure titles that indicate there could be combinations of the ECPs. While the PRF 190027 17 April 2019 Sec 3.1.3.2.1 says “The trainer shall virtually simulate the functionality of the FADC LOCOP touch screens, instruments, indicators, switches, troubleshooting graph, and meters IAW section 2-6 and Table 2-1.1 (ECP 301-01A-C139), Table 2-1.2 (ECP 310-01A-C156), and Table 2-1.3 (ECP 310-01A-C161) of S9311-DK-MMA-010.” Is it the Government’s intention that the FADC LOCOP Trainer provide capability to train the 3 individual ECP configurations: ECP 301-01A-C139, ECP 310-01A-C156, and ECP 310-01A-C161 or some combination of these ECPs? | The requirement is for the FADC LOCOP trainer to train the three individual ECP configurations. | No |
| 36 | RFP, page 55, section 2.0 | We understand that minimum font size for text is 12 pt and the minimum font for tables, graphics, etc. is 10 pt. Does the Times New Roman font requirement apply to graphics or is it acceptable to use a font other than Times New Roman in graphics that meets the minimum font size for graphics? | For graphics, fonts other than Times New Roman can be utilized. | No |
| 37 | RFP, page 10, section F | RFP section F states the IDIQ to have an ordering period of 60 months from date of award: CLIN 0001 – 60 months ADC and CLIN 0002 – 60 months ADC. What is the estimated start/effective date of the IDIQ? Confirm that ADC is After Date of Contract. | Estimated start date for the IDIQ is the date of contract award. Confirmed, ADC is After Date of Contract. | Yes, the Government will revise Section L to include provision 5252.215-9503. |
| 38 | Att_L1_STIGS DO0001, page 11, section F | Section F of DO 0001 (Att L1) provides the ordering period for each of the following CLINs: CLIN 0001 – 18 months ADC, CLIN 0002 – 20 months ADC, CLIN 0003 - 36 months ADC, CLIN 0004 – 38 months ADC, CLIN 0005 – 36 months ADC, CLIN 0006 – 36 months ADC, and CLIN 0007 – 18 months ADC. What is the estimated start/effective date of each of the above CLINs? | Estimated start date for each of these CLINs is the date of contract award of the delivery order. The delivery date for each of these CLINs is the time period specified ADC. Provision 5252.215-9503 has been added to the solicitation. The anticipated award date is 20 September 2019. | Yes, the Government will revise Section L to include provision 5252.215-9503. |
| 39 | RFP, pages 59 - 61, section L | The first line under Section L PART B SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS states “Cost or pricing information shall only appear in the Price/Cost volume.” Later in that same Section under 1.0 Volume 1 Technical, Subfactor 2: Small Business Utilization, the requirement is to submit a SBSP and SBPD. Reference paragraph 2.1, per FAR guidance the SBSP contains pricing information and reference 2.2, the SBPD requirements include “Provide goals, expressed as dollars and percentages, of total DO value and percentages of total subcontract value for SB Concerns and each subcategory of SB using the SBPD Attachment L-6.” Please confirm that these two plans described under Volume 1 Sub-factor2: “Small Business Utilization” should only be referenced in Volume 1 and that the actual plans with prices be annexes to Volume 3 Price. | Yes, that is correct. | Yes, the Government will revise Section L to clarify this issue in a forthcoming amendment. |
| 40 | Att_L1_STIGS DO0001, pages 4, 7, and 11, sections B, C, and F | Att 1_L1_STIGS_DO0001 provides for a Provisioning Item Orders (PIOs) CLIN, (CLIN 0008), with a total amount under Section B shown as TBN. Guidance is provided under C.6 Provisioned Items Order (PIO) for CLIN 0008 (Att 1) that says, “The contractor shall provide the initial support items necessary to support the requirements as described in attachments and exhibits to this document listed in section J. In accordance with the Statement of Work and CDRL C002 the contractor shall submit an Initial Support Kit Lists (ISKL). The contractor shall ensure that the ISKL contains all ISI (spares and repair parts), Tools & Test Equipment (T&TE), and Engineering Data For Provisioning (EDFP), as required to maintain the training devices in an operational condition for a period of five years…” Section F, Deliveries or Performance under Att 1 shows the delivery period for CLIN 0008 as TBN. Please confirm if TBN means “To Be Negotiated”. Please confirm as to whether or not the Government requires pricing for CLIN 0008? | Yes, TBN means To Be Negotiated. No, the Government does not require pricing for CLIN 0008 as part of the proposal. The CLIN is a placeholder for the potential ordering of PIOs under DO 0001. | Yes, Section M, 3.0 Price (Volume 3), paragraph 3.3. will be revised to removed CLIN 0008 from the Total Evaluated Price. |
| 41 | SOW 190025, page 18, paragraph 3.2.1.8.5 | The SOW for STIGS DO0001, section 3.2.1.8.5 references PRF 190026 and PRF 190027 regarding spare processing required for the CMS computational subsystem. Section 3.1.11 (Software Support Environment) is the only reference to spare processing requirements within PRF 190026. Section 3.1.15.10 (Spare computational resource requirements) of PRF 190027 contains data supporting the referenced requirements. Can the Government confirm the STIGS DO0001 SOW, section 3.2.1.8.5, should only reference PRF 190027? | Confirmed. SOW 190025, section 3.2.1.8.5 will be updated to only include PRF190027. | Yes, SOW 190025 will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 42 | RFP, pages 33, 42 - 52, and 62, sections I, K, and L | Section I includes FAR clause 52.219-28, Post Award Small Business Program Representation (JUL 2013) |
At the end of this FAR clause it says, “The Contractor represents that it [ ] is, [ ] is not a small business concern under NAICS Code 541330 assigned to contract number N61340-19-R-0020.” The instruction is then followed by a signature block for contractors to sign, and date and insert authorized signer’s name and title. As part of the submission of Volume 3, Price, a completed Section K is required under the administrative section of volume content. As Section K also includes small business certification clauses with additional representations posted in the Systems Award Management (SAM) website, is the certification mentioned above under Section I required for submission? If it is required under which volume and section should this certification be included?
| In accordance with FAR subpart 52.3, clause 52.219-28 is normally included under Section I, and not Section K, as it is a clause. Completion of Section K clause 52.219-1 will satisfy this requirement and clause 52.21-28 will be completed and signed with the contract award, as the offeror will have already certified if it is a small business under 52.219-1. | No | |||
| 43 | Att_3_LMS_STIGS_SPECS_03-12-2019.pdf, page 8, paragraph 3.1.2.2 | Paragraph 3.1.2.2 states the following: “STIGS LMS shall capture and track Test learning content within the Software Support Environment (SSE) using the existing LTF software debugging and testing capability, in “rewards” SIC to hardware, virtualization, storage, and authoring and configuration management tools. STIGS LMS shall maintain Test learning content encapsulated within the SEE until such content is deemed releasable, in such case it shall be switch over to Production mode.” Will the existing LTF software debugging and testing tools and existing hardware in regards to hardware, virtualization, storage, and authoring and configuration management tools be provided upon contract award? | Since all the existing LTF debugging and testing software is Open Source based, Offeror's can propose any DADMS authorized solution that they deem practicable, to include possible open source solutions. | No |
| 44 | RFP, page 58, paragraph 8.0 | GFI listed in the STIGS IDIQ SOW will be made available via CD/DVD or via https://safe.amrdec.army.mil to offerors. When will the GFI requested be provided? | The GFI has been released. Offerors can obtain the GFI in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Solicitation and NECO/FBO posting. | No |
| 45 | RFP, page 55, section L.A.3 | A single asterisk note under the "Volume/Page Limit" table lists items to which the page limit does not apply. Is an Integrated Master Schedule considered to be outside of the 60 page count limit (so, not considered to count as part of the 60 pages)? In addition, is an IMS required and if so, what will the Government evaluation criteria in Section M consist of? | An IMS is not required, nor is it evaluated. | No |
| 46 | RFP, page 70, section M.3.4 and M.3.5 | Section M (Page 70) para 3.4&5 Price: If multiple offerors price submissions are determined to be “reasonable and Balanced”. How will the government evaluate an offerors price as being superior to another? Will a lower “Reasonable” and “balance” price be considered superior to a higher bid price? | In accordance with Section M, Part A, 1.0 General, "The Government expects to select one Offeror on the basis of its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered. 'Best value' means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. Offerors are advised that proposals meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest price may not be selected for an award if award to a higher-priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher-priced proposal must merit the additional price." | No |
| 47 | RFP, page 61, section L.B.2.1.2 | The government states "Additionally, the Offeror shall provide one electronic copy of the contract, including the Statement of Work/Performance Work Statement, for each past performance reference as Annex 1 to this Past Performance Volume." In the case of classified contract work, our U.S. Navy Government customer will not provide a SOW. Will the government accept a SOO or a general description of the work generated by the customer in lieu of a Statement of Work? | In a situation where the applicable SOW is classified, providing a SOO is acceptable. | No |
| 48 | Global | The RFP documentation does not include Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act as a requirement. Please confirm that Section 508 accessibility considerations are not required for any aspect of this effort. | Section 508 accessibility considerations are not required. | No |
| 49 | Global | The RFP documentation does not require use of AIM LOM or CPM. Please confirm whether the use of the AIM suite of tools is required or not for any aspect of this effort. If it is required, please identify the government’s expectation for contractor access to AIM. | The required use of the Content Planning Module (CPM) is found in Paragraph 3.2.6.4 of SOW 180005/190025. The contractor is required to have the assets necessary to gain access to CPM and complete an account application. Post award, the Government will help facilitate the successful Offeror obtaining access by acting as the "sponsoring" activity. | No |
| 50 | PRF190026, pages 11 and 19, paragraphs 3.1.2.3.11 and 3.1.2.6.2 | In PRF 190026, paragraph 3.1.2.3.11 indicates shipboard sounds will be included in the virtual environment and paragraph 3.1.2.6.2 mentions students hearing the impact of using tools. Audio files don’t seem to be included on the GFI spreadsheet. Would these sound clips be provided as GFI to the contractor? | No, these sound clips will not be provided as GFI. | No |
| 51 | PRF190026, page 18, paragraph 3.1.5.7 | "The LCS-5 EPT courseware shall be reconfigurable to support other LCS training courses in the same student station." Does this requirement relate to the hardware supporting the courseware, versus the courseware itself? Or does this requirement indicate accessing another course from the current course? Please clarify what is required to be “reconfigurable.” | This refers to accessing future STIGS ID/IQ course deliveries from the same LMS environment, without requiring removal or uninstallation of this LCS-5 EPT course. | No |
| 52 | SOW190025, page 28, paragraph 3.2.6 | The SOW seems to be inconsistent with reference to the scope. Please confirm there are two courses related to this SOW: CIN A-651-5010 (EPT) and CIN A-652-0363C (DDG Flight IIA Gas Turbine Generator (GTG) maintenance course). Paragraph 1 SCOPE describes building the trainer and creating the EPT courseware, but does not reference the GTG Maintenance Course modification/conversion. Other sections in this SOW identify the requirement to modify the GTG courseware. Assuming both courses (CIN A-651-5010 (EPT) and CIN A-652-0363C DDG Flight IIA Gas Turbine Generator (GTG) maintenance course) are required for this SOW, does paragraph 3.2.6 and its sub-paragraphs apply to both courses? Specifically, paragraph 3.2.6.2.4 Storyboards does NOT reference the GTG course, however 3.2.6.3.1 refers to new FADC LOCOP training content, which would require storyboards. Please confirm if the contractor is required to develop the new FADC LOCOP training content and if storyboards are required for this content. | The Government’s intent is to develop a FADC LOCOP trainer to provide additional hands-on training for CIN A-652-0363C (DDG Flight IIA Gas Turbine Generator (GTG) maintenance course). No courseware development is required for the FADC LOCOP trainer effort of DO 0001. The Government will revise the SOW 190025 requirement as follows: Remove requirement to develop a Test Package for CIN A-652-0363C (i.e., delete Paragraph 3.2.6.3.1.a), remove requirement to modify the Training Project Plan (TPP) for CIN A-652-0363C (i.e., delete Paragraph 3.2.6.4.1.a), remove requirement to modify the Course Training Task List (CTTL) for CIN A-652-0363C (i.e., delete Paragraph 3.2.6.4.2.a), remove requirement to modify the Training Course Control Document (TCCD) for CIN A-652-0363C (i.e., delete Paragraph 3.2.6.4.3.a), remove requirement to modify the Lesson Plan for CIN A-652-0363C (i.e., delete Paragraph 3.2.6.4.4.a), remove requirement to modify the Trainee Guide for CIN A-652-0363C (i.e., delete Paragraph 3.2.6.4.5.a), remove requirement to develop Instructional Visual Aids for CIN A-652-0363C (i.e., delete reference to DDG Flight IIA GTG course (CIN: A-652-0363C) in Paragraph 3.2.6.4.6.a and Paragraph 3.2.6.4.6.b), remove the requirements for the items listed above in Appendix B (i.e., change the X to N/A in the FADOC LOCOP Trainer column for rows F008, F009, F00A, F00B, F00C, F00D, and F00E). | Yes, SOW 190025 will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 53 | SOW190025, Appendix B | The GTG course deliverables are not listed in Appendix B. Please identify if there are deliverables required for GTG course (CIN A-652-0363C) under this SOW. | See Government response to question #0044. | See Government response to question #0044. |
| 54 | SOW190025, page 12, paragraph 3.1.11 | Please confirm that the SSE requirement for Cybersecurity (3.2.3) -- and therefore Information Assurance (3.2.3.2.4) -- is “N/A”. | "N/A" to be replaced by "3.2.3 and sub-sections" in SOW190025. | Yes, SOW 190025 will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 55 | SOW190025, page 12, paragraph 3.1.11 | Please confirm that the SSE requirement for R&M Engineering (3.2.8) is “N/A”. | "N/A" to be replaced by "3.2.8 and sub-sections" in SOW190025. | Yes, SOW 190025 will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 56 | SOW190025, page 12, paragraph 3.1.11 | Please confirm that the SSE requirement for HFE (3.2.9) is “N/A”. | "N/A" to be replaced by "3.2.9 and sub-sections" in SOW190025. | Yes, SOW 190025 will be updated and provided in a subsequent amendment. |
| 57 | SOW190025, page 12, paragraph 3.1.12 | Please confirm that there are no Centralized CMS requirements for Cybersecurity (3.2.3), R&M Engineering (3.2.8), and HFE (3.2.9). | Confirmed. There are no cybersecurity, R&M Engineering, and HFE requirements for the centralized CMS. | No |
| 58 | Att_5_STIGS-Tracker_20190306withCombined | The file “Att_5_STIGS-Tracker_20190306withCombined” lists a great deal of publications (TMs and other data) and provides status in the “notes” field. What is the disposition of all of these document? In addition, how many of these will be released in the coming GFI release, and, can industry get a planned GFI contents list if the GFI is not released soon? In addition, when will the GFI referenced in the Government provided NDA be released? | The GFI has been released. Offerors can obtain the GFI in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Solicitation and NECO/FBO posting. | No |
| 59 | RFP, page 41, Exhibit F CDRLs | The CDRL list in Section J (Exhibit F CDRLS) of the final RFP does not match the actual CDRL package. Along with some different numbering, Section J contains the CDRLs below which do not appear in the CDRL package: F006 – IMDP Prototype Lesson and F008 – IMDP Courseware Logic Flow Diagrams. Can you confirm that the above two CDRLs are no longer a requirement? | Confirmed, the IMDP Prototype Lesson and Courseware Logic Flow Diagrams are not required. Section J of the RFP will be updated to match the CDRL package. | Yes |
| 60 | Global | Is it a requirement that the STIGS courseware software be developed, and run on, applications only approved by the Department of the Navy and Database Management System (DADMS)? | Yes. Under DoDI 8510.01 3.c, RMF shall satisfy the requirements for FISMA. The Navy uses DADMS to satisfy statutory reporting requirements of FISMA. Furthermore, SECNAV 5230.15 requires the Navy to use DADMS. For this contract this requirement is verified through the DoD RMF Package Deliverables CDRL. | No |
| 61 | RFP, page 68, paragraphs 1.6 and 1.7 | Final RFP Section M page 68 – appears to skip a number. The technical requirements go from 1.4 to 1.6. Can you correct this numbering in Section M so that the paragraph numbering in Section L maps to that in Section M? | The RFP will be updated to correct this issue. | Yes |
| 62 | RFP, section L.A.4.0 | Referenced RFP section and paragraph states “It is requested that Volume 2 Past Performance information be submitted not later than 14 days after the final RFP release date." In consideration of not having the benefit of Draft RFP Sections L and M to assess past performance contract requirements and evaluation factors, as well as the requirement for a physical delivery, request the Government allow an additional two (2) weeks for offerors to deliver Volume 1 Past Performance e.g. a delivery date of May 17, 2019. | See Government response to question #0002 & 0005. | See Government response to question #0002 & 0005. |
| 63 | PRF190026, Appendices A - D | For the N6134019R0020 STIGS Solicitation, Att_3a_LCS-5 EPT Course PRF190026 (17 Apr 2019).doc, appendices A-F, contain pictures instead of documents. Should these be documents? | Yes, they should be documents. The Government will provide the files separately vice embedded. To clarify, there are only Appendices A-D, not A-F, within PRF 190026. Offerors can obtain the PRF190026 in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Solicitation and NECO/FBO posting. | No |
| 64 |
RFP Changes
| Question Number Prompting Change | RFP Page to be changed |
| 1 | 54 |
| 3 | 54 |
image1.emf
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .